Don't ignore Maslow's hierarchy. Impoverished people can't afford freedom, even if it's open to them. Worried or insecure people will choose security over freedom.
So, make them more insecure.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Don't ignore Maslow's hierarchy. Impoverished people can't afford freedom, even if it's open to them. Worried or insecure people will choose security over freedom.
The problem imo is we have developed a culture of freedom. The freedom to do what you want, identify as who you want, go where you want, buy what you want. Freedom is resource intensive. The idea of the article is to try and manipulate this culture. Using media, entertainment, advertising to get people to desire less freedom.
Freedom equals happiness. That belief is causing a resource crisis.
I suspect the fear of losing our freedoms is greater than the fear of any coming environmental crisis.
I think you would need to culture the belief that "managed care" equal happiness. IOW, someone/something else sees to your needs not you. Giving up your freedom now means giving up your happiness.
Good luck trying to convince people that freedom is bad for them.
My first reaction was to engage you w/ topsoil and aquifers but that's a think-process that I don't find bouncing around w/ various subjects to be useful. The geophysical process that I mentioned is the supposed catastrophic global warming that many talk about --and until I see hard measurements supporting that warming I'll have to peg this topic w/ stories about clairvoyance that talking to the dead. It may be true but it's unproven.
The report I linked to stated that immediate action is needed to solve the problems including:-
- Transition rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy – wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power
- Prevent mercury pollution of the oceans by eliminating coal combustion and controlling all industrial uses of mercury.
- End plastic pollution of the oceans by reducing plastic production and imposing a global ban on production of single-use plastic.
- Promote effective waste management and recycling
- Reduce agricultural releases of nitrogen, phosphorus and animal waste; industrial discharges; and releases of human sewage into coastal waters.
- Support robust monitoring of ocean pollution.
- Extend regional and international marine pollution control programs to all countries.
- Support research programs that increase knowledge of the extent, severity and human health impacts of ocean pollution.
- Create, expand and safeguard Marine Protected Areas.
Do you disagree with any of these? I fully agree with you that an enforceable international treaty for curbing marine and estuarine pollution is urgently needed. I was just saying that reports like the one I linked by an international group of scientists would hopefully be a key first step towards that goal.
It's far greener than the alternatives that are being replaced. I can dig up research on lifecycle emission intensities of all renewables in comparison with fossil fuels based generation. They are at least one order of magnitude less.Mostly agreed. But the problem is that - as they exist today - wind and solar at least are not as green as we're led to believe.
I think we have to analyze these approaches from a perspective broader than just emissions. For example, the emissions from a lithium mine need to be considered, but the mine ALSO produces huge amounts of other kinds of problems. For example, that mine can foul huge aquifers, it can make large swaths of land uninhabitable for man and beast. And then what are the impacts of spent lithium batteries? How do we dispose of them?It's far greener than the alternatives that are being replaced. I can dig up research on lifecycle emission intensities of all renewables in comparison with fossil fuels based generation. They are at least one order of magnitude less.
We can discuss the relative environmental problems associated with lithium mining vs oil drilling. I believe the latter is far more damaging. FurtherI think we have to analyze these approaches from a perspective broader than just emissions. For example, the emissions from a lithium mine need to be considered, but the mine ALSO produces huge amounts of other kinds of problems. For example, that mine can foul huge aquifers, it can make large swaths of land uninhabitable for man and beast. And then what are the impacts of spent lithium batteries? How do we dispose of them?
I think there is truth to that. But I'd refine it a bit and say we've developed a culture of artificial, unsustainable hedonism. One example of something powerful we could do is phase out all government subsidies. So beef for example would probably climb up to costing $50 / pound. That's a better indicator of how much it damages the planet to produce a pound of beef. And most likely, consumption would go down.
We can discuss the relative environmental problems associated with lithium mining vs oil drilling. I believe the latter is far more damaging. Further
a) Lithium can be recycled unlike CO2
b) Most of lithium is being used in electronics for cell phones and laptops and that market will remain the primary consumer of lithium
c) Lithium can be replaced by sodium ion batteries for EVs and technology is already moving towards that end. So usage of lithium will decrease in renewable energy within 20-30 years. So lithium should looked at as a transitional tech.
I'm with you, I've felt the same way for years. You and I are subsidizing factory farming and ecological destruction so that people can eat beefI don't eat beef or meat but if the government stopped subsidizing beef, I don't suppose I get a tax break.
I blame the monolith.So, humans are going crazy? That's no surprise.
here's a standard definition of "overshoot":Climate change is a symptom of overshoot. Overshoot is the real issue. So for the sake of discussion, I could agree that we don't have to worry about climate change. (I think we do, but we could take it off the table for this discussion.) We're still left with all of the other existential issues associated with overshoot. Fresh water and topsoil being two important concerns.
The official phrase is "ecological overshoot". These days it is often shortened to just "overshoot".here's a standard definition of "overshoot":
View attachment 88681
Nobody's using a standard definition here, everyone seems to have their own one made up to suit whatever nonsense their spouting.
I am parking this paper link here for reference. I will read it and get back to you with numbers in my next post.As I said, lithium is just one example of many. But we can stick with lithium for now.
- isn't it the case that recycling lithium is extremely inefficient, low yield and toxic?
- I thought EVs were also a major consumer of lithium, no?
- And wouldn't an EV use 100x or more lithium than a personal device?
- We can hope that lithium is transitional, but does that mean we need to just accept all the toxins that lithium mining adds to the environment for the next 20-30 years?
- Isn't it the case that EVs require a wide array of metals to produce? All of which must be mined?
Whoa, that THAT'S what I've needed here --THANKS!The official phrase is "ecological overshoot". These days it is often shortened to just "overshoot".
Frankly, I'd have a hard time seeing any global measurement of potable water and topsoil availability, much less being able to scientifically show how any shortage was caused by man made CO2. What I would believe is that leaders of a given political partisan faction could drum up a big following that could perceive some kind of crisis, but observable hard measurements would be a whole different ball game...We're still left with all of the other existential issues associated with overshoot. Fresh water and topsoil being two important concerns.
Frankly, I'd have a hard time seeing any global measurement of potable water and topsoil availability, much less being able to scientifically show how any shortage was caused by man made CO2. What I would believe is that leaders of a given political partisan faction could drum up a big following that could perceive some kind of crisis, but observable hard measurements would be a whole different ball game.
Huh, I was not aware that I was advocating that idea.First you have to abandon the idea that all of our ecological problems are caused by CO2.
We really can't make believable statements without some kind of supporting data.Aquifer and topsoil depletion are happening mostly independent of CO2 levels. They are happening because humans are using and abusing these critical resources much, much faster than nature can restore them.
--and you have valid hard numbers on the amount of topsoil in the U.S. in 1824 and can compare it to equally valid numbers for 2024?For example, in the last 200 years, most of the US's topsoil is gone. It took thousands of years for that topsoil to be created.
Huh, I was not aware that I was advocating that idea.
We really can't make believable statements without some kind of supporting data.
--and you have valid hard numbers on the amount of topsoil in the U.S. in 1824 and can compare it to equally valid numbers for 2024?
Let's reach an understanding here on how our approaches differ. You made the statement...I just did an internet search on the phrase "topsoil depletion in the US". If you're interested, you could learn a lot with just a few minutes of reading.
--and I asked for supporting data. Often when I chat w/ advocates for environmental concerns I often hear about how it's my job --nobody else's-- to do the research. However, it's my thinking that if someone makes a claim then it's their job to support the claim w/ recorded observations....in the last 200 years, most of the US's topsoil is gone...
Often when I chat w/ advocates for environmental concerns I often hear about how it's my job --nobody else's-- to do the research. However, it's my thinking that if someone makes a claim then it's their job to support the claim w/ recorded observations.
fwiw, you're in very good company as most environmentalists I chatted w/ feel that the research is my job.