DMD 0.175 release -- CO2

[Carlos Santander]

John Reimer escribió:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander 
> <csantander619 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I 
>> think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that 
>> can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also 
>> plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't 
>> think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think 
>> we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we 
>> don't know.
>>
> 
> 
> What constitutes a disturbance of nature?  What defines nature?  Is 
> nature something that excludes all human activity? Why?
> 

Like I said, I don't know.

> Of course, nothing is so simple.  But if CO2 emmission is a central 
> problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, 
> remember :) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since 
> all those plants provide us with the O2 we breath.  But apparently 
> nobody really knows the answer because there are too many variables in 
> the whole system to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that 
> sunlight, water, heat, and CO2 cause plants to grow readily.  More 
> plants mean more water containment as well. Animals eat plants for 
> survival.  And humans use animals and plants as further resources. It 
> goes on.
> 
> In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of 
> cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2 
> production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur 
> external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated 
> by man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we 
> are part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we 
> contribute compared to the other parts of nature?  Are not those 
> emissions "bad" also?
> 
> Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world) 
> constitute "bad" sources of co2?  Are these fires only "bad" sources if 
> set off by man?  Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning 
> because that seems more natural?  Is man part of nature?  Nature 
> disturbs itself all the time.  So how do we make moral decisions on what 
> is really bad?  Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from 
> anyway?  What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this 
> nature that we consider so fragile?
> 
> Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete 
> motivational framework.  We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this 
> earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions 
> of future events.
> 
> What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and 
> environment?  Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of 
> life and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any 
> worldview-related obligation).  It's within the human's best interests 
> to protect their environment to the best of their ability if they want 
> to preserve their state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons 
> for environmental management (even though this might constitute 
> environmental interferance!) serve a stronger motive than those 
> debatable reasons related to green-house gases.  If we make decisions on 
> predictions of unknowns, we very well may be doing worse for ourselves 
> and the environment and wasting tons of money in the process (something 
> politicians are very good at).  If we make decisions based on known 
> destructive tendancies of pollutive emissions, than I think we have 
> solid evidence for policy making.
> 
> In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an 
> unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than 
> saying we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by 
> installing giant lightning rods in forests.  Nature itself is 
> unpredictable, produces massive amounts green-house gases 
> /unpredictably/ through many "natural" sources, and destroys and 
> regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists debate it all they want 
> and plot their graphs of variable reliability concerning past changes.  
> I think people need to stop depending on them for making moral 
> decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There are better 
> reasons to look after the world we live in.
> 
> -JJR

You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while humans 
have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and no other species 
seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans have (specially in the 
last couple of centuries.) You point out volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, 
but they have been here far longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already 
adapted to them. Has it adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is 
still unknown, and that uncertainty is what I fear.

I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much like 
treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to each thing you 
might say or do, you have to be careful in everything. That's it. I'm also sorry 
I can't come up with more logical reasons, and instead base my decisions on fear.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal