Philosophical Vegan Forum

Eqeuls wrote: Isn't it concerning how blind humans are to the destruction of our planet?

It's hard for them to see it, since it's happening slowly, so they have to trust measurements and the scientists, which they don't. They trust the Bible, and where "God said he wouldn't flood the Earth again" so they think there's nothing to worry about. Religion causes serious problems in public policy on some issues.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Eqeuls wrote: Isn't it concerning how blind humans are to the destruction of our planet?

It's hard for them to see it, since it's happening slowly, so they have to trust measurements and the scientists, which they don't. They trust the Bible, and where "God said he wouldn't flood the Earth again" so they think there's nothing to worry about. Religion causes serious problems in public policy on some issues.

Is there actually a passage in the bible where God explicitly states a promise never to flood the Earth again?

It's bad enough that so many people are already so genuinely ignorant about the causes and effects of climate change. With wilful ignorance (particularly religiously-driven) added to the mix, it becomes so much harder to inform people about environmental issues, and motivate them to make lifestyle changes that properly combat the aforementioned issues. How strong of an impediment do you consider religion to be, to informing & motivating the masses about environmental issues (particularly climate change)?

By the way, this is a fascinating discussion thread and I'd like you to know that I've read all of it so far, and will try to comment on it more soon.

It's hard for them to see it, since it's happening slowly, so they have to trust measurements and the scientists, which they don't

Agreed. I think there are 3 main factors for our "ignorance"

- The first one is the one you stated - it's happening so slowly, that humans can't comprehend their actions until it's too late.
- People in the developed world aren't willing to give up their comfort to better the circumstances for the whole society.
- Communities in developing countries, can't be forced to change their life circumstances / have no other options than those that are available.

Religion causes serious problems in public policy on some issues

I also agree on this, although my view of religion is heavily influenced on Alain de Bottoms views. He basically states, that apart from the miracle nonsense - religion has some very good emotional values to teach.
You might have seen his speech about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br8m2S98HU4

But I think its is very important to split goverment and religion strictly, so one can't interfere with the other.

Is there actually a passage in the bible where God explicitly states a promise never to flood the Earth again?

I haven't studied the Bible, I can't give you an answer on this.

How strong of an impediment do you consider religion to be, to informing & motivating the masses about environmental issues (particularly climate change)?

I thought about that and googled "The popes stance on climate change"
There is an article on the NY-Times (Which is heavily liberal if I recall correctly), which states that the pope actually released a papal document in 2015, informing the follower of christianity about the importance of climate change. The question on hand is - can you legislate a religion? Or can you only influence your followership. And if so, will they actually make changes in their lifes - or will they deny the pope's position and solely follow their holy book?

Here's the article mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/opini ... .html?_r=0

brimstoneSalad wrote:Amsterdamunderwater.jpg

I think we have a few members living around there.
This might be a reality in as little as 30 years, but almost certainly in our lifetimes.

My house would be underwater, yes. But then again, it's already below sea level; most of the Netherlands is. It's not so much us I worry about, even though even more work on water control would cost us incredible amounts of money. Thing is, we can actually afford it. Many developing countries, particularly in Oceania, cannot, and will suffer far more from the rising sea level.

We'll see more severe tropical storms and hurricanes

Do you have some evidence for this? I haven't seen any particularly convincing reports on this claim, and have stopped perpetuating it due to my uncertainty.

miniboes wrote: My house would be underwater, yes. But then again, it's already below sea level; most of the Netherlands is. It's not so much us I worry about, even though even more work on water control would cost us incredible amounts of money. Thing is, we can actually afford it.

Elect Trump, he'll build a wall. He's an expert on building walls to keep out dirty Mexicans seawater.

I think that's one of those thing much more easily said than done. The hydraulic pressure could force seawater inland through the ground itself, salinating groundwater and seeping up into the soil. This could kill off most plant life in the area and make farming impossible, as well as destabilize foundations. The costs would climb exponentially as the sea level did. I wouldn't assume it's more affordable than relocation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-walls-may-be-cheaper-than-rising-waters/

This is very optimistic, and plans for only about a ten inch increase in sea level (which should be manageable), the same solutions are unlikely to work for a two meter or larger change. Too much pressure, and the waves are too high.

miniboes wrote: Do you have some evidence for this? I haven't seen any particularly convincing reports on this claim, and have stopped perpetuating it due to my uncertainty.

It's mechanistic: it's just how weather works. Atmospheric thermal energy powers storms.

brimstoneSalad wrote:A good rule of thumb is to buy whatever is cheaper. Energy costs are passed down to the consumer, so if it's more expensive it probably took more energy to produce unless there were subsidies involved (or economies of scale or ridiculous consumer markups going on).

Are you referring to supply and demand in that last part? Take for example brown rice which is more expensive than white rice although it requires less work to produce. I'm guessing the only reason it costs more is that demand is lower.

Jebus wrote: Are you referring to supply and demand in that last part? Take for example brown rice which is more expensive than white rice although it requires less work to produce. I'm guessing the only reason it costs more is that demand is lower.

Right, that's partially an issue of economy of scale. Brown rice may also spoil faster than white rice, though, so that could be another factor.