Space Exploration

Sybarite

New member
... As they say, we're all entitled to our opinions. But do you or anyone else have an explanation as to why certain countries (USA, China, Russia) and ideological groups within these countries are less receptive to climate change and more critical of both its scientific researchers and political advocates?

Woah! Big questions. :D

Economics primarily, in all three cases – although for Russia and China one has to bear in mind that, industrially speaking, they're both developing nations, so the economic concerns are primarily ones around the issues of development – certainly in China; Russia is slightly different again.

In terms of the US: in my opinion, I think that there is a long-term culture of seeing success in terms of material goods; success is buying things and then buying them bigger. We're not actually that far from a similar approach in the UK – an attitude that I see as different from other parts of Europe that I know, where quality of life seems to be of more importance than the number of white goods you own.

In the US, the issue of cars isn't the sole issue, but I think that the attitude that I see and hear reported to the idea that gas-guzzling giants should give way to more environmentally sound vehicles is one of 'don't touch my big car', and it's indicative of the barrier to change. Perhaps this whole attitude is something to do with the pioneer spirit and a sense of the scale of the country – particularly away from the main urban areas? I think that there's also that whole US idea of 'freedom' – the freedom to do pretty much whetever you want (you see it in terms of the issue of gun control as well).

I do think that capitalism in general is very short-sighted; it rarely plans for anything other than the next profit and share dividend, and I suspect that that is part of the motivation of putting off action – a fear of what action could mean to profits.

I also wonder – and here I'm stepping out on a limb – what role religion has to play in this. From what I read and see, a large number of US citizens consider themselves to be evangelical Christians – quite fundamentalist, in other words. If one believes that the world is going to end sometime soon, then perhaps one isn't going to worry too much about the future state of the planet. And with the exception of New Orleans, then as far as I know, climate change has yet to have a major impact on the US itself (and one could suggest that New Orleans isn't going to be allowed to bother the White House too much because it was primarily poor blacks who suffered). Let's face it, certain US religious extremists actually declared that that catastophe was God's punishment for the city allowing gay events. And if you say it's God's doing, then what action could you take anyway to have avoided such things or avoid them in the future?

Apparently, some support for the Iraq war has been from Christians who see chaos in the Middle East as a precondition to the second coming. Perhaps some people – including those in power, and we know that George W Bush has very particular religious beliefs – actually see predictions for 'the end times' being fulfilled by environmental degredation?

My suspicion is that the reality is complex and probably incorporates some or all of these things for different people considering the situation, although in terms of the decision makers, then the issue of profit is perhaps paramount; neither Republicans nor Democrats will easily take on big business in a way that could be perceived as being restrictive or anti-profit.

The problem is that the US is hugely important in the question of how the problem is tackled. It's very difficult, for instance, for the developed world to tell China and Russia (and other developing nations) what they should and should not do when the so-called leader of the free world is doing the opposite (the same can be said of arms development).

Other nations can only do so much. The US, by virtue of its global position at this stage in human history, has to set an example and take a lead.
 

JLS

Member
Sybarite,

I never claimed the effects aren't being seen now. They have been apparent for years. This doesn't make it an emergency. A global emergency is an immediate threat to humanity. The threat is real and apparent but it is long term. The human race will not be obliterated tomorrow, or next week, or next decade. Calling environmental issues an emergency is nothing short of fear tactics.
 

Sybarite

New member
Sybarite,

I never claimed the effects aren't being seen now. They have been apparent for years. This doesn't make it an emergency. A global emergency is an immediate threat to humanity. The threat is real and apparent but it is long term. The human race will not be obliterated tomorrow, or next week, or next decade. Calling environmental issues an emergency is nothing short of fear tactics.

I'm sorry JLS, but it is an emergency.

The effects of global warming are killing people. Now.

And particularly in the developing world, such as Bangladesh and Pakistan. It won't do for the rest of us, in the developed world, to ignore that reality.

And please don't think that I'm having a 'go' at you personally – I'm not intending to do that at all.
 

JLS

Member
I'm sorry JLS, but it is an emergency.

The effects of global warming are killing people. Now.

True. So are pesticides. By the thousands. That doesn't make pesticides an emergency. It makes it a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Far more people are killed each year by malaria than by all ecological damage combined. 650 million people a year are infected with it, yet I don't hear anyone shouting "global emergency". Environmental activists(like most activists) too often feel that fear tactics are the best way to motivate people to act for their cause. While this may be effective in the short term, in the long term it is self-defeating. Ignorance and extremism are the reasons we have the issues talked about in this thread. Education is the long-term solution; and the open and honest exchange of information is necessary for any real education to be possible.

Of course, people often get emotionally involved with their cause(s) and sometimes don't realize that they are engaging in hyperbole. They put aside issues of comparable(or greater) import because they do not feel the same emotional impact of those issues.

And please don't think that I'm having a 'go' at you personally – I'm not intending to do that at all.
Likewise. ...and to everyone in this thread.

:cheers:
 

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Great discussion, people ... nice friendly debate, too.

I'll just throw in my nickels worth - Ok, maybe it is and maybe it's not an 'emergency' right now, but at what point do the worlds problems constitute it being a priority matter? I mean, if nobody can define what 'normal' is, how on earth can we define what consitutes an 'emergency'?

If nothing is done at some level of priority now, the chances of anything being solved in the future are just going to be so far out of proportion that even a dire emergency condition declration in the future will not be able to resolve anything. Certainly, at least imho, there is no better time than the present to increase awareness and begin to accelerate the efforts to remedy the situations.

:tiphat:
 

Sybarite

New member
... If nothing is done at some level of priority now, the chances of anything being solved in the future are just going to be so far out of proportion that even a dire emergency condition declration in the future will not be able to resolve anything. Certainly, at least imho, there is no better time than the present to increase awareness and begin to accelerate the efforts to remedy the situations.

:tiphat:

Completely concur, Krummhorn. Even if it isn't currently an "emergency", to put off serious and decisive action will ensure that it becomes an "emergencey" at some point.
 

toejamfootball

New member
Agreed also, but I think when we live in a Society run by Money/Greed (Imo) Why would we expect the people in charge to give a rats ass about the issue.

I mean the higher ups had to know that we are slowly destroying the Earth years ago, and only recently now that its out in the open are the trying to clean things up. But only after the issue has been brought to the forefront.

What kind of results can we expect from people who knew about the problem but only started to try and fix it (or so they say) after the problem was exposed. In my opinion our biggest problem is the society we live in. If we lived in a Environmentally protective Society where the goal of life was teamwork and fairness, would the problem even have sprouted up in the first place?

I guess in all my babble what I am trying to say is.. Why bother fixing all of the problems in our Society, why not fix/change how our Society is as a whole.

(This is how I have no idea why I was arguing for my earlier point on Space Exploration :X)
 
Last edited:

zlya

New member
Some of the damage we are doing to our environment is not reversible. That means that in twenty years or fifty years or a hundred years when enough people start dying to fit your definition of an emergency, there will be NOTHING we can do about it.

In my opinion, and emergency is a situation which will have devastating consequences unless we take action immediately. If we do not take strong action NOW devastation WILL happen. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen and it will affect every person on this planet individually and the future of the human species as a whole. To me, that constitutes an emergency.

And the question was not, "What should we do to avoid global devastation?" or "How should we best use our money and energy resources?". Had it been, I would have of course pointed out the tremendous waste involved in wars, consumer culture, etc. But the question was specifically about space exploration. Space exploration is not the ONLY misuse of resources, and it is certainly not the worst misuse, but I believe it is a misuse, at a time when we can't afford any waste at all.
 

JLS

Member
Some of the damage we are doing to our environment is not reversible. That means that in twenty years or fifty years or a hundred years when enough people start dying to fit your definition of an emergency, there will be NOTHING we can do about it.

In my opinion, and emergency is a situation which will have devastating consequences unless we take action immediately. If we do not take strong action NOW devastation WILL happen. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen and it will affect every person on this planet individually and the future of the human species as a whole. To me, that constitutes an emergency.

I'm willing to listen if you can give examples of these things.

And the question was not, "What should we do to avoid global devastation?" or "How should we best use our money and energy resources?". Had it been, I would have of course pointed out the tremendous waste involved in wars, consumer culture, etc. But the question was specifically about space exploration. Space exploration is not the ONLY misuse of resources, and it is certainly not the worst misuse, but I believe it is a misuse, at a time when we can't afford any waste at all.
Well, I suppose this is a matter of values. You appear to hold space exploration to be of little value. You consider it a "waste" and a "misuse of resources". Others feel quite differently. I believe that it is essential to the long term growth of our species. What purpose does saving the environment have if we throw such things away? What if I claim that all of the money spent on musical pursuits is a waste? That music should be discarded in favor of the environment? Music is, after all, of far less practical value than space exploration. Would you find this claim absurd? I would...
 

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
. . . . . I mean the higher ups had to know that we are slowly destroying the Earth years ago, and only recently now that its out in the open are the trying to clean things up. But only after the issue has been brought to the forefront . . . . .

True - another way of phrasing this might be "political back pedalling"? The perception of those seeking election, in order to gain popularity, might "go with the flow", but when they find themselves between a rock and a hard place, their chant song takes a different tune :rolleyes: . Indeed they knew about the issues before being elected into office ... at least imo. Maybe I'm wrong on this ... :confused:
 

Sybarite

New member
Since the question of global warming/climate change has been mentioned and since I also have already mentioned the changing weather and flooding in the UK, perhaps posters would be interested to read the current state of play in the UK.

Nobody can remember anything like this.
 

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Wow, Sybarite ... that is one heck of a news item ... hopefully you are being spared this nasty blight of weather where you live?
 

Sybarite

New member
Wow, Sybarite ... that is one heck of a news item ... hopefully you are being spared this nasty blight of weather where you live?

London has been doing pretty well – although the area got hit just before the weekend. Personally, I haven't had any problems, but there was plenty of flash flooding in the area and public and private transport were both hit. It was virtually a tropical storm; around lunchtime on Friday, the skies had darkened to something like a late November afternoon, with cloud so low that it obliterated many landmarks (I work on the eighth floor of a blook very near the centre of London). Then the rain just emptied down – absolutely torrential. Yet within an hour or so, it was a lovely afternoon again.

We've been experiencing such weather increasingly in the last eight years or so (that I can specifically remember). That's why I don't hold with the idea that the weather has always been able to throw a curve ball to surprise people – this is happening now on a regular basis. I cannot recall hearing about so many floods in the UK as in the last few years. And winters are certainly warmer too.

Anyway, a couple of very brief showers apart, it just about held off yesterday afternoon and evening so that I could enjoy Blondie in a nearby park. Debbie Harry was in great form. :D

6.07pm update: as I said, London's been getting away fairly lightly, but other areas are having a torrid time.
 
Last edited:

methodistgirl

New member
space

Sybrite, I can't agree with you more about space exploration. Everytime
nasa gets busy sending spaceshuttles or rockets to space the weather
seems to change on us. The first time they did it with Apollo missions
the weather in Kentucky went mild during the winter and that's really
odd. Kentucky is known to have some rather snowy winters here. Last
year we had frozen everything with temperatures below freezing but
very little snow here. I would like to have some more winters like I
remembered while I was in high school when it would come these 8 to
10 inch snows that kept us out of school for a month. We didn't get
as many spring storms either.
judy tooley
 
Top