Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Page 15 of 15 [ 220 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,349
Location: Reading, England

29 Jun 2013, 10:08 am

Before the industrial revolution, life was horrible. People had to work very hard and would die very young.

Rather than going back to the pre-industrial age, I would suggest we adapt industrial society to be less damaging to the environment. That way, we can keep all the advances of modern society, like heating, insulation, GM crops, better transport, combine harvesters, fertilisers, modern medicine, television, pesticides, the internet, modern music, and lighting.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,463
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

29 Jun 2013, 10:11 am

To do that you need to change human nature.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

29 Jun 2013, 2:07 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Before the industrial revolution, life was horrible. People had to work very hard and would die very young.

Rather than going back to the pre-industrial age, I would suggest we adapt industrial society to be less damaging to the environment. That way, we can keep all the advances of modern society, like heating, insulation, GM crops, better transport, combine harvesters, fertilisers, modern medicine, television, pesticides, the internet, modern music, and lighting.


And contrary to the complaining of the Eco Freaks, in the advanced western industrialized societies things are getting cleaner, healthier and materially better for most people. Clearly we are not moving as fast as we should in the right direction but we certainly are moving. Look at the quality of the air compared to what it was 50 or 60 years ago. We have gotten the lead out of our gasoline and there are stronger laws in place for keeping the waters cleaner. The Hudson River has been cleaned up tremendously. I have remember when I was a kid, dead fish in the Hudson all the way between Albany and Kingston. Unbelievable. Nothing like that can happen now.

ruveyn



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,463
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

29 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm

Ruveyn, it is not really as simple as that. While water sources are now cleaner, as in less toxic, there are other issues with the freshwater ecosystems. The increase in anti-bacterial products in everyday use have an accumulative effect, fertiliser and pesticide run off also affects productivity. So while you might not see adult fish dieing, ecosystems recovery rates are not guaranteed.
In the UK inland aggregate and sand for building supplies are no longer financially viable, they are dredged form offshore which removes spawning grounds for fish and other species.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,349
Location: Reading, England

30 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm

neilson_wheels wrote:
To do that you need to change human nature.

Assuming that was in reply to me, I would argue "not necessarily". We have already made great strides in some areas. For example, we have stopped using CFCs in refrigeration, and we have removed lead from petrol. We stop using our most deadly pesticides, like DDT and neonicotinoids. We are gradually replacing fossil fuels with cleaner supplies of energy like nuclear and renewable sources. Energy efficiency is increasing.

There is still a lot to be done, but we can do it. We can't go back to a pre-industrial society without things getting a lot worse for everyone. We morally can't artificially reduce the planet's population. We can't keep wasting energy and materials and damaging the environment. That leaves one middle path- sustainability.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,463
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

30 Jun 2013, 5:00 pm

I like your optimism. Hold on to it, I feel you will need it.

The trouble is consumerism and profits get in the way. All new buildings could be super insulated, use materials with less embodied energy and be passive rated, we have the technology available now. It is argued that this is not cost effective, the truth is it affects the profits too much. The buildings are required to conform to building regulations, nothing more, so the onus is on the government to force change. Why don't they, it's a generally conservative industry and also I feel it comes down to who sits on the board of directors.

Wind power has yet to prove it's worth. The subsidies to cover construction are also being used to create jobs and aide national revenue. Not bad on it's own but again the materials required to produce blades, pillars, generators, switch-gear and cable do not warrant the life span of the installations. Nuclear still can't keep up a clean image, and the waste issues are still a major factor, especially that depleted uranium weapons are no longer palatable. Meanwhile Shell and BP sit on photo-voltaic patents while most of us have empty inclined roofs that would be perfect for high efficiency solar power.

Pesticides are invariably bad for life as they are poisonous. Will the honey bee survive much longer?
I'm sure GMO suppliers are not too bothered as the gene splicing also includes elements to sterilize the plant, whether intentional, or a byproduct of hybridization this results in seed crops are no longer possible, pollination is no longer required. Once crop plants are fully resistant to herbicides it will be open season when the resistant weed strains arrive.

I'm not suggesting we regress, that's the OP. I just feel that as a species we are willing to accept a large amount of collateral damage before accepting that change is necessary.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

30 Jun 2013, 10:57 pm

pezar wrote:
Autism may be a natural attempt to make a human that can keep up with the blazingly fast pace of change.


God, I hope not. Being able to truly 'switch off' is already almost too difficult for me, with all of this constant background 'white noise' that is generated by a mind that just cannot clear itself of impressions and thoughts. It's got to the stage where I am almost too afraid to listen to a song, because if I do it will keep buzzing around in my mind for the rest of the day.

Perhaps this is what is driving so many these days to insanity, this constant requirement to be 'switched on', connected and active? We were not meant to be like this, we are not properly equipped for it. It's not natural.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

03 Jul 2013, 8:53 pm

neilson_wheels wrote:
I'm not suggesting we regress, that's the OP. I just feel that as a species we are willing to accept a large amount of collateral damage before accepting that change is necessary.

That makes sense. The current institutional structures aren't built to be responsive to environmental issues, so they will tend to undervalue those issues.

My suspicion is that things won't be as bad as the worse projections, but changes are always a mess anyway. I feel like so long as we can solve our energy concerns, then as a species we're going to do just fine. The environment is more likely a matter of cost and maybe social reorganization, not a threat to civilization.(unlike so many other possible things)



sushil_yadav
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: India

04 Jul 2013, 2:42 am

ruveyn wrote:

And contrary to the complaining of the Eco Freaks, in the advanced western industrialized societies things are getting cleaner, healthier and materially better for most people. Clearly we are not moving as fast as we should in the right direction but we certainly are moving. Look at the quality of the air compared to what it was 50 or 60 years ago. We have gotten the lead out of our gasoline and there are stronger laws in place for keeping the waters cleaner. The Hudson River has been cleaned up tremendously. I have remember when I was a kid, dead fish in the Hudson all the way between Albany and Kingston. Unbelievable. Nothing like that can happen now.
ruveyn


Kindly do a search on the following to know the truth:

"Toxic America"

"Industrial Pollution in America"

"Environmental destruction in America"

.
.

If American air, water and soil are clean then where is all American Industrial Waste going????....Are you sending it to Mars???

You need to visit all American Mining Industry Sites, American Logging Industry Sites, American Energy Generation Sites, American Oil Drilling Sites, American Oil Refining Sites, American Manufacturing Industry Sites, American Recycling Industry Sites, American Nuclear Industry Sites to see all the environmental destruction that is taking place moment by moment.

You need to visit all the Landfill Sites in America.

It is impossible for Air, water and Land to be clean in any Industrial Society because Industrial Activity has polluted and poisoned them with billions of tonnes of Metal waste, Plastic waste, Gaseous waste, Chemical waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste…….Industrial Activity produces billions of tonnes of Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Waste and there are only three places on earth where all this waste can go - Air, water and Soil…..There is no fourth place on earth where this waste can go…… It is impossible for Rivers, Oceans, Atmosphere and Soil to be clean in Industrial Society.

All the Industrial Waste that has been produced by Industrial Society in 250 years after Industrial Revolution has accumulated on earth...It has not gone out of earth.

.
.

Large scale environmental destruction in America has been happening for centuries since colonization.

When the Europeans colonized America they started the loot, plunder and exploitation of natural resources disregarding any advice from Native Americans.

"only after the last tree has been cut down

only after the last river has been poisoned

only after the last fish has been caught

only then will you realize that you cannot eat money"

.
.

America has 5% of world population and is consuming 25 - 40% of world resources.

Do you know how many millions of acres of forests have been destroyed in South/ Central America to produce grains and grazing grounds for feeding billions of cattle which are then slaughtered in Industrial Slaughter Houses and imported by America and Europe to feed their population, half to two-thirds of which has grown obese due to overeating???

Do you know how many millions of acres of rain forests have been destroyed to produce bio fuel for America and Europe???

.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,463
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

04 Jul 2013, 4:03 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
neilson_wheels wrote:
I'm not suggesting we regress, that's the OP. I just feel that as a species we are willing to accept a large amount of collateral damage before accepting that change is necessary.

That makes sense. The current institutional structures aren't built to be responsive to environmental issues, so they will tend to undervalue those issues.

My suspicion is that things won't be as bad as the worse projections, but changes are always a mess anyway. I feel like so long as we can solve our energy concerns, then as a species we're going to do just fine. The environment is more likely a matter of cost and maybe social reorganization, not a threat to civilization.(unlike so many other possible things)


I feel the biggest issue is over consumption of water resources.

This may be a future cause of conflict, especially where freshwater sources cross international borders.