The principal agents of most pollution

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by LafayetteBis, Jul 4, 2019.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The principal agents of most pollution are humans. So, we reduce the pollution by authorizing all families to have two children and not more or governments confiscate the excess!

    Aint gonna happin, that ...

    Climate change is in part a principal means of provoking pollution. So how do we prepare for that unfortunate evolution of our existence on earth.

    Which cannot be known - because climates are not human-beings. Forecasting climates is still more art than science - though science is coming up very quickly. We've been hit recently here in France by tornadoes, which are as rare as hens'-teeth. But in most instances I see on the news, the people most concerned where amply warned.

    Yes, it seems that we humans get all hot-'n-bothered when the "climate" does not behave as we think it should behave. There are patterns that are repeatable, unless there is a change in fundamental scientific quantities. And, believe me, upper-atmosphere pollution is ONE OF THOSE!

    We have been employing the combustion engine of a hundred years now and - WOW! - look at all that pollution! For instance, see here:
    [​IMG]

    It's everywhere - and nowhere is too far from any one of us!

    In the above, there is depicted "natural pollution" (that has been around since the birth of the earth). The major problem is, however, "human pollution" that we created to begin with by (1) automated transportation and (2) population expansion.

    Now, pray tell, how do we tell women to STOP HAVING KIDS! We don't, but tax-incentives presently favoring large families could be a manner in which to affect levels of pollution. Because it is the human population that is creating most of it.

    Pollution is directly linked to people - and it's we, the sheeple, that must learn how to live and work differently. Already, for instance, the Internet frees some people in some jobs to work-at-home. That's not a bad start.

    But we still need some other good ideas about reducing our personal usage of electricity and also building larger supplies of it by non-pollution means ...
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,576
    Likes Received:
    5,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As of now no such thing as non polluting means
     
  3. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @LafayetteBis The west is pretty stable considering kids. Subsaharian africa start to have a demographic transition, the problem is southern asia, northern africa.
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Far less polluting would help.

    Electric cars would help more. Non jet-engine transportation even more.

    Specific sources of air-pollution in the US (from above link):
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The northern and the southern hemispheres - I think - are not truly comparable. (And neither Australia nor NZ aer really exceptions because they are both simply European transplantions.)

    The European-language countries evolved historically far more quickly than their "colonies" worldwide. Perhaps not so much in the northern-hemisphere but decidedly so in the southern hemispheres.

    China was also evolving technically and I wont diminish it for its contributions. But, it was Communism that discourage investment and therefore advancement. And let's watch what happens when the Chinese finally get fed-up with their so-called "Communist Central Governance" (as seen in Hong Kong's uprisings lately). The day that China finally explodes will be monumental. It is not the least bit evident what would replace it.

    Why did history turn-out in this manner? If I knew, I'd try to write a book about it. There is no cogent argument that explains aptly the differences in economic development around the globe. A great many "inventions" come from the Ottoman Empire, but when that crumbled (after WW1) so did its separate economies. Life in the Ottoman countries was just as good as it was in Europe from the 14th to the 19th centuries. (Largely because, I suggest, European family-dominated countries kept fighting with one another.)

    Why China took all those years to find out that capitalism was the prime-mover of any economy, I do not know. Neither did Communism work-out for the Eastern European nations. But China is the major industrial power today, not Russia or even its "ex-colonies".

    Such is the making of history - oftentimes really quite weird. I'd like to think we "learn from the past" but if we do it takes mankind a long, long, longggggg period of time to understand the lessons ...
     
  6. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @LafayetteBis Huge debate. The problem of people which think they "learn from the past" is that they often think that history begin in 1933 and end in 1945 and is limited to germany.
    I don't think that our today generation is learning from the past. First, because today isn't the new 30's and we're living in quite different times. Second, because thinking that we can learn from the past is considering that we fully understand it or that we're able to do so, and I doubt it's the case. What we says about the past often tell more about ourselves than about the past.
    I'm not sure China would explode soon. Quite the opposite, I think there is more risk for western countries such western european one or USA.

    Considering ecology, I am for degrowth. I doubt a policy of degrowth would happen, but degrowth will happen, I don't doubt of that.

    I think that we should seek for balance. I don't think that some women should have 0 kids and some have 8. If a part of your population is morbidly obese and the other anorexic, you don't get in average a population with a healthy weight.

    Yes some countries should have less kids, but we can't rule them. However, we can refuse migrants from these countries. The west has at the opposite a problem of having not enough children.

    I think that people which want to contribute to ecology should try to live as much as self-sufficient as possible. It imply an exodus from the cities to the countryside and getting more manual labour. It imply aswell to live more poorly.

    That is what I plan for myself, but I have a very fragile health, so it's quite harsh to do so.
     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  8. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @LafayetteBis I think that too much young american spend way too much time in front of video games, movies and on the internet.

    On some aspects, we are in the old roman system. "Bread and games". That's the way the roman aristocracy kept the plebean quite. As long their belly is full and they're diverted, they're docile.

    It's not just school which is problematic, but aswell house education.
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are sociological reasons, I feel, for that reason. And one of the more important is the crap coming out of Hollywood.

    It is far too accentuated upon a hyperbolic future (ie., highly imaginative) and not sufficiently upon the present. The lens-focused future is out of Hollywood and someone's fertile imagination is aided and abetted by actors who are simply looking for their share of the money-pie to be obtained.

    Or, it's all about the muney!

    And that aint no way to make a living or bring up a family. Because traditional values (amiability, fairness, intelligence, willingness and mutual support) all suffer in the singular purpose of "Making as much money as possible and retiring in the Caribbean before you're 30!

    Money has value - of that there is no doubt. But good sense does as well and eventually it is the latter that is most important ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  10. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    4,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Manipulating the things around him, beginning with making fire, stone tools, the primitive travois & the wheel, is the beginning of man making pollution.

    The only way to significantly reduce pollution is to return to hunting/foraging societies.
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Meaning, nothing has changed in 2000 years? The plebes overrun the earth?

    I must agree. The only fundamental change is the size of the problem. Iow, the entire population of earth, which is growing by leaps-and-bounds ...
     
  12. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    21,698
    Likes Received:
    15,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lolz ... that's some ego. "Philosophers" like yourself have either been pulververized or protected by "neanderthals" since the dawn of time.
     
  13. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not that nothing have changed in 2000 years, but the fundamental nature of human being is exactly the same than 2000 years ago. The technology changed, the culture changed, but our psychological nature is the same. We have the same brain, ruled by the same rules, with the same bias.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  14. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    4,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    War and violence is the natural state of man, and some philosophers have helped to civilize man.
     
  15. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,576
    Likes Received:
    5,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problem is much of the time you end up jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Electric vehicles for instance have their own issues that actually make them more polluting than gas cars.
    What exactly do you men by non jet engine transportation?
     
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You might want to elaborate on this response. If the electricity is from the sun or running water or an non-oil burning source, just where/how is the pollution being generated?

    The answer I get upon researching that question is quite the opposite. See here.

    In the instance of aircraft, that would mean propeller driven with the energy source coming from batteries. And given the altitude and trajectory they could be recharged in flight. (Certainly not during a night flight!)

    Moreover, France has had for a good long time very, very hi-speed trains driven by atomic-generated electricity. Which is no greatly advanced solution, but does not pollute much the atmosphere. But not all European countries embarked upon an ambitious nuclear energy program, which is quite expensive.Nuclear energy generates 56% of ALL ENERGY in the US, so finding a replacement of the other 44% by means of non-polluting sources would be possible. But perhaps not profitable.

    Which is why the government would have to promote that solution. But in the states, and because of election-funding, I don't see Congress doing that in the near future. So, you (plural) will simply have to put up with the present level of pollution because I don't see a plethora of solar-cell farms popping up all over the US. Because the amount of lighty necessary to exploit them is mostly in the Western US.

    Unfortunately, the non fossil-fuel production of electricity will have a way to go for as long as electricity companies decide how electricity is generated. In Europe, that is not an issue because people vote more Center-Left that we do in the US. (The only country using considerable amounts of fossil fuels for a winter energy source is, of all places, Germany!)
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  17. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More spurious answers in what is purported to be a Debate Forum.

    Definition of "debate": .
    Moving right along ...
     
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,576
    Likes Received:
    5,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting on the plane stuff but I don't think jets are going away anytime soon.
    Look into all the mining of rare earth that goes into the electric car batteries and you will see my point about pollution they cause
     
  19. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I must agree.

    In fact, I suspect the human population is growing faster (and thus exacerbating the problem) than mankind will ever really find a Total Solution.

    I hate to think of the consequences and hope I shall not be around to witness them ...
     
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12,576
    Likes Received:
    5,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as energy goes I'm an optimist and believe some new technology will come along within a generation or two that will make fossil fuels and the so called green energies obsolete.
    Population and the eventual complete degradation of the natural environments as more and more people want and can obtain more and more stuff I'm not so optimistic about.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  21. Robert Urbanek

    Robert Urbanek Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    For decades, China had a one-child limit and today they are one of the planet's worst polluters. Too often, when people don't have children, they simply replace children with things and experiences that consume resources.
     
  22. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    21,698
    Likes Received:
    15,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah ... hold your post, the one I replied to, up to that standard OK? You weren't "debating" anything. You made a snooty observation about non carbon conscious "plebes". I don't know where you get your airs of aristocracy, but they are amusing. ::):
     
  23. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    4,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The earth is a petri dish. Humanity has been through the lag phase and may still be in the log phase, but soon comes the stationary phase and then the mass death phase.

    It is inevitable. Resistance is futile.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  24. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Resistance may be futile, but planned parenthood is not. It starts with annulling all reductions in tax-level for a family of more than four (including mother and father). And further regressive taxation for all families above that number, so that they contribute to the extended social-upkeep necessary. (Namely Healthcare and Education, and there I am referring to Europe and not the US.)

    That's for developed economies. Where it is possible to implement programs that educated/intelligent people can follow and thus configure their lives.

    Sorry, but privatized healthcare and education in the US do not fall into that category. Unless the US finds the necessary courage to finance/implement both National Healthcare and Post-graduate Education. Which, so far, it has been unable to do. (On average the US spends twice as much per capita as other developed economies on Healthcare. See here.)

    For the non-developed economies (of south-east Asia for instance) there is little hope. There will one day be massive manslaughter amongst those seeking to feed themselves with constrained food-supplies. I feel this is inevitable given that they are breeding like ... well, I don't care to finish that phrase.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019
  25. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    So government interference in free markets is the primary driver of climate change?

    Particularly liberal social policies?
     

Share This Page