The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,059 times Debate No: 6113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (51)
Votes (6)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

(Definitions) It is good to want clean water and clean air. Most religions contain beneficial beliefs like "love thy neighbor" that are reasonable and practical guidelines for living. What distinguishes religion from ordinary social beliefs is an irrational component based upon faith. There are distinctive religious practices that only serve to please the gods of the religion or to increase the social binding of the group. For example, religious believers are called upon to perform certain ceremonies as a way of demonstrating their faith. This may or may not be harmful to society as a whole, but in any case faith-based belief characterizes religion. Note that traditional religions like Jainism and Buddhism do not require belief in a god or gods, so that not a defining factor.

For the purposes of this debate, a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives. This is close to the definition commonly used by academic theologians. For this debate, "ecology movement" is defined as the widespread belief system in the Western world that derives articles of faith from environmental considerations. It is not a narrow definition related to scientific study of the natural world. I use the word "ecology" simply for lack of a better word to describe the present movement. Just as one might define "Presbyterian" in terms of what Presbyterians believe, I will define the ecology movement by what its believers take on faith.

Here is partial list of the irrational beliefs that define the ecology movement. followers of the movement believe:

1. That smoking has substantial monetary health-care costs. Four independent studies have shown that smokers die young, saving as much in later health care costs as their acute illness from smoking costs. Yet, legislation has been enacted to recover non-existent costs. http://content.nejm.org...

2. That there can be no standard for the cleanliness of air by which it can be said to be safe for non-smokers to breathe, even voluntarily.

3. That there is an absolute virtue in saving water, even when there is no water shortage. We must always have toilets that don't flush and showers that dribble, because doing so is "good for the environment."

4. That anyone who does not believe in human-caused global warming is not just wrong, but is by denial a sinner and ought to be treated as a sinner. For example, MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen, an expert on convection models in the atmosphere, need not be taken seriously because he has reached the wrong conclusions. The science is subordinate to honoring eco-faith. http://www.boston.com...

5. That development of coal-to-oil conversion, drilling offshore and in ANWR, and of oil shale resources in the United states must be prohibited because bringing forth domestic carbon is sinful, whereas importing carbon is less sinful and should be permitted.

6. That morality demands that each person sort their garbage. For example, glass bottles must be carefully sorted at significant time and expense, even though they are ultimately buried. It is done as a symbolic act in deference to eco-gods.

7. That it is improper and immoral to mention that if a 100 megawatts of solar or wind power is brought on line, and equal amount of conventional power must be built at the same time, because the sun shines less than half the time and the wind blows about a third of the time. Counting the extra expense is even more immoral than talking about it.

8. That mass transit should be implemented even if it uses more energy and costs more money than automobiles.

9. That lights should always be shut off in unused rooms, even in winter when the heat from the lighting is exactly compensated by the room heater running less, so there is no energy savings. Mentioning this obvious fact is deemed sinful.

10. That it should be illegal to build flood gates to save the city of New Orleans, because when for the brief period the gates are closed, it would interfere with the breeding habits of a small fish.

This short list should suffice for the current debate, although there are many more irrationalities that could be cited, such as wildly irrational fears of nuclear power and irradiated food. Of course, not all followers believe every tenet of the religion, just as not every Catholic is opposed to abortion. The pattern is nonetheless clear.

If a traditional religion attempted to impose its irrational religious beliefs upon the public, it would be rejected as an outrage. Suppose some branch of Christianity declared that we should have toilets that don't flush or that glass bottles should be sorted for separate burial for the pleasure of God. The public would rebel at the imposition. However, the ecology movement is embraced so thoroughly that mandates having no purpose other than pleasing the eco-gods are accepted as ordinary.

The ecology movement should be recognized for what it is, a religion. Recognizing Christianity as a religion does nothing to diminish the value of "love thy neighbor." What recognizing a religion does is help us to distinguish symbolic acts of faith from rational acts that should govern public policy. We should defend the right of individuals to take cold showers and bury their glass bottles separately, just as we ought to defend the individual acts of faith of other religions. However, we should not have a government enforced state religion.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"For the purposes of this debate, a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives."

And here, it happens, is precisely the problem with the resolution. Guide their lives? Environmentalism is not used to guide lives, life is not the goal of an environmentalist. Environmentalism, or "the ecology movement" if you will, has exhibited a hatred of human life-- it is used by believers to guide their deaths.

The fundamental doctrine of the "Ecology movement" is that nature has intrinsic value, and that Man and his activities are fundamentally threats to this value. The logical consequence of this is that he should be eliminated. Any inconsistencies in advocating this are the consequence of tactical concerns, to make their policy goals more palatable, it does not alter the nature of the movement as such.

Whenever an environmentalist stops the development of, say, an energy source in a third world country, to "protect the rainforest," they are condemning the population there to massively shortened lives to that which could be-- and they wish to do the same to their own country, too.

Whenever the environmentalists push higher fuel efficiency standards, they create an increase in highway fatalaties-- basic physics here, heavier vehicles have more inertia, and are therefore better able to absorb collisions.

When they banned DDT, they condemned millions, some probably among their own number, to death by disease-- in the name of birds.

When they push for the ban of pesticides, fertilizers, and other yield-increasing agricultural technologies, they keep the food supply smaller, so that fewer can avoid starving.

The Sierra club, fairly mainstream for a part of the ecology movement, for example, has this to say about GM crops, which happen to expand the food supply and therefore reduce starvation: "In accordance with this Precautionary Principle, we call for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved."

INCLUDING THOSE NOW APPROVED: Translation: Including those already in use that have not harmed anyone, that are out there producing life-sustaining food.

If wilderness, ecosystems, biodiversity, are ends in themselves, it naturally follows that man has no moral right to clothe himself, to house himself, to eat, to live. Without rational foundation? Absolutely. Used to guide LIVES? Heck no. It's not lives, it's deaths, they are guiding.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

I asserted "For the purposes of this debate, a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives." You responded, "And here, it happens, is precisely the problem with the resolution. Guide their lives? Environmentalism is not used to guide lives, life is not the goal of an environmentalist. Environmentalism, or "the ecology movement" if you will, has exhibited a hatred of human life-- it is used by believers to guide their deaths."

I did not not assert that the goal of the ecology movement was to preserve lives. As you point out, that is clearly not the goal. In the movement, human life is subordinate to a certain concept of nature taken as an object of worship. The concept of "used by believers to guide their lives" does not imply anything about the purpose of guiding their lives. Religions have at various times demanded practices contrary to fulfillment of human life. For example, in the ancient Hawaiian religion, pre-1800, a commoner eating a banana committed a crime punishable by death, because all yellow objects were reserved for the priestly aristocracy. Nonetheless, the irrational rule about yellow objects was a clear factor in decisions about how a person in the religion conducted their affairs. The goal of the yellow object rule was clearly not to preserve life, but it is also clear the belief guided behavior.

Religious dictates may guide a believer to death. Some victims of human sacrifice are willing victims because they believe in the higher calling of the religion. The "guiding" clearly relates to the religious rule for behavior that is obeyed, not the consequences of the behavior.

Once it is understood that "guiding their lives" means the acceptance of rules for behavior by believers, based upon faith, then it follows that the additional examples you provide are supporting the resolution.

What we are seeing in society today is the rise of a great new fundamentalist faith. As you point out, the new faith has the potential for killing millions of people and devastating the economies of many countries. We should, as a starting point, recognize the fact that it is a religion.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
I did not not assert that the goal of the ecology movement was to preserve lives. As you point out, that is clearly not the goal. In the movement, human life is subordinate to a certain concept of nature taken as an object of worship. The concept of "used by believers to guide their lives" does not imply anything about the purpose of guiding their lives. Religions have at various times demanded practices contrary to fulfillment of human life. For example, in the ancient Hawaiian religion, pre-1800, a commoner eating a banana committed a crime punishable by death, because all yellow objects were reserved for the priestly aristocracy. Nonetheless, the irrational rule about yellow objects was a clear factor in decisions about how a person in the religion conducted their affairs."

Such religions do not count under your definition. "Guiding your affairs" is not the same as "guidng your life" if the affairs you partake in under something's guidance do not fall under the category "life." Especially when the fall under the opposite category, "death"-- specifically "Causes of."

"
Religious dictates may guide a believer to death. Some victims of human sacrifice are willing victims because they believe in the higher calling of the religion. The "guiding" clearly relates to the religious rule for behavior that is obeyed, not the consequences of the behavior."
I was not disputing the "Guiding" part in and of itself, only the "guiding life." The path being treaded along is death. Since you asserted the definition of religion as an unconditional assumption of this debate for both parties, anything which does not fall under it is not a religion for the purpose of this debate. Definitions so asserted should be chosen very carefully.

"
Once it is understood that "guiding their lives" means the acceptance of rules for behavior by believers"

How can such be the result of a proper understanding, when it is not life they are guiding? The behavior in question is anti-life.

"
What we are seeing in society today is the rise of a great new fundamentalist faith."

True, but that does not fulfill the requirements of "religion" that are assumed in this debate.

I would also like to note that the "Their" is also a relevant problem in "Guiding their lives." By taking up the -- yes, faith, though by the definition given irreligous faith-- of ecology, a human renounces any claim to a life-- if such should continue to exist by some accident, it can't count as theirs, they've already surrendered it, it belongs to the "Ecosystem" or whatever now.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

Con asserts, "Guiding your affairs" is not the same as "guiding your life" if the affairs you partake in under something's guidance do not fall under the category "life."

Of course is it is the same thing. After a person dies, there is nothing to be guided. Therefore there is no possibility that guidance applies to anything except life. During life a person makes decisions. The rules that guide those decisions guide his life. A jihadist makes decisions during his life, using his religion as a guide, that ultimately leads to his death by suicide. The affairs being guided clearly pertain to the category "life" because they all relate to decisions determining the course of the jihadist's life, no matter that they may ultimately lead to his death. All of the decisions made were during his life, therefore they were guiding his life.

If Con had doubt about what the definition meant, Con could use the clarification provided by "This is close to the definition commonly used by academic theologians." Theologians define religion in terms of mystical beliefs that cause a person to do something. There is no academic concept that a religion must, by definition, promote the length or quality of life. It would be nonsensical for such an errant definition to become the traditional academic one.

The classical definition is easily found. The definition of religion given by Wikipedia is the classical one to which I was referring, "A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power." http://en.wikipedia.org... The "set of conducts" are the things guiding the believer's life. The "ultimate power" for the eco-religion is the supremacy of nature. So while it is possible that I might have adopted an unusual definition of "religion" for the debate, I did not. More importantly, I told Con explicitly that I did not adopt an unusual definition by saying that my definition was close to the one commonly used by academic theologians. We know Con's interpretation of the definition is incorrect because it is not close to any classic academic definition.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I'll concede that the ambiguity in languages allows for the life, but you haven't addressed the "their" portion. Like I said, in espousing the doctrine they surrender the life, it's no longer theirs.
Debate Round No. 3
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
>What made them fertile deltas? Their coastal status, presumably.
Rivers (typically over millions of years) made them (by definition).

>>Yes but tell me, what area you calculate to be above 65 degrees north?
>On what evidence will everyone on earth have to move past 65 degrees north?
Climate models and fossil record.

>>There are more bacteria [...]
>I'll take your word for it, as it's largely irrelevant.
It was your claim I was countering.

>>BTW only a small minority of one's cells obey DIRECT orders from the brain."
>All one's own cells formed on those orders after a certain point, further, they can be altered by decisions from it anyway.
Only muscles, some glands (and arguably nerves) take orders directly from the brain.

>Great [...] = more evolutionary capability for cold blooded things = we eating lizard tonight!
Yep.

>I'd just go rabbit hunting, woohoo!
Don't you think people tried?
You'd go broke.
Watch this, it'll help you.

>It has, for practical purposes, a distinct separate existence.
>To both your whys :D.
Nothing can live without the rock, we are made of the stuff.

>>Yes? How?
>I'm not a freakin' professional fisherman.
No, and "freaking" professional fishermen haven't come up with a solution either after millenia.
Pie in the sky.

>>I believe most recognise the 200-mile economic zone... however this is a long way from fish-farming.
>I said PRIVATE PROPERTY not national territory lulz.
As I said.
Lulz yourself.

>>I am suggesting your beliefs are not likely to be taken up.
>Which is irrelevant to whether they are true :D.
That's actually true.
Must be at least marginally depressing though.

>>[Global avg is] about 15°C (~59°F)
>it'll be 10 degs F hotter [...] most places below 65 deg N
>are not going to be rendered uninhabitable by an increase in 10 deg F.
Because...?
Remember this has happened before.
You're going to lose Nebraska first...

Derek
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Why?"

It has, for practical purposes, a distinct separate existence.

To both your whys :D.

"Yes? How?"
I'm not a freakin' professional fisherman. If the native americans were fencing off rivers, I'm sure those who are professional fishermen can come up with something. If they can't, then I'll get out of the environmentalist's way in regard to the fish, but only after they've had a shot at it :D.

"Basically all countries recognise the world-wide 12-mile limit.
I believe most recognise the 200-mile economic zone... however this is a long way from fish-farming.
"
I said PRIVATE PROPERTY not national territory lulz. Extremely distinct concepts.

"
I am suggesting your beliefs are not likely to be taken up.
"
Which is irrelevant to whether they are true :D.

"No need to repeat yourself. It's about 15°C (~59°F)
"
So, in other words, it'll be 10 degrees fahrenheit hotter (according to the most extreme estimates out there) on average. And, as you just said, the poles get more of it. Even assuming they didn't, most places below 65 degrees north are not going to be rendered uninhabitable by an increase in 10 degrees fahrenheit.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"You say that as though there was something ingeniously insightful about it.
The point is that people will have to move from the relatively fertile deltas to the much less fertile highlands.
"
What made them fertile deltas? Their coastal status, presumably.

"Yes but tell me, what area you calculate to be above 65 degrees north?
"

On what evidence will everyone on earth have to move past 65 degrees north?

"Wrong again.
There are more bacteria (independent organisms) than there are cell in the rest of your body.
"
I'll take your word for it, as it's largely irrelevant.

"
BTW only a small minority of one's cells obey direct orders from the brain."
All one's own cells formed on those orders after a certain point, further, they can be altered by decisions from it anyway.

"The sauropods were cold-blooded. Crocodiles require 1/10th the food that lions do.
"
Great. Warmer temperatures = more evolutionary capability for cold blooded things = we eating lizard tonight!

"
If you were trying to live in Australia at the time of the rabbit plague, I expect you'd say different ;-)
"
No, I'd just go rabbit hunting, woohoo!

"
Yes, and all the other things mentioned - that's the point.
"
Humans are unlikely to eat rats extensively of course, which makes wolves a probable valid concern. But, as for the rest, the fact that we predate upon something indicates we don't miss out, indeed we benefit, when a competitor for it is gone.

"
Basically all carnivores do.

>And what do rats eat in the arctic?
Seeds, grass shoots, the odd insect in summer."
Doesn't sound to me like a big problem then if there're a few fewer wolves :d.

"
They were no more primative than you. They had writing, laws, commerce, some basic maths."
You forgot the whole point of the context of my statement-- the scientific method. The fact that they had writing, commerce by means of chariot, and a concept of law derived from their fear of gods does not save them from primi
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Roy,

>The actual temperatures are shown from Hadley and NASA data at http://www.factsandarts.com......
No.
If you want to be sure of your information you should get it from it's source.
"FactsAndArts" seem to have falsified this.
Given that they have lied in their graph - surely one must hesitate in believe any article based on it.

>There has been no upwards trend for about the past decade, and if anything the trend is now downwards.
Are you the same Roy Latham I argued with a couple of months ago?
If you are, I distinctly remember provinding links to graphs of measured temperature before.
All these points have already been covered.

>Arctic pack ice was last at present levels around 1930.
What??!!
Given that the Northwest Passage has never been open before in recorded history...
Your source??

>The IPCC projects no significant changes in the ice caps over the next hundred years.
Bollocks.
It's even in the IPCC's FAQs.

>The temperatures in the polar regions are so far below zero that even a 6 degree warming in polar winters has no effect.
Nonsense.
There were beech forests in Antarctica and breadfruit trees growing around Greenland.
Old fossil-record stuff.
Read of the palentology of the Permian era.

>Incidentally, I went to the IPCC site and they have no data prior to 2001 posted.
Because they didn't have it in digital form back then.

Roy... are you feeling all right?
I'm not trying to be rude, I really think you should go and see a doctor.
You seem to have forgotten an awful lot and have begun believing obvious falsehoods indiscriminately.

Sincerely,

Derek
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
>>If I call the planet "Gaia" it can be considered a specific entity.
>>Just as you are a colony of billions of equally independent life forms.
>The planet, in terms of a lump of rock, can be considered an entity.
Why?

>the things on top of it, however, are separate.
Why?

>the independent organisms are a small minority, the rest of the cells in my body obey direct orders from my brain.
Wrong again.
There are more bacteria (independent organisms) than there are cell in the rest of your body.
BTW only a small minority of one's cells obey direct orders from the brain.

>>Fence it off?
Yes? How?

>How many countries even recognize oceanic property in the first place?
Basically all countries recognise the world-wide 12-mile limit.
I believe most recognise the 200-mile economic zone... however this is a long way from fish-farming.

>Sauce?
Tomato chutney please.

>>Billions would disagree."
>When did I ever say I cared about billions?
I am suggesting your beliefs are not likely to be taken up.

>>The poles, particularly the North pole has already warmed by ~2 degrees.
>It seems you're arguing the poles warm fastest? So they don't have to move as far. :D
It's true, our children won't have to live on a narrow margin at 75 degrees north. ;-)

>>With 6 degrees C of warming, everyone left will be trying to live above of ~65 degrees North.
>wait wait wait... what's the present global average in celsius?
No need to repeat yourself. It's about 15°C (~59°F)

Cheers,

Derek
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
>>Where much of the World's population lives...
>Yeah... and there will be NEW COASTS. Duh. By definition. lol.
You say that as though there was something ingeniously insightful about it.
The point is that people will have to move from the relatively fertile deltas to the much less fertile highlands.

>>In the Northern... Canada, Siberia & the Scandinavians a bit.
>A bit? Russia and Canada are the two largest countries by landmass.
Yes but tell me, what area you calculate to be above 65 degrees north?

>>I was referring to the non desert land, which happened to support enough vegetation to feed animals much larger than we have today :D
Apart from some whales.
However, you mistakenly assume that larger animals mean that the world was more productive.
The sauropods were cold-blooded. Crocodiles require 1/10th the food that lions do.
Also, we don't have a very good idea as to the number at any one time.
Certainly there were heards of herbivors, but this common defensive strategy doesn't indicate total numbers.

>>How many examples of birds and insects would you like?
>No, I meant it was an example for me. Foxes are unneeded :D.
If you were trying to live in Australia at the time of the rabbit plague, I expect you'd say different ;-)

>>Wolves and rats. (Arctic)
>>Humans can eat wildebeest.
Yes, and all the other things mentioned - that's the point.

> but what else eats rats in the arctic?
Basically all carnivores do.

>And what do rats eat in the arctic?
Seeds, grass shoots, the odd insect in summer.

>>The farmland around the cities of Ur and Uruk are deserts despite once being farmland."
>Excuse me, I was speaking in the context of modern agriculture complete with some degree of scientific knowledge, not the actions of primitives.
They were no more primative than you. They had writing, laws, commerce, some basic maths.
They probably quibbled about the finer points of definitions too. ;-)

Cheers,

Derek
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Derek, CO2 theory says that the climate is currently dominated by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The offsetting factor of human caused particulates in decreasing. Solar activity is completely discounted as a factor, according to the theory. The levels of CO2 are increasing, therefore temperatures will rise unabated. The actual temperatures are shown from Hadley and NASA data at http://www.factsandarts.com... There has been no upwards trend for about the past decade, and if anything the trend is now downwards. It is true that there has been a string of warm years, but that says nothing of the trend. CO2 theory says that we are supposed to be on a hockey stick graph, and that there is nothing to stop it. So there is clearly something wrong with CO2 theory. Perhaps it is direct intervention by Thor, but the theory that is supposed to predict the future of climate is not predicting. Solar theorists have predicted this downturn, and are predicting that it will get colder. However, this amounts to predicting the weather on the Sun, which is far from an exact science.

No one I know of is saying that there is no global warming. There has been a continual general upward trend since the end of the Little Ice Age, c. 1800. Arctic pack ice was last at present levels around 1930. It comes and goes with more facility than the ice caps on land. The IPCC projects no significant changes in the ice caps over the next hundred years. The temperatures in the polar regions are so far below zero that even a 6 degree warming in polar winters has no effect.

Incidentally, I went to the IPCC site and they have no data prior to 2001 posted. The older written reports used to available at $75 each, but are now out of print. I was curious about the past predictions of sea level rise over the next hundred years. The prediction in the latest report is nine inches. Do you know what past predictions were?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"How interesting. What benefit is there to your perceived separation?
"
It divides the category of rational and nonrational actors. The former alone has rights, which is an important political quesiton.

"Is it?
If I call the planet "Gaia" it can be considered a specific entity.
Just as you are a colony of billions of equally independent life forms.
"
The planet, in terms of a lump of rock, can be considered an entity.
the things on top of it, however, are separate.
the independent organisms are a small minority, the rest of the cells in my body obey direct orders from my brain.

"No, you misunderstood.
Despite the incentives and excellent GPS technology, hardly any of the ocean is farmed because policing is so difficut.
"
Fence it off?
How many countries even recognize oceanic property in the first place?
Sauce?

"You may not think so.
Billions would disagree."
When did I ever say I cared about billions?

"So simple.
6 degrees of warming is an average.
The poles, particularly the North pole has already warmed by ~2 degrees.
"
It seems you're arguing the poles warm fastest? So they don't have to move as far. :D

"
With 6 degrees C of warming, everyone left will be trying to live above of ~65 degrees North.
"
wait wait wait... what's the present global average in celsius?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Where much of the World's population lives...
"
Yeah... and there will be NEW COASTS. Duh. By definition. lol.

"
In the South... almost nothing - Southern chile?
In the Northern... Canada, Siberia & the Scandinavians a bit."
A bit? Russia and Canada are the two largest countries by landmass.

"Not very productive, there were large deserts.
"
I was referring to the non desert land, which happened to support enough vegetation to feed animals much larger than we have today :D.

"How many examples of birds and insects would you like?"
No, I meant it was an example for me. Foxes are unneeded :D.

"Crocodiles, lions and wilderbeest.(Africa)
Wolves and rats. (Arctic)"
Humans can eat wildebeest.
Desperate ones might eat rats too... but what else eats rats in the arctic? And what do rats eat in the arctic? Important to determine whether there is a problem there.

"Not always true.
The farmland around the cities of Ur and Uruk are deserts despite once being farmland."

Excuse me, I was speaking in the context of modern agriculture complete with some degree of scientific knowledge, not the actions of primitives.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
>>So you believe that people at some point (by your definition) cease to be animals?
>Yes, they cease to be animals in the philosophical sense.
How interesting. What benefit is there to your perceived separation?

>I'm a specific entity. The biosphere is a nonspecific abstraction.
Is it?
If I call the planet "Gaia" it can be considered a specific entity.
Just as you are a colony of billions of equally independent life forms.

>You misunderstood. That's a problem of the commons.
>If you apply private property to it, the incentives to maintain it police themselves.
No, you misunderstood.
Despite the incentives and excellent GPS technology, hardly any of the ocean is farmed because policing is so difficut.

>>"Much better to reduce human fertility."
>I'm all in favor of reproducing less, though not for environmental reasons.
Jolly good. Of course we would do anything for the environment.
After all, what has the enviroment done for us? ;-)

>>Things have got to change. [WRT oil]
>And they are on a pace to. No big deal.
You may not think so.
Billions would disagree.

>>Can you honestly say that any sane person would wish those conditions [extinction] upon themselves?
>It's called oppurtunity, my good Gunn.
I suppose it will be - for rats and cockroaches.
What opportunity do you see?

>>With 6 degrees of warming, what's left of the human race is likely to be gathered around the
>>poles for several hundred thousand years."
>Nah... just move everything six temperature-degrees worth toward the poles, and carry on. :D
So simple.
6 degrees of warming is an average.
The poles, particularly the North pole has already warmed by ~2 degrees.
With 6 degrees C of warming, everyone left will be trying to live above of ~65 degrees North.
During the Eocene (5 degrees of warming) breadfruit trees (found now only in tropical Pacific Islands) grew in Greenland (fossil evidence).

Cheers,

Derek
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by adamh 8 years ago
adamh
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ped-X-ing 8 years ago
Ped-X-ing
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
RoyLathamRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40