FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Why save the planet?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

OK, so before I'm lynched, this is a discussion point not an indication that I don't care.

It has been said that you cannot make 'ought' from 'is' that is (in this particular case) we can use science to say with a degree of confidence what the earth *is*, what our effect on it *is*, what it's likely future *is* but none of this knowledge tells us what we *ought* to do. Saving the planet is based entirely on what some, perhaps most, believe we 'ought' to do. We ought to make sure that generations to come don't inherit a toxic garbage dump etc. So my question is why?

In less time than life has existed all life on earth will be extinguished by the sun becoming a red giant and turning our planet into a crisp. That is assuming no other disaster befalls life first. Prior to that, why ought we to have life of any kind, least of all human life? Why ought we preserve a planet suitable for human kind? Prevent species going extinct - remember something like 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct and yet life continues?

Random thoughts for a Wednesday afternoon.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an4funMan
over a year ago

london

There are a few years left in the planet for future generations of humans to enjoy. However, the planet would be better off without humans for those remaining years. So for me, yes to saving the planet and no to saving the human race. Booooom!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emorefridaCouple
over a year ago

La la land

You trying to avoid work or something Mr?

I'm either not awake or d*unk enough for the OP today. But I like the planet not looking like my boy's bedroom if that kinda answers the OP

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"There are a few years left in the planet for future generations of humans to enjoy. However, the planet would be better off without humans for those remaining years. So for me, yes to saving the planet and no to saving the human race. Booooom!"

In what way would it be "better"? I don't mean as in more species would survive etc, I mean why is that "better"

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Random thoughts?! This is philosophy and meaning of life stuff.

Does life have meaning in and of itself? Is there inherent special something to life?

If the planet blew up tomorrow then no it doesn't matter it's just another dot in the cosmos to disappear.

But with humans having consciouness and a sense of past, present, future on a smaller scale it matters to individuals whether they will cease to exist.

Once you have life do you not want to have life? Or to live on a massively polluted planet?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"You trying to avoid work or something Mr?

I'm either not awake or d*unk enough for the OP today. But I like the planet not looking like my boy's bedroom if that kinda answers the OP "

Mmmm maybe

I share your likes but what do we say to people whose for example like shooting endangered species? Surely if we are telling others how they ought to behave there has to be more than our likes to base that on?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Random thoughts?! This is philosophy and meaning of life stuff.

Does life have meaning in and of itself? Is there inherent special something to life?

If the planet blew up tomorrow then no it doesn't matter it's just another dot in the cosmos to disappear.

But with humans having consciouness and a sense of past, present, future on a smaller scale it matters to individuals whether they will cease to exist.

Once you have life do you not want to have life? Or to live on a massively polluted planet?

"

Yep, totally. I tend to be suspicious of any things I feel strongly about and questing them

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emorefridaCouple
over a year ago

La la land


"You trying to avoid work or something Mr?

I'm either not awake or d*unk enough for the OP today. But I like the planet not looking like my boy's bedroom if that kinda answers the OP

Mmmm maybe

I share your likes but what do we say to people whose for example like shooting endangered species? Surely if we are telling others how they ought to behave there has to be more than our likes to base that on? "

True enough but to me every animal has its part to play in the ecosystem. So killing all endangered animals for sport is a bit shitty in my opinion not just the cute fluffy ones. But I think there is a hypocrisy the way developed countries tell poorer ones you can't do that we don't. Well no we don't now because we're basking in the wealth the industrial revolution afforded us. How are poorer countries supposed to catch up if they don't have their own revolutions?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes we should save the planet, however 100% disagree that goverments use it as a way to skim more money from the public

in the 80’s we were told to stop chopping down the trees and move to plastics, now back to chopping trees down when were realising the plastic is worse

in the 2010s, fo to diesal cars, there better than unleaded, by 2020 its electric or bust with no mention of the damage dine mining the materials used for electric batteries let alone disposal

they close roads, add lights to slow down traffic so they can charge a green tax on city pollution rather than creating a way for traffic to move quickly

not to mention the 10000 houses they add to every green space, removing flood planes, increasing traffic

and…..a country such as the if is heavily taxed, told to switch off our low energy light bulbs while countries such as china burn penguins for fuel

its backwards and soley based on greed, where screwed either way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"You trying to avoid work or something Mr?

I'm either not awake or d*unk enough for the OP today. But I like the planet not looking like my boy's bedroom if that kinda answers the OP

Mmmm maybe

I share your likes but what do we say to people whose for example like shooting endangered species? Surely if we are telling others how they ought to behave there has to be more than our likes to base that on?

True enough but to me every animal has its part to play in the ecosystem. So killing all endangered animals for sport is a bit shitty in my opinion not just the cute fluffy ones. But I think there is a hypocrisy the way developed countries tell poorer ones you can't do that we don't. Well no we don't now because we're basking in the wealth the industrial revolution afforded us. How are poorer countries supposed to catch up if they don't have their own revolutions? "

But that is typical human behaviour, it is always far easier to criticise what others do than question our own actions. Very easy to condemn human rights violations and animal cruelty while carefully not asking any questions about our £10 pair of shoes and chicken Kiev

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emorefridaCouple
over a year ago

La la land


"You trying to avoid work or something Mr?

I'm either not awake or d*unk enough for the OP today. But I like the planet not looking like my boy's bedroom if that kinda answers the OP

Mmmm maybe

I share your likes but what do we say to people whose for example like shooting endangered species? Surely if we are telling others how they ought to behave there has to be more than our likes to base that on?

True enough but to me every animal has its part to play in the ecosystem. So killing all endangered animals for sport is a bit shitty in my opinion not just the cute fluffy ones. But I think there is a hypocrisy the way developed countries tell poorer ones you can't do that we don't. Well no we don't now because we're basking in the wealth the industrial revolution afforded us. How are poorer countries supposed to catch up if they don't have their own revolutions?

But that is typical human behaviour, it is always far easier to criticise what others do than question our own actions. Very easy to condemn human rights violations and animal cruelty while carefully not asking any questions about our £10 pair of shoes and chicken Kiev

"

That's the thing, everything is so disposable. We worry about plastic straws yet a washing machine lasts a few years and far too expensive to fix so you buy a new one. Seems to me priorities are all wrong but I'm no expert on these things.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 09/06/21 15:39:34]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rMojoRisinMan
over a year ago

Sheffield

The planet doesn’t need saving, it’s been here for a long time and will be here long after mankind has ceased to exist.

It’s us, we need saving, but we’re too lazy or disinterested to care.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We need more V8 and diesel trucks pumping out that Texaco black smoke

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At some point in earth’s future if we make it that far, we will have to find another planet to migrate to. In three million years the sun is due to expand, thus destroying the earth in the process. If we deserve to survive and prove that we can evolve, then as a species we will find a way to go on. We are not at a place where we can do that currently. Earth is all we’ve got currently and it’s down to us all to keep ourselves and our planet safe for the time being. Our survival and future if we make it, lies in the stars.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago

East London

Because future generations may be able to exist without destroying the Earth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *partharmonyCouple
over a year ago

Ruislip

Any "need" or "ought" implies an "if". The ultimate "if" is to do with survival. "I need water" is fair enough. If you don't drink water, you are literally going to die. It is reasonable to use the word "need" when the alternative is death.

"I need a new car" probably won't lead to dying. To complete it you need to say what the impact is of not having a car. "I need a new car or I can't get to work any more" then makes sense.

So with your question about the "ought", OP, the question is what goal is somebody trying to achieve. So for something like We ought to do X" is not complete until you say something like "We ought to do X if we don't want future generations to suffer as a result of our actions today". If future generations not suffering is an objective you want, then the statement makes sense (although that doesn't necessarily make it a true statement). If future generations suffering means nothing to you, you are unlikely to think you ought to do X.

You are correct. One day the sun will turn into a red giant and destroy everything on the Earth before turning into a white dwarf. Everything that living things have ever done will become irrelevant. So if you want to work out why we should do X, Y or Z, you need to state what the "if" is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Strictly speaking, measures being taken to tackle climate change aren't about saving the planet, they're about saving mankind.

Nature can and will recover from whatever short term damage we do.

Let's face it, Planet Earth has been around for the past 4.5 billion years, and will still be around long after we become extinct. Estimates are that the Sun has about another 4.5 to 5 billion years left before it goes into it's next phase, which will likely see it expand enough to absorb our planet.

We've only been here for 200,000 years so far.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urreyMassageGentlemanMan
over a year ago

Ashford

“We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Our planet has changed multiple times over billions of years. It's going to change again. Perhaps humans are just speeding the process up but unless the entire world changes its ways, little old Betty down the road or Mr Sing across there recycling their plastic milk carton isn't going to make any difference!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

There's no other reason than to protect it for the continuation of the species. That means the human species on most people's minds I suspect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Any "need" or "ought" implies an "if". The ultimate "if" is to do with survival. "I need water" is fair enough. If you don't drink water, you are literally going to die. It is reasonable to use the word "need" when the alternative is death.

"I need a new car" probably won't lead to dying. To complete it you need to say what the impact is of not having a car. "I need a new car or I can't get to work any more" then makes sense.

So with your question about the "ought", OP, the question is what goal is somebody trying to achieve. So for something like We ought to do X" is not complete until you say something like "We ought to do X if we don't want future generations to suffer as a result of our actions today". If future generations not suffering is an objective you want, then the statement makes sense (although that doesn't necessarily make it a true statement). If future generations suffering means nothing to you, you are unlikely to think you ought to do X.

You are correct. One day the sun will turn into a red giant and destroy everything on the Earth before turning into a white dwarf. Everything that living things have ever done will become irrelevant. So if you want to work out why we

1T should do X, Y or Z, you need to state what the "if" is."

I like this. For a start it gives an outcome to measure results against

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *eLorean_GreyMan
over a year ago

crewe

Any extinction type film, namely 'the day the earth stood still' basically says that 'saving the planet isn't about saving humanity ', nature will recover and continue, humanity won't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top