Currently, Science and Technology Does More Harm Than Good to the Environment - General

Time and time again we see the environment extracted for resources - however at this rate we are noticing that we have a limited amount of resources and an ever growing population. As we search for new ways to solve our energy crisis, it becomes increasing clear that the damage we have done to the environment (fracking and nuclear energy) seems irreversible. Animals and plants have gone extinct because of our urbanization. Can science reverse the adverse effects? Is the earth salvageable? Granted, we need to research how to harness nuclear energy for our benefit, how long until we need a new source of energy? How is what we are doing helping future generations? What do we do? I'd like to think that science and technology can reverse the affects of the acidity of the ocean. I'm optimistic that we could possible [I]save[/I] the rain forest. I'd hate to see nature leave us just we can drive a few extra miles. What do you guys think? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology[/url] in case you wanted to read up on the subject. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not in debate format, asking a question" - Megafan))[/highlight]

If there's a way to stop, let alone "reverse", affects, it'll take almost eons to get done. Also, more animals in the history of Earth have gone extinct without humans to help than when humans were doing it. Also, I am unaware of the problems nuclear energy causes to the environment so long as the reactors are working perfectly fine. As for extracting resources and energy from the earth - we have no choice that I can see, where else would we get them? We haven't the technology yet to harvest Mars or asteroids. Until then, Earth's resources are all we have to survive with.

Nuclear energy is actually very clean and contained, save for when human error or natural disasters come into play. (Fukushima held up better than expected, though it still ended up irradiating the surrounding area.) It'd be even better if we could develop thorium reactors, or if we could use breeder reactors without fear of weaponization. We'd be able to re-use the waste that comes out of "normal" reactors, and have a clean, sustainable energy source.

Yes, it's a bright future for nuclear energy, and true thorium reactors are going to be really helpful. Not to sound like a Debby Downer, but couldn't the reactors be destroyed and cause harm to the environment? Even before that happens, what about tearing up the land to get to the uranium?

[QUOTE=blacksam;38818576]Even before that happens, what about tearing up the land to get to the uranium?[/QUOTE] Yes, uranium mining does cause environmental damage

[QUOTE=DeEz;38818625]Yes, uranium mining does cause environmental damage[/QUOTE] What entitles us to extract resources from the land? How come we can't find balance between both the environment and man? It's geologically older than us. We've given it capital value instead of pristine value.

[QUOTE=blacksam;38818786]What entitles us to extract resources from the land? How come we can't find balance between both the environment and man? It's geologically older than us. We've given it capital value instead of pristine value.[/QUOTE] Well, ethics has little meaning when there's money to be made. It's just how people work.

[QUOTE=blacksam;38818786]What entitles us to extract resources from the land? How come we can't find balance between both the environment and man? It's geologically older than us. We've given it capital value instead of pristine value.[/QUOTE] Because that's what we do. Most people don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it.

The environment doesn't care what we do to it, the Earth will be around long after we're gone. This whole notion of 'destroying the environment' is an indirectly anthropocentric view- we're not destroying the planet, we're destroying our own ability to live on it. We might wipe out thousands of species in the process and turn the planet into a flooded wasteland, but life will assuredly go on. Don't worry about the environment. Worry about our ability to survive in it, and address that.

[QUOTE=blacksam;38818786]What entitles us to extract resources from the land? [/QUOTE] the fact that we need it for the survival of the species? Do we need to extract uranium to fuel nuclear power plants for our survival? so be it, Do we need to re-ajust our resource consumption and start preserving the nature and look for "cleaner" alternative for our survival? so be it.

[QUOTE=blacksam;38818786]What entitles us to extract resources from the land? How come we can't find balance between both the environment and man? It's geologically older than us. We've given it capital value instead of pristine value.[/QUOTE] It isn't (to our knowledge) the most intelligent thing in the universe, let alone self aware. Sure you could throw some bullshit theory at me about the combined emotions of all animals we are killing, but that's nature itself. You don't see a tiger communing with a deer and saying sorry let me fix it, he just eats it and then goes and fucks his mate and repeat for a billion years. Point is, there is no such thing as "man and nature" who says we aren't nature, an inevitability. Whether we're here to destroy the planet in a mass extinction, or become some super civilization in some perfectly efficient commune with nature with some unknown if not impossible technology. You have to realize we haven't abandoned instinct (damn dr breen u good) at all, we take things in capital/personal value, in value that benefits either the self or the whole of humanity. It takes a higher level of knowledge to account for pristine value in all transactions and walks of life. I'm sure it's possible enough with a vastly educated society, or a society in which ideology and law rule over people's thoughts. But the latter is a human on human occurrence with a small amount of educated individuals and smart politicians creating ideologies about these things, it is not the former. The former represents the ideal, a society in which we all realize in a knowledgeable, and not forced or indoctrinated way. But such a society may not arrive in time. We've already been getting smarter, and that has brought on huge leaps in what people think is right and wrong inherently, and also technological benefits. The thing is, we live in a society where most countries don't have very solid eco-green LAWS, let alone a populace knowledgeable enough to understand it in any way other than "hurr i am ecofriendly!111 nature is good guys! vegetarianism I am vegan!1" or "Buy our new Electric Car!, we're riding on the wave of the idiots who culture around green culture!" But again I digress, it is better than nothing to have vague followings and small laws, but the ideal would be an educated society.

Be that as it may, we must use every last fragment of resource as efficiently as we possibly can if we ever want to get the fuck out of this planet when the time comes.

You make the mistake of co-relating Science and Technology to the manner in which they are applied by Governments and Industry. Science on it's own is incapable of hurting anyone, in the same way that a knife on it's own is incapable of killing anyone. It is entirely reliant on the hand that wields it, which is oh so rarely tempered with the same rationality and logic that science itself is.

fund NASA, get elements for fuel from space (like hydrogen), send trash to space, save the planet. Only if it were that simple, I do not want to see a world where we are funding space programs while people starve and we have the resources to equally feed everyone, work on sustainable water and food, then work on sustainable energy. Why don't we all as human beings collectively work on solar energy? The technology is there, its just being thwarted by certain individuals/special interest groups.

What about nuclear waste then? There are no way to get rid of that other than digging a hole deep enough to reach the mantle of the earth that, if I understand it correctly, is as radioactive as the waste. Digging a such hole is too expensive and are never going to happen, and no such attempt to dig a such hole will ever be made in order to get rid of the waste. [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kanshi;38829477]The technology is there, its just being thwarted by certain individuals/special interest groups.[/QUOTE] Really? There are technology to get an effective amount of energy from the sun? Even on cloudy days, winters and what not? Also, some places might never got any sunshine at all some days.

In my opinion science right now is using too much resources. The thing is, if they manage to get out of the earth and go to other planets they have more. It'll be the same , but more resources. Then later on they will hopefully find a way to use black holes to produce energy then black holes would take trash and give back energy.

Yes, 'science' is harming the environment at current, but there have always been adverse effects to general technological advancement. Firstly, the science you refer to is simply the process of change - we invent/discover the new and get more efficient at the old. That's been humanity's single largest task since history began. This is a small bump in the road in the grand scheme of things; it will change. Secondly, and as I've already touched on a little, anyone with half a mind can see that 'going green' is moving global; fast. How long have the masses known of the resulting chaos of global warming? Maybe since just before the 70s (note, I'm talking about general knowledge here, not scientific discovery). We've come a long way in 40 years. From nearly exclusively using coal, oil and natural gas to power civilisation, we've managed to apparently produce over 40% of our electricity from non-combustible sources. This is progress. It's silly to point out science as being 'more bad than good' - science, by definition, is the study (and testing) of the world around us, subsequently resulting in progressive change. Science cannot be bad as it only produces opportunities to do new things. Whether or not we choose to do the right or the wrong thing is down to the quality of scientific evaluation and humanity as a whole. Right now, I'm pretty happy to be able to drive a car and not ride a horse; I'm thankful for my incredibly inefficient toaster - my quality of life is great compared to those who lived just 100 years ago. Science is great; people aren't always.

[QUOTE=AlienCat;38829722] Really? There are technology to get an effective amount of energy from the sun? Even on cloudy days, winters and what not? Also, some places might never got any sunshine at all some days.[/QUOTE] Actually, yes there is. [img]http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/surface-area-required-to-power-the-world-with-solar-panels-alone_50290ab5851d6.jpg[/img]

Science and technology doesn't directly cause it. One is a method of acquiring knowledge, and the other is basically the use of tools of some kind. If anything, science has actually allowed us to figure out that we are even destroying the environment, and how we might go about solving this.

[QUOTE=AlienCat;38829722] Really? There are technology to get an effective amount of energy from the sun? Even on cloudy days, winters and what not? Also, some places might never got any sunshine at all some days.[/QUOTE] really, there is, they take the mirrors on a sunny day to heat a speacial material which holds the heat in an insulated enviroment, then on cloudy days the heat is used to flashboil water and generate power also you only would use solar in places where you can reliably get large amounts of sun, because it would be stupid otherwise science used responsibly has helped the world, the U.S. has one of the world's largest timber industry, yet thanks to sustainable practices enacted decades ago, now much of it can be harvested from 25 year old tree stands that are easier to harvest than the wild forest, and provides a continual supply of wood without devistating the ecosystem. this century will be one of responsibility, scientists will have to consider all points of impact that introducing a new technology can cause

[QUOTE=AlienCat;38829722]What about nuclear waste then? There are no way to get rid of that other than digging a hole deep enough to reach the mantle of the earth that, if I understand it correctly, is as radioactive as the waste. Digging a such hole is too expensive and are never going to happen, and no such attempt to dig a such hole will ever be made in order to get rid of the waste. [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] we don't really generate too much high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel), the amount of waste that i would generate for a lifetime of using nuclear power would fill about a soda can. Currently the problem is far for unmanageable(unlike the green lobby may say). But damn let's not get that close

I think the general belief is, while using science for our advancement, mankind has devastated a lot of things, but with the same use of science and even more advancement, we're not only correcting previous errors but preventing future ones. It's a slow process that can't happen in a day, or maybe even in a decade or century. But I have confidence in that humanity will successfully use science to benefit all of the world - both for man and nature.

Science is the art of exploring the world around us. It's neither evil nor good by itself, But it can be applied for good or evil. Consequently, what it breaks, it can repair given enough time and effort. Going back to a agricultural society just because some schmucks have misused our discoveries would be foolishness of the worst sort. However, there is objective value in refining our methods to be more efficient. I believe if a design can be altered to make it more efficient and streamlined without impairing function too badly, the change should be made. More metaphorically, Science is kind of like a car. Used for good, it can carry us to spectacular new places far and wide. Used for evil, you run people over with it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38830487]Actually, yes there is. [img]http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/surface-area-required-to-power-the-world-with-solar-panels-alone_50290ab5851d6.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This doesn't look like that much land from a first glance, but it's huge. I doubt we could even [I]build[/I] that many solar panels. That total area is about the size of California. Countries like Canada already have energy production figured out, a balance of currently existing tech, mostly hydro and geothermal: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg/300px-Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg.png[/img] There really is no silver bullet for sustainable power generation, but a combination of existing reliable technologies and investment into future technologies are probably our best bet.

What destroys the environment is producing way too much stuff that just goes to waste by using outdated infrastructure we built too much of and now can't replace. Industrialization might not have been worth the damage it has done.

[QUOTE=fenwick;38843246]This doesn't look like that much land from a first glance, but it's huge. I doubt we could even [I]build[/I] that many solar panels. That total area is about the size of California. Countries like Canada already have energy production figured out, a balance of currently existing tech, mostly hydro and geothermal: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg/300px-Electricity_production_in_Canada.svg.png[/img] There really is no silver bullet for sustainable power generation, but a combination of existing reliable technologies and investment into future technologies are probably our best bet.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's practical, but it is possible.

LOL. Mr, Science And Technology alone are nothing, they don't have power on their own. Only human beings can have power. These don't act on their own, they are used for something by humans. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;38843325]What destroys the environment is producing way too much stuff that just goes to waste by using outdated infrastructure we built too much of and now can't replace. Industrialization might not have been worth the damage it has done.[/QUOTE] "What destroys the environment" is a pretty vague thing. Are we talking about the manmade changes? Natural forces that have shaped the earth for millions of years? Can you prove that we are producing "way too much stuff that goes to waste"? how much of our production is going to waste and how is it getting wasted? Why can't we replace "our outdated infrastructure"? What do you consider outdated?

I'm not sure what he meant but certainly countries are wasting money on housing that is not where the people are, China is a big culprit, building "ghost" cities where they have housing for millions yet a scant few thousand move in, while the land they take up is converted from forests and fields to tarmac and buildings, as for infrastructure, the problem is much of it was built to be replaced in 20-30 years, 60 years ago, much of what fails is bridges and pipes that haven't been replaced when they were due. currently technology is improving this greatly. Sensors and smart monitoring systems along with corrosion studies and research has extended the life of existing infrastructure, while advances in chemistry and materials have yeilded new infrastructure that can last 50-100 years on its own. what i'm trying to say is, technology has made it possible to do more with less resources. countries like china and india are going to face in 40 years what the u.s. is facing today, they are building infrastructure with the mentality that the u.s. and europe had 50 years ago, but hopefully with what has been learned today can prevent their infrastructure from failing as badly as it has today. technology is what enables man to do more with less, and with resources to be spread thinner and thinner in the next 100 years, it'll be more important than ever to be able to efficiently manage resources and infrastructure. as for waste? nuclear waste has not been allowed to be managed well, the Yucatan flats IS radioactive thanks to nuclear tests in the early 50s and 60s, yet lobbyists have shut down every attempt to position nuclear repositories there or even nuclear reprocessing facilities there, because they claim that it will hurt the environment. the thing is this has caused nuclear waste to be stockpiled at the sources in dry cask storage, which while safe, is far from a safe strategy, let alone an economically savvy strategy nuclear power could power mankind for the next hundred years with little waste, if only politicians and environmental activists would let it go through. If Fukushima was a passive reactor design, one developed in the last 10 years, the reactor would not have melted, it would never have melted, because passive reactors address faults that were pointed out decades ago with active reactors of Fukushima's design.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38818304]Also, I am unaware of the problems nuclear energy causes to the environment so long as the reactors are working perfectly fine.[/QUOTE] While nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than most other forms of electrical generation, there is a bad issue with waste management. Spent fuel is highly toxic and remains so for a very long time, and the issue of [B]permanent[/B] storage options is always a problem. Storage facilities may last for 50 years, they may last for 100 but perhaps there might be a day when most nations cannot boast the infrastructure to maintain these underground storage facilities. The spent nuclear waste we are creating now will literally be an ominous problem for thousands of years. Future generations may need to worry about the possible threat of earthquakes or general geological movements dislodging nuclear storage facilities and irradiating soil and groundwater.