?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Climate Change

As I said earlier, went to the Dana Centre for a talk on Climate Change. Was actually well balanced rather than some of the talks on this can be.

Was interested by the fact that the vast majority in the poll said it's more important to adapt to climate change than to minimise it. OK, even if it is inevitable, I still strongly disagree with you!

Human beings are insignificant in the whole grand scheme of things, there are other lives, etc on the planet too. Why do we always take priority? Is it just some inate selfishness within the species (as I suppose other species are too). Surely it must be our responsibility to minimise the damage we do to the ecosystem regardless of the effect it has on us as a population.

However, we all know that won't happen. What will happen is the richer 1st world nations will adapt easily, the poorer 3rd world nations will suffer greatly and the real loser will be the rest of the planet.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
liveavatar
2nd Feb, 2006 21:43 (UTC)
Well, you didn't give us the choice of adapting to what's there while trying to minimize future effects, now did you? (waggles finger)
hmmm_tea
2nd Feb, 2006 21:45 (UTC)
Gosh, that was a quick reply, are you stalking me or something?!

No, I wanted to know what was more important to people and knew if I gave the option of both you'd just sit on the fence.
(Anonymous)
2nd Feb, 2006 22:19 (UTC)
I'm living on line today, that's all. :)

My reasoning was "adapt to what's inevitable now, while working to decrease the problem for the future." Doesn't feel like fence-sitting.

If my local climate has changed to the point that I have to plant a different type of tomato, I can still write my representative to beg for reduced greenhouse gases.
liveavatar
2nd Feb, 2006 22:23 (UTC)
Whoops, that was me and I didn't stop it from posting in time. You may delete the above post and this reply if you like.
liveavatar
2nd Feb, 2006 22:19 (UTC)
I'm living on line today, that's all. :)

My reasoning was "adapt to what's inevitable now, while working to decrease the problem for the future." Doesn't feel like fence-sitting.

If my local climate has changed to the point that I have to plant a different type of tomato, I can still write my representative to beg for reduced greenhouse gases.
hmmm_tea
2nd Feb, 2006 22:29 (UTC)
Yes, we'd all like to do something in between. I was just trying to ascertain what was more important to people.

*big sigh of relief at not being stalked*
liveavatar
2nd Feb, 2006 22:34 (UTC)
No, no, it's not "in-between". Isn't isn't isn't. It's "both," which is like so way different.

(falls down on linoleum floor in the middle of supermarket, drums heels on ground, makes the supermarket manager come over and ask mother if help is needed, squalls)
hmmm_tea
2nd Feb, 2006 22:52 (UTC)
OK, I'll rephrase that then...

We'd all like a bit of both, but I was just trying to ascertain which was more important to people.
liveavatar
2nd Feb, 2006 23:40 (UTC)
I fear we are communicating at cross-purposes.

Fixing it is more important, unquestionably. However, in the meantime, while fixing it, we have current effects with which we'll have to deal (e.g., my hypothetical tomatoes*).

Does that untangle things?

____
*hypothetical these days only because our ground seems to be infected with wilt/rot/etc.
morganmuffle
2nd Feb, 2006 21:55 (UTC)
Surely it must be our responsibility to minimise the damage we do to the ecosystem regardless of the effect it has on us as a population.

See that's assuming all of the changes are bad and our fault. The world as one gigantic ecosystem goes through these huge climate changes and somehow life survives. Where does it say it's our job to mess with that and how would we even know we were helping rather than harming?

Though I'd have fence sat if you'd allowed it.

*makes note to actually get to the Dana Centre eventually*
hmmm_tea
2nd Feb, 2006 22:02 (UTC)
No, not at all, hence the question on whether we should stop a natural ice age.

What I'm saying is minimising the things we do that have a major impact on the ecosystem in this way. Not reversing other factors do other things. Yes, the ecosystem will change naturally, but my point is humans seem intent that this should be in a way that is most ideal for human life. Why should that be the case?

Do go to the Dana Centre...
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Me

Other Sites of Interest

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow