1) Population growth: Humans are the problem. Despite the shrinking birth rate, this does not bode badly for Nature which will theoretically revive itself once we are not sucking nutrients out of the ground and burning it into the sky and water.
So... the solution to overpopulation is the end to the human race? We will always be "sucking nutrients out of the ground" as long as we continue to eat and/or live on Earth, which is basically as long as there are people. I'm not going to get into the actual feasibility of colonizing the rest of the solar system.
2) Urbanization: Cities are the largest contributors to localized pollution. Air quality, sewage overflows, and general griminess ooze from cities. I don't see how environmentalists could come around to see how cities are beneficial to the environment.
Not all environmentalists are civilization-hating Luddites who want to return to our hunter-gatherer roots. There are many who believe that it is possible to develop in a environmentally sustainable way. There are environmentalists who don't mind admitting that they value human life more than field mice.
3) Genetically-engineered organisms: Knee jerk reactions defines the environmental movement. If they haven't listened to real science thus far, what will convince them otherwise?
Show me the "real science" that proves all GMOs are safe. Yes, there may be no cause for alarm. Still, I think the burden of proof should be creators of these products and the governments that support them to prove that they are safe before they are widely used.
4) Nuclear power: Ethical scientists have already converged on this as a plausible renewable energy source. Too bad the environmentalists haven't.
Nuclear power may be a good addition to our range of power options. From what I have read, it is not ready to be a total replacement for other sources of energy. Also, it has been billed as safe before, before Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Things rarely work out as well in practice as they do in theory.
It sounds like you believe that there is a single, unified environmental movement, and that it has only one set of beliefs. Furthermore, you seem to believe that the most extreme views represent the views of everyone. Sounds like you should try looking into what environmentalists are actually saying - not just reading news reports and jumping to conclusions.
People really are suffering from information overload. They live busy lives, and it's all they can do to keep up with their own lives, and that that of their families. It also does not help that 'The Academy' has become so heavily populated with folks with very left-wing social, and political agendas. Large sections of Americans do not trust institutions that they view as hot beds of neo-marxist pointy-headed, ivory tower bound granolas. Most of all they don't trust the chicken-little, 'doom is at hand' rhetoric that so many advocates (those who advance the theory of) of anhtropogenic warming. They have seen this pose before, and it's has become a pose that they very deeply distrust.
You think scare-mongering no longer works, or that it's solely a tool of the "academic left"? Can you say, "weapons of mass destruction"?
It's best to just admit that most Americans don't believe in global warming because they don't want to. The solution would cost them either effort (walking, riding their bikes more) or comfort (selling the SUV and buying a small car, for example) than they're willing to lose. Furthermore, we've recently been exposed to a string of articles suggesting that global warming would have little effect on North America, while it would be a much larger problem for the less-industrialized world.
I'm certainly not an expert, and am not qualified to comment on the existence/nonexistence of global warming.
Nonetheless, is it a good idea to perform the kind of vast chemistry experiment on our world that we currently are engaged in? Are we sure there won't be any consequences?
Those might not be scientific questions, but since science is failing to provide definitive answers, maybe we need to turn to other sources of knowledge.
More importantly... 1) it conditions kids (even more) to living in a society in which their every move is monitored.
2) it gives enormous power to administrators, who, as anyone who went through public high school should know, are only human. I had my run-ins with administrators (mostly because of school newspaper articles) and they can be pretty petty.
Of course, we're talking about 7th and 8th graders, but it's a terrible precedent to set. One of the students was quoted as saying, "Look at this. I'm a grocery item. I'm a piece of meat. I'm an orange."
She objects to being treated as an object; our society needs more of that.
Whether or not it's "American" is besides the point. What matters is whether or not it is practical and ethical.
As for the constant refrain from the ignorant about us "doing it for the oil" I call BS.
My point was, our interest in the Middle East stems from the perception of oil as integral to our economic security. The last 60 years of US policy there - and particularly the last 15 - have been shaped by this need for oil. Are you trying to tell me that securing oil is now a secondary concern for us?
It's quite obvious that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that the concept was embraced so uncritically because it offered a pretext for invasion. Furthermore, Iraq and Wahhabi Islam (and al Qaeda) have very, very little, if any, connection.
The war in Iraq was very obviously not about terrorism (unless Bush & co. are very confused). It was not about protecting us from another 9/11. It was about increasing our influence and military presence in the Middle East.
You probably know this, but the French, Russians, and others opposed to the war had oil on their minds as well; they had designs of their own on Iraq's oil. The difference is, they could have made deals with Saddam, which was not an option for the United States.
Be realistic. Whatever government Iraq ultimately adopts, we are there because they have oil, more than any other factor.
Nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers (and their sponsor) were from Saudi Arabia, so what did we do to respond? Invade Iraq! Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Because we're allies! Why are we allies? Oil!
Speaking of actually preventing terrorism... where is Osama?
So, yes, the invasion of Iraq was about oil, even if we plan on setting up... er, electing... a friendly democratic government there.
And it's true, oil is absolutely vital to our economic security. We need to find other solutions (other sources of energy) to our dependence on oil, though. I believe that the current practice of using military and economic power to secure it will lead to a very bleak future for the US and almost certainly the rest of the world.
As for certain others getting 'pissed off' at the US I say GREAT! It means we are being effective. Lets face facts, every government in the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait and Israel excepted) is currently pissed at us whether they can admit it in public or not because unless they are totally clueless they understand that it is our goal to topple every one of their perverted police states.
How can this have been modded up? This is totally inaccurate. We have been setting up (the Shah in Iran) and supporting (the Saudi Royal Family) those "perverted police states" for the past 50 years! The United States military is not the harbinger of democracy that you pretend to believe it is. Our underlying goal in the Middle East is the protection of our national and economic security in the form of oil. Democracy in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, for example, is most definitely not in the interest of the United States, because it would decrease the control we have over oil. Time to break through the ideology and look at what is actually happening: namely, the United States supports oppressive regimes when it suits their interests.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Population growth: Humans are the problem. Despite the shrinking birth rate, this does not bode badly for Nature which will theoretically revive itself once we are not sucking nutrients out of the ground and burning it into the sky and water.
So... the solution to overpopulation is the end to the human race? We will always be "sucking nutrients out of the ground" as long as we continue to eat and/or live on Earth, which is basically as long as there are people. I'm not going to get into the actual feasibility of colonizing the rest of the solar system.
2) Urbanization: Cities are the largest contributors to localized pollution. Air quality, sewage overflows, and general griminess ooze from cities. I don't see how environmentalists could come around to see how cities are beneficial to the environment.
Not all environmentalists are civilization-hating Luddites who want to return to our hunter-gatherer roots. There are many who believe that it is possible to develop in a environmentally sustainable way. There are environmentalists who don't mind admitting that they value human life more than field mice.
3) Genetically-engineered organisms: Knee jerk reactions defines the environmental movement. If they haven't listened to real science thus far, what will convince them otherwise?
Show me the "real science" that proves all GMOs are safe. Yes, there may be no cause for alarm. Still, I think the burden of proof should be creators of these products and the governments that support them to prove that they are safe before they are widely used.
4) Nuclear power: Ethical scientists have already converged on this as a plausible renewable energy source. Too bad the environmentalists haven't.
Nuclear power may be a good addition to our range of power options. From what I have read, it is not ready to be a total replacement for other sources of energy. Also, it has been billed as safe before, before Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Things rarely work out as well in practice as they do in theory.
It sounds like you believe that there is a single, unified environmental movement, and that it has only one set of beliefs. Furthermore, you seem to believe that the most extreme views represent the views of everyone. Sounds like you should try looking into what environmentalists are actually saying - not just reading news reports and jumping to conclusions.
People really are suffering from information overload. They live busy lives, and it's all they can do to keep up with their own lives, and that that of their families. It also does not help that 'The Academy' has become so heavily populated with folks with very left-wing social, and political agendas. Large sections of Americans do not trust institutions that they view as hot beds of neo-marxist pointy-headed, ivory tower bound granolas. Most of all they don't trust the chicken-little, 'doom is at hand' rhetoric that so many advocates (those who advance the theory of) of anhtropogenic warming. They have seen this pose before, and it's has become a pose that they very deeply distrust. You think scare-mongering no longer works, or that it's solely a tool of the "academic left"? Can you say, "weapons of mass destruction"? It's best to just admit that most Americans don't believe in global warming because they don't want to. The solution would cost them either effort (walking, riding their bikes more) or comfort (selling the SUV and buying a small car, for example) than they're willing to lose. Furthermore, we've recently been exposed to a string of articles suggesting that global warming would have little effect on North America, while it would be a much larger problem for the less-industrialized world. I'm certainly not an expert, and am not qualified to comment on the existence/nonexistence of global warming. Nonetheless, is it a good idea to perform the kind of vast chemistry experiment on our world that we currently are engaged in? Are we sure there won't be any consequences? Those might not be scientific questions, but since science is failing to provide definitive answers, maybe we need to turn to other sources of knowledge.
Ask the seller for his account. Delete the characters, change the Credit card number, and you're set.
Better yet, don't change the credit card number. Then you're really set.
More importantly...
1) it conditions kids (even more) to living in a society in which their every move is monitored.
2) it gives enormous power to administrators, who, as anyone who went through public high school should know, are only human. I had my run-ins with administrators (mostly because of school newspaper articles) and they can be pretty petty.
Of course, we're talking about 7th and 8th graders, but it's a terrible precedent to set. One of the students was quoted as saying, "Look at this. I'm a grocery item. I'm a piece of meat. I'm an orange."
She objects to being treated as an object; our society needs more of that.
Whether or not it's "American" is besides the point. What matters is whether or not it is practical and ethical.
As for the constant refrain from the ignorant about us "doing it for the oil" I call BS.
My point was, our interest in the Middle East stems from the perception of oil as integral to our economic security. The last 60 years of US policy there - and particularly the last 15 - have been shaped by this need for oil. Are you trying to tell me that securing oil is now a secondary concern for us?
It's quite obvious that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that the concept was embraced so uncritically because it offered a pretext for invasion. Furthermore, Iraq and Wahhabi Islam (and al Qaeda) have very, very little, if any, connection.
The war in Iraq was very obviously not about terrorism (unless Bush & co. are very confused). It was not about protecting us from another 9/11. It was about increasing our influence and military presence in the Middle East.
You probably know this, but the French, Russians, and others opposed to the war had oil on their minds as well; they had designs of their own on Iraq's oil. The difference is, they could have made deals with Saddam, which was not an option for the United States.
Be realistic. Whatever government Iraq ultimately adopts, we are there because they have oil, more than any other factor.
Nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers (and their sponsor) were from Saudi Arabia, so what did we do to respond? Invade Iraq! Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Because we're allies! Why are we allies? Oil!
Speaking of actually preventing terrorism... where is Osama?
So, yes, the invasion of Iraq was about oil, even if we plan on setting up... er, electing... a friendly democratic government there.
And it's true, oil is absolutely vital to our economic security. We need to find other solutions (other sources of energy) to our dependence on oil, though. I believe that the current practice of using military and economic power to secure it will lead to a very bleak future for the US and almost certainly the rest of the world.
As for certain others getting 'pissed off' at the US I say GREAT! It means we are being effective. Lets face facts, every government in the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait and Israel excepted) is currently pissed at us whether they can admit it in public or not because unless they are totally clueless they understand that it is our goal to topple every one of their perverted police states.
How can this have been modded up?
This is totally inaccurate. We have been setting up (the Shah in Iran) and supporting (the Saudi Royal Family) those "perverted police states" for the past 50 years! The United States military is not the harbinger of democracy that you pretend to believe it is.
Our underlying goal in the Middle East is the protection of our national and economic security in the form of oil. Democracy in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, for example, is most definitely not in the interest of the United States, because it would decrease the control we have over oil. Time to break through the ideology and look at what is actually happening: namely, the United States supports oppressive regimes when it suits their interests.