Maciamo said:
I don't see CO2 as negative for the environment.
A lot of low laying island nations' people will disagree with you.
In fact CO2 is 'food' for plants, so it stimulates vegetal growth. The media often sound confusing in this regard. CO2 is only "bad" because it fosters global warming - but is that such a bad thing in itself ?
Personally, I like it hot.
The Earth has been much warmer than now in the past and life thrived. Areas like Canada, Northern Europe and Russia would be advantaged by global warming rather than suffer from it (at least if dikes are built to prevent floods from rising sea levels).
Yes, but the warming or lowering of temperature trends in the past have happened very gradually, allowing for species to adopt or evolve with the changes. Sure, probably some had died off due to the change, but the biodiversity of the planet probably did not experience much of a set back. The rate in which species are being threatened now is overly accelerated due to our activities and warming trends at this speed will not allow for adjustments which will cause fish species to come under threat which will work its way up the chain, not to mention much habitat loss and wetland lost due to rising seas.
Sea walls and dikes are not the answer to protect ourselves from the damage to ecological life. Shallow sandy areas and marshy with reeds and coral on coasts and on rivershores are essential for smaller animals which are fed on by the larger animals -- not to mention places for depositing eggs. Take that out of the mix and a lot more than just the scenery could be affected.
All we need to do is live with changed conditions (e.g. by irrigating better hot and dry areas to prevent desertification).
It's mostly a matter of better recycling and waste management. Organic waste can be used as fertiliser.
Agreed, and in fact -- we don`t have a choice. It is imperative that we do so. However, if we are in the process of breaking something that has served us for our entire civilization, I think it is more wise to try and value what we know that works -- i.e. no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not work hard to maintain this wheel we have? -- and in the process of doing so even repair some of the places that are damaged.
Pigs may be "man-made" (I prefer "fostered by humans"), but they are also some of the most intelligent mamals on earth. I tend to put more value in preserving intelligent species at the top of the evolutionary ladder (e.g. big mamals) over others.
Preserving them for existence for their own sake? I have no problem with that. Preserving them for existence for suffering and butchering? In that case they are worse off for their intelligence -- for to know what the screams are meaning in front of them as they are pushed toward the "stick pit" makes their intelligence a cruel thing to have.
As I said before, had our ancestors be vegan we would not be discussing this, as out brain wouldn't be so big. Think about future generations over the coming millenia.
That is an assumption. And if our species destroys ourselves due to our folly or intelligence -- then what has that existance served, or for that matter even this conversation served? But that, too, is an assumption.
If we were not to be having this conversation now due to not getting to such an advanced stage, then so what? The conversation would not be missed or mourned by us because it would not be on our perceptual screen -- just as advanced conversation or the technology that would be allowing it to happen 5,000 years from now in the future; it, too, is not on our perceptual screen, but are we mourning it because we have not obtained it or can`t conceive of it? No. And if we destroy ourselves before we reach it, then it never existed in the first place. Why mourn non-existance?