I'm pro-pollution. We have waaaay too many other species on this planet, we should knock a few of them out before they get any ideas and start thinking they should go for the title of master species. This is our planet and I'll be damned if I see any pervert dolphins in charge. It's our god given right to make the lesser species our bitches and what better way to show them whose boss than to toss some garbage in their backyard. Let's see them try and challenge our authority while they're choking on milk jug rings. 'MURRRRICA!
but you could change the way you consume. you are a consumer and there's no doubt about that but we have a choice to buy what we think we really need and what we just deep down don't need it all comes down to what we want
i read that a majority of the ozone is the way it is because of all the nuclear weapons tested and a little little part of it was done by people using cfcs... cfcs from the atom bombs is what did it so yes humanity has an effect on the enviornment but governments have a greater affect and governments could have a greater affect helping to solve it because they have the control over us and land which is sad too
I've been strongly driven by a love of nature for as long as I can remember, but I find it almost embarrassing to describe myself as an environmentalist with the amount of full of shit, urban, do-gooder liberals taking on the label.
People should take responsibility for their own life and surroundings and work towards improving the environment on an individual level, and note that I use the word 'improving' and not preserving, conservationists are one of the biggest threats to those who truly want to make a positive change on an individual level. Through observing and understanding nature we can adjust and improve it to better suit our own individual needs without interfering with other people and other species.
Government regulations and programs rarely work to benefit anyone but the rich, and are certainly vastly inferior to individual actions. Recycling for example is in some cases more beneficial than production from virgin materials, but more often than not its nothing but a feelgood exercise for the mindless consumers with half a conscious. The only truly effective recycling is that done at home through composting and reusing and repurposing items. People should work towards having barely anything that needs recycling through producing as much as they can for themselves. A very small collective can achieve similar results to individuals and may in some cases be more efficient, but the more that collective grows the more inefficient and divided it becomes.
"conservationists are one of the biggest threats to those who truly want to make a positive change on an individual level. Through observing and understanding nature we can adjust and improve it to better suit our own individual needs without interfering with other people and other species."
Are you absolutely out of your mind? Conservationists work to prevent further degradation, but conserving what is left-- we already, every damn day, are hacking away at our environment-- getting rid of conservation would just accelerate this. The US is actually great compared to many other countries in terms of nature preservation because the US government has so much protection and establishment of protected areas. The US has one of the best park systems in the world. And conservation allows us to maintain what precious little unaltered green spaces we have left.
you're right in saying recycling is nothing compared to reducing what you consume. Recycling is not the answer: reducing is.
Possibly, but I will expand on why I believe this.
There is improvements that can be made to nature to the benefit of the environment and other species. For instance sycamore maples are considered a feral weed within Australia, but they are a tree that grows quickly and can form good hollows within only 10yrs to make homes for native possums, birds and snakes. While it takes a native eucalypt around 100yrs to produce good sized hollows. They also produce abundant amounts of nectar to the benefit of native insects and birds. Another plant considered a noxious feral is the blackberry, but it is a great food source for both animals and humans. Some introductions have obviously been huge mistakes, foxes, rabbits, lantana, pattersons curse, etc... but not every non-native species is destructive and some of them end up being beneficial to the environment. Tree lucerne whilst it hasn't been labelled noxious yet has spread into the wild in parts of Australia, and it will make a fantastic addition I think, its a nitrogen fixating legume that is a great food source for larger animals.
Another example would be Tilapia, Tilapia farming is banned in Australia. Yes Tilapia has become a problem in places like the UK, but farmed responsibly its a fish that could feed the planet and take a huge amount of pressure off the worlds fish supplies as its a vegetarian fish happy living on a diet of duckweed or greenwaste. Its the perfect fish for aquaponics which is a great solution for sustainable intensive cropping. It may not be the tastiest fish but it could take alot of pressure off the oceans, huge amounts of plankton and such are being harvested for food supply for commercial aquaculture, and our oceans are being depleted because of things like people wanting to feed their pet cats fish.
I'm a permaculturist, I have a reasonable understanding of the relationships in nature and I believe there are many species that could fit within the equilibrium of nature to evryones benefit.
I'm not talking about national parks. I think its in everyones best interests to preserve as much bushland area as possible. But these areas can be improved as well by not discriminating against every single non-native species. It seems the difference between feral and native largely is an issue of time and usefulness to humans. Noone has a problem with dingos even though their ecological impact was massive, because they arrived in Australia 4000 years ago.
yes very true and all we can do as a single person is change the way we live our selves. its sad how we can see at this point the effect a government has and how they are the ones calling the shots all for money and power. but with recycling over my life span of 18 years my mom would always recycle when it wasnt mandatory around here but now it is except i heard that most the things we think will be recycled wont. and how they hell does one recycle paper?
I personally recycle paper by putting it in the bottom of my poultry brooders, and when its covered in poo it goes onto the compost heap. It doesn't really break down much in composting but it will eventually turn back into topsoil.
Commercially paper is recycled by mixing it with water and chemicals to break it down to a slurry or pulp, then more chemicals are added to bleach it white and de-ink it. Its a process that leaves behind alot of toxic chemicals and requires alot of energy in its production as well as transportation.
yeah i thought so.. so what your saying is completely true. what we do with our waste is more important then how recycling companies handle it because we could simply take the paper goods we have and use them in ways to benefit us later on like through compost or just being smart and re using things. i also am at a point where most of the food i eat comes as fruits and vegetables which minimizes the packaging problem. but its bad with all that processed food these days because it comes in so much plastic and all sorts of crap. i think michio kaku would have some good ideas if we turned to him on what we should do
Self-EpidemicFeatured By OwnerDec 31, 2012Professional Digital Artist
When I was about 13 me and my friend tried to clear out a little river near mine, it was gross and needed caring for, we tried doing it in our 6 weeks holiday in the summer, but we didn't get very far at all D: