|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:34 pm
OK, has anyone noticed the conflict between our progression of technology and Mother Nature? I mean, technology has helped out the enviroment and I think we as humanity should advance our discoveries, but think aboot it: cars have helped global warming and pollution, us humans are stealing the forests and jungles for our stupid malls and abuse of paper, and we waste energy whenever we turn on a light. I am guilty of this, as well, but I am trying to stop. We should all take a break and figure out a way for us to progress in a way that isn't harmful to our beautiful planet. What do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:26 pm
I would love to find a way to promote technology without damaging the planet, but I am also not the type of person who is going to go technology free either. I believe in the future there will be a happy balance struck between techonology and nature, but until then we are all just going to have to do the best we can for mother earth and make due with what we can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:31 pm
I love both Nature and Technology, as any one can tell from my intro page. I like plants and animals, as much as robots and other forms fo technology. What I would like to see happen, though I doubt it will in my time, is in fact a melding, a merger of technology and nature. Have it where you could, in essence, grow the technology. I know it sounds way Sci fi, but still, if we could get to that point, then I feel we would be all the better for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:15 pm
Well, I like the Technology, but I love the Nature, and in this modern times the people are more focus in the progress than the Mother Nature, that is bad, because don't matter how much we progress, without the Nature we just can not survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:25 am
I think there should be a greater focus on fixing the technologies we currently have and replace them with things that work in harmony with the world. I mean, sure, build more cars, but build ECOLOGICAL cars that uses ALTERNATE fuels! I mean, come ON.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:54 am
To blame technology for the massive ecological damage and estruction accross the planit is like blaming the knife of a serial killer. Technology is weilded by humans for human's intrists. And the #1 reason of those is the money and power. Yes many technologies harm the enviroment around them in profound ways, but who's falt is it? The machine or the humans who built it, who profet from it, and rely on it.
How many gaians get the power for their computers from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant?
How many families have a vehicle that averages less than 20mpg?
How many families burn plasics, batteries, chemical containers, and other hazardous items that could be recycled or reused?
Honestly the technology has been around to be "clean" for a few decaides now. Realy, it has. Do you know that bolth Ford and GM have the ability to create cars and trucks that could average over 45 to 70+ mpg with out any hybrid systems? And that hydroelectric technology is at a point that a dam that blocks half or less the width of a river can produce more power than the old conventional dams? Or that most of California could be powered solly on geothermal power technology from the 80's? So why isn't anyone using these? The cash, the mula, the dinero, the green backs.
And alternative fuels are only a bandaid on third degry burn. Most quote 'clean' fuels, are just that. Fuel, fuel that no matter how much less than petrolium, still produce the same green house gasses that hurt the enviroment.(with the exeption of Hydrogen wich produces H2O when burned.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:24 am
To say that a global climate change is a load of fertilizer is ludacris! The notion that humanity can't change the climate is as ignorant as the theory that the world is flat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:56 am
Technologies have had an overall harmful effect on nature. Pesticides we created have gotten rid of bug we needed to pollinate the same crops we were trying to protect. Trees are cut down for the sake of a strip mall. It happens. I do think as a scientific community we need to focus as a whole on coming up with better solutions to many of the problems we have today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:02 am
Damian Von Hellsing And once again I say "Global Warming is a load of bullocks!" FYI...For those who havn't been to nsidc.org lately Arctic sea ice is rapidly approaching the 1979-2000 avg. line..... To quote the website you mentioned... This was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low of 2006, but 590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The site also goes on to state that while the area was greater, the ice was also a bit thinner. It also goes on to show how much of the sea ice is older than 2 years and how much of the ice older than 2 years is also disappearing. The site shows a serious decline in sea ice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:58 am
8track To blame technology for the massive ecological damage and estruction accross the planit is like blaming the knife of a serial killer. Technology is weilded by humans for human's intrists. And the #1 reason of those is the money and power. Yes many technologies harm the enviroment around them in profound ways, but who's falt is it? The machine or the humans who built it, who profet from it, and rely on it.
How many gaians get the power for their computers from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant?
How many families have a vehicle that averages less than 20mpg?
How many families burn plasics, batteries, chemical containers, and other hazardous items that could be recycled or reused?
Honestly the technology has been around to be "clean" for a few decaides now. Realy, it has. Do you know that bolth Ford and GM have the ability to create cars and trucks that could average over 45 to 70+ mpg with out any hybrid systems? And that hydroelectric technology is at a point that a dam that blocks half or less the width of a river can produce more power than the old conventional dams? Or that most of California could be powered solly on geothermal power technology from the 80's? So why isn't anyone using these? The cash, the mula, the dinero, the green backs.
And alternative fuels are only a bandaid on third degry burn. Most quote 'clean' fuels, are just that. Fuel, fuel that no matter how much less than petrolium, still produce the same green house gasses that hurt the enviroment.(with the exeption of Hydrogen wich produces H2O when burned.) Incidentally, I recently heard that even in the days of the Model A (or was it T? I don't remember...) there were electric cars. So why did the idea die? All the other cars ran on gasoline. Thus, gasoline stations were common, and it was hard to "fill up" an electric car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:07 am
technology is mainly based on nature's designs, such as sticky pads being based on gekos feet. destorying nature also destroys potential designs. We should learn from our mistakes but it is hard to predict the future, so it is not easy to create a long term solution that will not harm the planet too much. i'm all for greener solutions, but some are a long way off and may be too late (eg hydrogen)
Damian Von Hellsing- theres a book called the chill of the stars (i forget the author redface ) that talks about your friends theory.
for aspects like recycling it is mainly the opinions of the public that gauge how effective schemes are. for example down my street, we have the most recycling on the street, we recycle everything that the council collect. yet there are bigger families on the street that think "oh it wont make much of a difference" and don't do it. so the scheme doesnt have much effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
