Debate discussion

85 views
Politics > The Environment?

Comments Showing 1-45 of 45 (45 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Should we save it, or let it burn?


message 2: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
Natural selection has worked on the world for million upon millions of years. To kill it now is a travesty.


message 3: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments There are actually people on here that would say let it burn. "If god wants us to suffocate in greenhouse gasses than let me sign up!"

We need alternative energy sources, and quickly, because within the next 100 years, 100% of our fossil fuels will be gone. What are we gunna do then?


message 4: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments There are people I've talked to who legit say 'God gave us the world, we can do what we want to it' hahahahaha, so fucking stupid.


message 5: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Lauren wrote: "Natural selection has worked on the world for million upon millions of years. To kill it now is a travesty. "

To let idiots who couldn't give a rats ass about the earth, because when the die they're going to heaven kill it is a travesty.


message 6: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
When they die of natural disasters brought on by climate change, it was *totally* God's will.


message 7: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Some people still think Hurricane Katrina was God's will.


message 8: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments God hates black people and good food obviously.


message 9: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
Because, legit, Ellen degeneres was in New Orleans that day or something, gay pride festival.

Either way, it's just stupid.


message 10: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments seriously


message 11: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
Most humans couldn't handle picking up their trash. It would never work.


message 12: by Liz (new)

Liz I think it has something to do with the earth's natural cycle, but we are also doing a lot to harm the planet.


message 13: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Liz wrote: "I think it has something to do with the earth's natural cycle, but we are also doing a lot to harm the planet. "

So do you favor a cap and trade system and green energy?


message 14: by ♫ Tina ♫ (new)

♫ Tina ♫ | 65 comments I think we should save it because once its gone, its gone.


message 15: by Steven (new)

Steven is, but is not so. (vansnug) | 10 comments The Earth will survive without any human on it. That's a fact. When we talk about Environment, we actually talk about how can we, human being, survive the drastic changes on the Earth.


message 16: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Exactly, that is truth. The planet will adapt as will other life on it, but we need to protect it for us!


message 17: by Erik (new)

Erik (charkol) Yep, If we don't save it, it will kill us.


message 18: by Erik (new)

Erik (charkol) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opi...
If for nothing else than a fad, but also pollution induced deformities scare me.


message 19: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments weird...


message 20: by [deleted user] (new)

The thing with humans is that they reach a point of change, but only on the precipice of a disaster. We all knew that someday the earth would reach a breaking point, but we never did anything. We knew car emissions were bad for the environment, along with other various common gases. However, we did nothing until information started coming on the news about Global Warming. However, even then, hardly anyone was making any change. People were still driving around instead of biking or walking or getting the extra exercise.


So I guess we'll just have to wait until something more drastic then Global Warming happens and then people will change. Because they haven't done much to change over the past few years when Global Warming became a reality. They only started to change things like cars, and people don't even buy those types of cars. They still go for the 'chick magnet' cars, the limousines, the Hummers, the muscle cars...

Therefore, humans will not change, regardless of if they know the environment is slowly dying or not. Only when the people start dying or getting physically affected, along with the earth, and at an extreme rate, only then will people start to change. And by then it will be too late. You can't fix the environment, but you can try to stop it from dying.

Basically what I'm saying is start cleaning up. Start biking, start walking, stop using plastic bags, stop throwing out plastic bottles, recycle more, etc. Do whatever you can to stop the environment, and eventually it's cruel people, from dying. Because indirectly, by hurting the environment, you're hurting yourself, your family, your friends, and all the other seven billion people on this earth.


message 21: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments i agree with you serena


message 22: by Steven (new)

Steven is, but is not so. (vansnug) | 10 comments If each and every one of us change just one thing in our life, the one that we most of the time take for granted such as using reuseable lunch box instead of styrofoam food container, the impact on earth is huge. Never underestimate the Collective One Change. There are a lot of simple things that we can change if we care.


message 23: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments :)


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

thnx liz!
and totally true Steven. :D


message 25: by Erik (new)

Erik (charkol) I wrote this short essay a while ago. http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/4...

I totally agree with you Serena. Too bad we cannot take a Nation like northern Belgium as a role model for environmentally safe living. They bike for their daily routes, grocery stores charge you money if you need your own plastic bags for the stuff you buy, (the canvas grocery bags are very common over there), and they somewhat scorn those who don't recycle.

It's not hard, it just hasn't been popular enough to make things accessible like recycling bins instead of one trash can for an area; or bicycle lanes on the streets, or reawakening of the rules of the road for bicyclers. It just needs some (a lot) of trailblazers to make these new notions fashionable.


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

Thanks Erik! Yes it is too bad... it's basically just a continuum of the American Dream.. Come to USA, live a great life, be rich, live rich.

It isn't hard! lol


message 27: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments sooo true


message 28: by [deleted user] (new)

:) i know right. :)


message 29: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments yes u r right


message 30: by [deleted user] (new)

lol thts y i sed i know :P

lolz
jkjk


message 31: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments :)


message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

:D


message 33: by [deleted user] (new)

The fact of the matter is that we have been killing it for years, but it takes us to be affected by it for them to care. No one seemed to care until WE were affected.


message 34: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Carlson (mattcarlson) It seems that for the most part the participants in this group are preaching to the choir. Is it simply the indefensible nature of conservatism that leads to most participants in this group being liberal or is it the fact that the liberals do not want to hear an alternative view and tend to abuse conservatives for their views?

That aside, there is some middle ground, even from one who believes in God. I personally believe that even if God has given the world to humanity it has been given as a stewardship and we will be held accountable for being bad stewards. Therefore, my response to the initial question would be "we save it."


message 35: by Dan (new)

Dan It seems that for the most part the participants in this group are preaching to the choir. Is it simply the indefensible nature of conservatism that leads to most participants in this group being liberal or is it the fact that the liberals do not want to hear an alternative view and tend to abuse conservatives for their views?

How should we know why the people who don't participate in this group don't participate in it? We certainly don't want to frighten any conservatives off, as the group would be quite boring without them.


message 36: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Carlson (mattcarlson) Dan,

It was a rhetorical question. You commented:

"We certainly don't want to frighten any conservatives off, as the group would be quite boring without them."

And yet it has been my experience that once any one of the numerous liberals present perceives the demonic red pupils of their beady little eyes the backward conservative is met by derision and insult from multiple respondents. Yes, the atmosphere is quite conducive to respectful exchanges.


message 37: by Dan (new)

Dan And yet it has been my experience that once any one of the numerous liberals present perceives the demonic red pupils of their beady little eyes the backward conservative is met by derision and insult from multiple respondents. Yes, the atmosphere is quite conducive to respectful exchanges.

So what are you suggesting? That conservatives are inherently more polite than liberals? Or that conservatives are pansies who can't handle a challenge to their opinions?


message 38: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Carlson (mattcarlson) Well I would reject both I think. Rather I would say that many of the liberals with whom I have interacted seem unable to carry on a respectful exchange. I think that many a concervative is more than will to be challenged as to their "opinions" but there is a big difference between demonstrating an argument to be fallacious and personally assaulting the author of the argument.


message 39: by Dan (new)

Dan there is a big difference between demonstrating an argument to be fallacious and personally assaulting the author of the argument.

But this has nothing to do with whether a person is liberal or conservative, so what's your point?


message 40: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Carlson (mattcarlson) I believe I made it.


message 41: by Dan (new)

Dan I believe I made it.

Well, if you think you've made your point, then your point must be that some people on the planet are nicer than others, and there's not way to tell who's who unless you talk to them all. I should write that one down. That's a gem.


message 42: by Kelsey (new)

Kelsey | 2 comments Lauren wrote: "Natural selection has worked on the world for million upon millions of years. To kill it now is a travesty. "
Your totally right lauren it would be a travesty but hardly anyone in this universe cares!


message 43: by ~Perisi Kitty~ (new)

~Perisi Kitty~ . (haikudancer) | 22 comments I think we should save it. I mean we caused this mess and now we have to clean it up.


message 44: by ~Perisi Kitty~ (new)

~Perisi Kitty~ . (haikudancer) | 22 comments Ja I see your point.


message 45: by Dan (new)

Dan I remember reading this a short while ago; very good article. What's unique about the Gulf spill isn't the disaster itself, but the fact that it came home to roost. One of the functions of the global market economy is that richer nations are able to externalize certain costs, such as environmental damage. The fact that rich nations like the US are having to resort to making themselves vulnerable to some of these costs should be a pretty good sign that world oil reserves are getting stretched pretty thin. Ideally (from a market perspective, not an ethical perspective) all resource extraction would be far, far away from rich countries, so that they didn't have to bear any of the environmental brunt of it.


back to top