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

[QUOTE=Snord;38856156]"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 Why can't we replace "our outdated infrastructure"? What do you consider outdated?[/QUOTE] Cities are a terrible way to house people. People seem to think food and a place to sleep are the only things a human needs, but they need space. LOTS of space. Or else you are forced to be exposed to things you don't want to because you just can't get far enough away. The biggest waste is food. Tons of land and chemicals spent to grow it, and then tons of money to manage disposal of all that doesn't get eaten. Despite this, we are using methods to "increase yield" even though said methods may have dangerous side effects. Like pesticides leeching into food, pesticides killing off bees, and lack of diversity leading to a single disease wiping out everything. Genetically modified plants are also sterile, but I doubt a seed shortage will happen. And after plants is meat. Factory farming is a ticking time bomb. Unhealthy animals kept crowded together and pumped full of antibiotics.

While yes the planet is getting worse science and technology are advancing at a rate where I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we can reverse some of the harmful things we've done...then again if this did happen it would probably not be in our lifetime....

[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;38871021]Cities are a terrible way to house people. People seem to think food and a place to sleep are the only things a human needs, but they need space. LOTS of space. Or else you are forced to be exposed to things you don't want to because you just can't get far enough away. The biggest waste is food. Tons of land and chemicals spent to grow it, and then tons of money to manage disposal of all that doesn't get eaten. Despite this, we are using methods to "increase yield" even though said methods may have dangerous side effects. Like pesticides leeching into food, pesticides killing off bees, and lack of diversity leading to a single disease wiping out everything. Genetically modified plants are also sterile, but I doubt a seed shortage will happen. And after plants is meat. Factory farming is a ticking time bomb. Unhealthy animals kept crowded together and pumped full of antibiotics.[/QUOTE] But cities are great a allocating resources to the people, by providing basic services to the people, inclunding recreation space (is not like there aren't any parks)

[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;38871021]Cities are a terrible way to house people. People seem to think food and a place to sleep are the only things a human needs, but they need space. LOTS of space. Or else you are forced to be exposed to things you don't want to because you just can't get far enough away. The biggest waste is food. Tons of land and chemicals spent to grow it, and then tons of money to manage disposal of all that doesn't get eaten. Despite this, we are using methods to "increase yield" even though said methods may have dangerous side effects. Like pesticides leeching into food, pesticides killing off bees, and lack of diversity leading to a single disease wiping out everything. Genetically modified plants are also sterile, but I doubt a seed shortage will happen. And after plants is meat. Factory farming is a ticking time bomb. Unhealthy animals kept crowded together and pumped full of antibiotics.[/QUOTE] If space were such a concern, I'm sure mankind would have never grouped ourselves into cities to begin with. As for food waste, I suggest implementing widely [url=http://www.verticalfarm.com/]vertical farms[/url] in all major cities. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;38870711]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.[/QUOTE] Launch it into the sun, I say. I would think eventually within this century we will have the technology to dispose of such terrible material in that manner. SpaceX should really look into such a project. It would probably be easier for them than getting people up and down as all you have to do is get a rocket into space. After that it's simply aiming it in the right direction. And if it misses the sun...well, the universe is pretty big, I'm sure it can handle that little bit of debris.

Hi I do [url=http://www.reachli.com/]Social Media Marketing[/url].I like music very much.Thanks for the post. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("spambot" - Gran PC))[/highlight]

Nuclear waste can be effectively eliminated by reprocessing of spent fuel and a switch from fast reactors to more fuel efficient reactors that better consume the fuel, there's just a detachment from the politics of nuclear power and there scientists of nuclear power

It's not science and technology that cause these and other problems, it's ourselves (as humans). The best step humanity could make in regards to civilisation advancement would be developing an automated artificial intelligence designed to assimilate planets, automatically extrude resources with minimal waste and use this to construct more AI modules to expand further, faster - it'd eliminate any threats and benefit from never suffering disease, illness, morale issues or unhappiness. Terraforming would be unnecessary as it could function under most atmospheric conditions and adapt swiftly if not. The AI would also never encounter conflict with itself, and would do everything with efficiency in mind due to it having no emotional bearing on it's decision making - it would merely store 'artefacts' of humanity in the form of language instructions, recordings as a remnant of our existence. After that we'd simply turn it on and watch as it annihilates us all immediately for ruining everything for so long with our petty wars and other self-destructive activities in the aid of whatever causes.

i have a hard time believing that the overall product of millions of years of intelligent DNA evolution can't possibly have some kind of projected stability measure. i think that merely the fact the human race is sentient enough to question their resolve with the future of technology is enough to show that it is an evolutionary bi-product, not some cosmic mistake that managed to overload the collective human brain circuit (humanity). clearly we have the intelligence to eliminate potential (suggested) detriments to our environment. this is not backed by fact and barely even opinion, but i personally believe that there can't possibly [I]not[/I] be some kind of evolutionary fail-safe in the human psyche that allows us to override our self-awareness to perpetuate our "greater purpose" (at this point that just seems like surviving long enough to find out).

In my opinion, science and technology is only a tool. It's us humans, or rather governments, that aren't using these science and technological tools to create a world where the environment isn't as detrimentally harmed. The great thing about science and technology is that it gives us the choice to how we want to use our resources.

[QUOTE=Leystryku;38829870]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.[/QUOTE] Science is not a person and science as a phenomenon takes up a laughably low amount of resources. [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] 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] [URL]http://www.solarimpulse.com/[/URL] (very sensationalist) We're getting there

[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] If we want to keep it your way, then eventually mankind will die with the Earth. Some folk have this idea of mankind hopefully continuing on living after our planet/Sun is gone, and if we ever wish to achieve something like that, we probably have to use every last fragment of resource we have. And that's definitely no balance, Earth slowly dying off while the humankind continues their pursuit of.. whatever. And even then I don't have the ability to foretell far future so, depending on how crazy it will get, we might even "preserve" our planet as something for people to see in the museum.

Firstly, science is impartial; it's a tool; a methodology for acquiring information, so science cannot be used for [I]'good'[/I] or [I]'bad'[/I].. It's findings, however, can be. Eg. Atomic theory produces Xrays and P.E.T Scans, as well as nuclear bombs... [QUOTE=blacksam;38818246]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.[/QUOTE] Two bones to pick with this, and possibly a third. Firstly, this shouldn't start off sounding so fucking profound... Secondly.. All biological organisms extract resources from their environment. Thirdly.. The Aboriginal Australians were very conscious of their environment, and only ever took that which nature could produce. So, to suggest that this is a new trend, the whole [I]"OH SHIT, BOB! We've chopped down too many trees, whatever shall we do?!"[/I] mentality is a bit ignorant of anthropological history. I can empathize with the frustration induced by industrialization demanding boosts in acquiring wood, hydrocarbons and rare minerals to tailor the needs of production to a consumerist society though.. [QUOTE=blacksam;38818246]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. [/QUOTE] Nuclear energy is the least of your non-renewable worries. [QUOTE=blacksam;38818246]Animals and plants have gone extinct because of our urbanization. [/QUOTE] That is true... but on a finite planet with a discrete value of surface area, we can only fit so many, and feed so many. [QUOTE=blacksam;38818246]Can science reverse the adverse effects? Is the earth salvageable? Granted, [B]we need to research how to harness nuclear energy for our benefit[/B], how long until we need a new source of energy? How is what we are doing helping future generations? What do we do? [/QUOTE] So, fission is bad, because of some left over radioactive substances..? You can disperse radioactive materials in a thin layer over large areas and have them not much of an issue..... But, you'd be perfectly fine with fusion, which produces large amounts of alpha and gamma radiation..? [QUOTE=blacksam;38818246]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.[/QUOTE] I don't think that geo-engineering would be feasible, nor ethical on that scale. Having never been done, nor not knowing or understanding the consequences in such large systems it could lead to worse environmental consequences [See: Chaos Theory]. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38818304]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.[/QUOTE] As for your first point, I agree but you seem to misrepresent the problem. Yes, more species have died out well before our ancestors took their first breath; the rate at which species are currently dying, is similar to those found surrounding mass extinction events. It's not necessarily the 'velocity', more the 'acceleration', so to speak. For your second 'quoted' point; Agreed, nuclear power is the safest form of power in terms of deaths per gigawatt per hour, compared to any other form of power production (even solar).

[QUOTE=Bradyns;39770754]For your second 'quoted' point; Agreed, nuclear power is the safest form of power in terms of deaths per gigawatt per hour, compared to any other form of power production (even solar).[/QUOTE] Currently yes, but if you think about solar power, stars are basically one huge balls of energy. A lot of energy.. So futurewise, I think the key in generating a lot of energy to create the fastest and smartest computers lies in those.

Oil still makes a lot of people rich. Solar power and electric cars wont get enough attention in a foreseeable future. Big oil companies are the only ones to blame for most of the environmental disorder.