Philosophical topics/speeches

[wolf_wizard]

Wow, that some serious thinking. I suppose it would be good for the Earth, as the food chain can probably exist rather easily without us. But I just think the idea is to terrible for humans to really consider. Maybe if we moved off the Earth and learned how to Help the environment instead of hindering it, it would be a bad thing.

[EricG1793]

Now, now, no one-liners, vashmata. (I have slightly higher one-liner standards because of a 14.1 inch wide screen) And your own writing should be longer than quotes.

For us, of course, you know... us not existing wouldn't be a good thing at all. But when we're gone, we're gone. I could start a whole what happens after death discussion, but we can do that later. If our spirits/souls simply cease to exist, there's absolutely no trace of who we truly are, then what thought can we give it that we're all dead and gone? And if there's Timeheart, it's a lot better there than here on Earth, right? Or Heaven, or anywhere else you go after death.

However, for other beings, that'd be the best thing that ever happened in their time of existing. No more us polluting their habitats, capturing animals and keeping them in zoos or as pets, etc.

However it'd be bad for those animals that we've domesticated. They wouldn't have a clue how to live without us. For example, dogs and cats. They're domesticated for centuries, and they just couldn't live if we humans all of a sudden died.

[wolf_wizard]

Originally posted by EricG1793
However, it would be bad for the animals we've domesticated. They wouldn't have a clue how to live without us.

That's true for some, but not for all pets. After all, Have you read The Call of the Wild? in it the main character, a dog returns to the wild and survives. I think that some of the animals would survive, and the weaker ones... well, you know. But the overall population (of animals) would be better off, and that's what's more important, right?

[kk]

Well (as an explanation), I have this friend who's one goal is to be the only human left on Earth, and help all the animals. She said she MIGHT want to keep some humans though, to help her in her quest.

The problem is, that wouldn't stop pollution. There was pollution long before carbon emittions. Natural forest fires cause pollution. Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, etc, are caused by forest fires.

In the long run, I think humans could help the environment. Every being and creature has something to contribute to the universe, in my opinion.

[wolf_wizard]

True, but I think we should start working a little more on the helping part, because what we are doing now is doing more damage than asistance. There are many species of animals that could still exist that humans have made extinct.

[kk]

I said in the long run. It might take awhile.

Since I just finished the chapter in my science course that was about pollution, I've read alot about the environment.

Volcanoes are another source of pollution. As are many other things.

I think humans could help the environment alot by simply not cutting down as many trees. At my church there was a forest in the back, and one week, all it had were a few trees, and new "luxury" apartments were up. There were hundreds of trees cut down. It makes me sick...

[EricG1793]

You bring up a great point, kk. However, these natural causes would happen whether we were around or not. There's nothing we can do about THAT.

However if we weren't around, there wouldn't be pollution and other climatic disturbances such as

a) Heat radiation or simply heat generation from 1. Buildings, 2. Pavement/Concrete/Other heat radiating surfaces, 3. Large amounts of bare (not having grass, water, etc.) land, such as deserts (apparently it's our fault that deserts are expanding), and 4. Our actual bodies 5. Climate control units, like heat and A/C

b) Artificial carbon monoxide from our engines

c) Carbon dioxide from our breath

d) All the burning chemicals tobacco products have in them

e) Trees being cut down, yes

f) Trash being thrown at the sides of roads, in rivers, in oceans, and of course landfills

g) Darn it, my mom just came in and started talking to me and now I lost my train of thought.... I'll edit this and add more when/if I think of more things.

[Young wizard]

THE SPEECH IS SO INTRESTING!!!!!!
----
Phliosophy helps us understand the world around us!!!!Think about that!!!

Combined double post - gf

[kk]

Whoa, YW, a double post AND one liners...isn't that a federal violation? Yikes...


Oh, and Eric, didn't the government (of what country, I can't remember) make catalytic converters mandatory? They cut back on the Carbon Monoxide emittions from cars, don't they?

[EricG1793]

They do cut down, but there's still too much of it going out. In fact, any amount is too much.

Yes, Young wizard needs to be given a couple pointers, and you gave a good start.

[wolf_wizard]

I agree with Eric on the fact that any is to much.

Originally posted by EricG1793:
these natural causes would happen if we were around or not

Yes, well, though they would happen anyway, we are speeding the process up alarmingly. If we stopped, then the animals would all have enough time to adapt to the changing environment. Think about the polar bears.

Originally posted by EricG1793:
Carbon Dioxide from our breath

well, our breathing is hardly the main source of Carbon Dioxide, (the burning of fossil fuels is) but Eric had some other (more valid) points.

[EricG1793]

Oh, I you and I are certainly thinking the same way, wolf wizard. I was just giving that point (the first quote of me in your last post) to rule out natural pollution, since, like I said, it'd be there whether we were around or not, so that's really nothing to do with us.

Carbon monoxide is from vehicles, carbon dioxide is from our breath.... Or is there both monoxide AND dioxide in vehicle exhaust? When you consider how many of us are around, that is a lot of carbon dioxide that we exhale. However, I'll overrule myself on one thing: other species exhale carbon dioxide, so whether we were around making it or not, it'd still be there. Again, I do realize I'm overruling myself from my statement above, but that's about carbon monoxide, not dioxide, which is what I'm talking about now.

[Dragon Writer]

Besides, the breath of animals is not a bad thing...Remember, plants use the carbon dioxide in our breath in the process of photosyntheses...without the carbon dioxide from the breath of us and other animals, there would be no plants (or at least on plants as there are now) which might mean no oxygen, which would cause a lot more devestation, a lot quicker, then anything the carbon dioxide can do to our world....They also basically cancel out the amount of carbon dioxide we put out by breathing.
*can imagine a short sci-fi story where a man creates an invention, continuously eliminating all carbon dioxide from the world which results in the death of all life*

Maybe if we just put up a lot more plants, the carbon dioxide would get used up by them...Too bad we can't create machines that basically repeat the process of photosynthesis on a much larger scale in order to turn all of the excess carbon dioxide we're putting out into nice, clean, oxygen.
Wait a minute...is there any reason we can't? I mean, it would take a long time to build, but it seems like a very good solution to at least part of the problem...if we could manage to do it with carbon monoxide too, so much the better. not sure if you CAN do the second, (maybe if you brought in other gasses, but maybe not) but the first at least is done in nature...trick would be leaving enough in the world for the plant life.

[wolf_wizard]

I think that Carbon Dioxide and monoxide are vehicle emissions. *looks up* Yep, it emits both.*winces* Also a couple other major problems are Hydrocarbons and Nitrongen Oxides according to this site (http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse_fs.htm).

[kk]

Then there are other pollutants, like sulfur oxides, which are put into the air every time coal is burned. I have to admit, the human race has many ways to hurt the environment.