Love 4 Mother Earth

I wanted to open a discussion about this. I remember seeing a documentary about the aftermath of Chernobyl in the exclusion zone, and the wildlife is thriving there after the nuclear disaster. You can read an article about this here Do Animals in Chernobyl’s Fallout Zone Glow? The unlikeliest wildlife sanctuary. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html What will happen, in the event that we, human beings, make the Earth uninhabitable for us and become extinct. I think life on planet Earth will continue,and new species will be created, able to survive the new conditions.

I love George Carlin, he speaks some deep truths, so I wanted to share this video with you. I don't agree with some of the stuff he says, but he makes some good points. I like his point that it is not about saving the Planet, it's about saving ourselves. We, as a species, are endangered. We are endangering ourselves. The way we live on this Planet is not sustainable. I know it does not look like it right now, because there are 6 billion people and a growing population -- but in the big picture, the countdown has begun, our time is running out. We will make this planet uninhabitable for us. Anyway, here is the video, a quite funny one, comments are welcome.

Living in the UK, I used to throw away about 2 black binbags a week (just me and my girlfriend) Most rubbish is created by food packing at the supermarket. The packaging is getting silly. I know products will sell better in a flashy packaging, but 50 percent of my garbage is packaging. Maybe this is why there is more rubbish in developed countries. In less developed countries you just buy the stuff you need at the market, with no packaging. You can find a great article about this here http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/17/recycling-supermarkets-packaging

I suppose we never learn from the past mistakes ancient civilizations have made. Only now we literally have the power to destroy the planet. Science and technology have given us the means to destroy this planet. Things look pretty bleak. I really doubt that anyone is in control. Perhaps the politicians, but they will wake up only when it is too late. The way I see it, there will come a time when resources will become scarce, so there will be massive wars and population purges. The strong ones will survive. It's all in Darwin's survival of the fittest. The most technologically advanced nation will destroy the poorer nations and take their resources. It is already happening. Look at the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. It's all about resources: oil in particular. The US are waging war, and taking what they need. When resources are even more scarce, more such wars will follow.

Heonologist, you make a good point Maybe Sahara is just a bald patch on Earth's head :D :D If we compare the age of our planet with the age of a person, scientists claim the Planet is about 40 years old. Maybe it's just going bald in some places. Romans were also responsible for killing most lions in North Africa, and many other wild animals for that matter. They used to kill animals for the games at the Colloseum. This is an interesting article http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/persecution_roman.php Simon Thank you for all the interesting links. So, is it possible that the desertification was caused by monoculture? If they just cultivated the same plant for a hundred years, it is possible that the soil eroded. First deforestation, then monoculture -- perhaps these two factors together have created the desert. I think this quote by Brazil’s former President Lula is a good one. He said in 2007 that “the wealthy countries are very smart, approving protocols, holding big speeches on the need to avoid deforestation, but they already deforested everything." I agree with his point, and have thought of that before. Nevertheless, the Amazon jungle are the last remaining lungs of the planet. If we cut down all the forests, and just have agricultural lands, the oxigen levels will decrease. It is bad enough as it is, with the exhaust fumes letting out huge quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Planet now, compared to how it was 2 thousand years ago -- is like a 40 year old chain smoker who is going bald, and has a drug habit (the drug habit is all the pollution). It hasn't got much more time left to live.

I agree. The problem is not only overpopulation, the problem is greed. People who overconsume, who have a huge carbon footprint. Millionaires who have yachts and an insatiable greed. They are worse for the environment than overpopulation. Some Africans live on less than one dollar a day, Ethiopia is hardly overpopulated. It is overpopulated considering the scarce resources it has. That's why people are dying of hunger. A drought comes -- and there is no food, so people are dying. And the drought is caused by the pollution and exhaust fumes from the cars in the West. We are partly responsible for Africa's food problem. Now it is a bit cynical to tell the people of Ethiopia - don't procreate because you have no food. David Attenborough has made millions from his programs. He is one of the rich overconsumers. His new worth is 35 million. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/david-attenborough-net-worth/ He probably consumes as much as an entire Ethiopian village. I am tired of these megarich celebrities preaching to ordinary normal people. Like Madonna saying "Save the environment", then getting into her SUV, on her way to her million dollar mansion with a huge carbon footprint.

Soda is addictive, sugar in general is addictive. Sweets. chocolate have an addictive component. You get sugar cravings. It's been a few years since I hardly eat any sweets, and never drink any sugar soft-drinks. . I think the key to this is eating lots of fruits. Fruits are rich in natural sugar, and the difference is: a candy bar will give you a sugar high, and then a sugar low, followed by a craving - whereas if you eat 4-5 bananas, you get a natural high, without the low, you feel full of energy and you feel good and healthy. I think this is the key to kicking the soda habit - getting your sugar fix from fruit, and why not, from freshly squeezed fruit juice. Buy a juicer and drink fresh juice. It will help you kick the soda habit in no time.

This is definitely a step in the right direction. I did not know the EU banned bee-harming pesticides. This is great news. Thanks for the info. Hopefully the US will follow suit, because without the bees, there is no pollination, and without pollination, there are no fruits. It is a massive scale disaster. I hope the US take notice. I saw a documentary about a region in China where they were forced to pollinate the fruit orchards by hand, because the bees had died out.

I think animals are already starting to have rights. When you kill a pig, or a calf, you have to do it in a "humane" fashion. At least in the EU, there are rules and regulations. It's not much, but it's a start. Who knows, maybe in a hundred years' time, they will have more rights, gradually. However, considering the overpopulation on this planet - it would be impossible to feed the entire population on non-animal food. There simply isn't enough food for 6 billion people. And by the way, why the discrimination? Plants are living beings too. If you hug a tree, you can feel the tree responding to your hug. Scientists have even managed to record a kind of "tree language". For instance, if a man fells a tree with an axe, the other trees start feeling distress (this has been recorded with highly sensitive machines) This is where it gets interesting. If a man holding an axe approaches the trees with the intent of cutting down trees - the trees immediately feel distressed. If a man holding an axe, approaches the trees in a peaceful state of mind, without any aggressive intent - the trees don't feel distress. What does this show? That trees are intelligent. Plants are living beings too. Why should we discriminate between them and animals? Plants should have rights too.

This is topic is not really about Sahara, but mostly about what is happening right now in the Amazon. Massive deforestation is going on in order to provide paper for countless newspapers and magazines, stationery, furniture in the West. The Western countries are willing to pay for all the wood, and the poor Amazon countries are willing to sell their resources for a quick buck, without even thinking of future generations. If this goes on recklessly, what is now the Amazon forest could one day become the Amazon desert. What do you think? I would like to discuss this aspect also. Do you think the Amazon is in danger of becoming a desert. With our incredibly advanced deforestation technology, we could create an ecological disaster of massive proportions.

I would like to start a topic about the Sahara desert. Did you know that only 6000 years ago, this immense area was not a desert, it was a thriving forest. Sahara became the desert we know today about 2700 years ago. Some scientists say that it was because of climate change, or a change in the axis of the Earth. But I am not convinced. Why didn't this climate change take place in South America as well? Why didn't the Amazon jungle become a desert. Scientist forget that 6000 years ago, the Earth was populated. The Egyptians were a thriving civilization, building incredible pyramids. I think the Sahara desert was also created through mass deforestation. And the same thing is happening right now in the Amazon. Perhaps in a few millenia, the Amazon will also become a desert. What do you think? Was the Sahara a natural event or the result of reckless deforestation? The ancient civilizations were more advanced that we sometimes like to admit. 6000 to 2700 years ago is quite recent.

People deny climate change, because they like their SUVs and their technological comforts. They don't want to know how bad things really are. They only think about their Ipods, Macs and their McDonalds chicken nuggets. In my opinion, these people are in denial. And how can anyone say that pollution is nature at work? If the humans self-destruct as a species and turn the Earth into an uninhabitable place for them - you cannot call it "Nature at work". Even if Global Warming is part of a natural cycle, there is still the pollution, the destruction of the ozone layer, the poisoning of the oceans (most fish are affected by mercury poisoning) which are slowly destroying the Planet. You cannot deny those. If they catch a fish, they can test the amount of mercury it contains. They can measure the pollution, the toxic waste. Even if global warming is natural, pollution isn't.

The thing is, most of the overpopulation is in relatively poor, undeveloped countries. In countries like UK there has been a decrease of the original population (excluding the newcomers, the immigrants), most people have one or two children. Overpopulation happens in countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China. For instance, India alone now accommodates 1.27 billion people. It's mind-blowing. I agree that overpopulation is a huge problem - but even if you reduce population in the West, the poorer countries will reproduce more, and those people will just emigrate to richer countries. I feel very strongly about overpopulation. But it is almost impossible to implement a population decrease program globally.