Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Most Anything > Nature > Animals

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 15-02-2019, 12:37 AM
Lepus Lepus is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,128
  Lepus's Avatar
Hello

We can avoid products that causes deforestation, culling of animals, pollution, CO2 emissions, anything harmful to the environment. But human overpopulation is the cause of environmental issues, such as environmental pollution, habitat loss, animal extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, like fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels. Poor countries with mass birthrates tend to induce pollution, deforestation, and animal poaching. Lets not forget the ongoing demand of ivory, palm oil, and soy, produced in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Bolivia, and Paraguay, which is causing elephants and rhinoceros to decline and forests turning into barren lands. Also poor nations are on the receving end of toxic e-waste. And how long until the poor countries start developing infrastructures?

I'd like to see few roads, buildings, and city lights on Earth and instead see more biodiversity. There are a few places that didn't succumb to infrastructure. But how long will that last? I've heard that the Amazon rainforest is in danger of deforestation. And it's the biggest forest in the world. It would be foolish to destroy what it is called the lungs of the Earth to simply build roads.

Anyway, I haven't seen any updates on the polar bears. I'll keep an eye on it until new updates show up. But it looks like the people are not aiming to kill any of the bears.

Thank you all for sharing!

Lepus
__________________
“People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”
― Walter C. Langer
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15-02-2019, 07:25 AM
Altair Altair is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,982
  Altair's Avatar
Lepus..

Good points, but consumption is of far greater importance than population. You only have to compare, say, the US population, to that of an African country, and look at the individual ecological footprints. If we all consumed differently the population wouldn't be as much of an issue. It's mostly an issue because more and more people seek that highly consumerist lifestyle. The issue isn't the existence of a large number, not by itself. It's not that they live but how they live..

The continued demand for ivory, rhino horn, and other products is due to superstitions in East Asia as well as them being luxury goods, among the middle class people there..

Soy is overwhelmingly fed to cows, pigs, and chickens..

Palm oil is a pointless product, it's in stuff where we don't need it, like cookies and shampoo. A large chunk is also put in vehicles as ''green fuel'' which is of course a major example of greenwashing. All those silly discussions when we could simply build more nuclear power plants but too many people think cutting trees or using vegetation as ''green fuel'' is better and cleaner.. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16-02-2019, 12:48 PM
Lepus Lepus is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,128
  Lepus's Avatar
Hi Altair

I can see how consumption plays a bigger role than population but like you said, more and more people seek that highly consumerist lifestyle. Especially in the US, where population is over increasing. And I don't think the people here are going to give up their consumption of beef and pork anytime soon. However, I won't deny that Africa does have a less impact on the environment than the US, but wild animals in Africa are on decline some even close to extinction due to poaching, trophy hunting, and other sports game that involve killing of rare and exotic animals. Also poor nations are willing to increase their economic growth at a price of wrecking forests to supply other nations with palm oil, wood pulp, soya beans, cattle, and cocoa. So about 25% of illegal deforestation in the tropics is therefore related- either directly or indirectly- to the exportation of consumer goods. Lets not forget more people in poor countries are migrating to other nations to live that highly consumerist lifestyle. I don't see majority of the population changing to protect the environment. So then overpopulation does become a problem.

Green fuel is not environmental friendly since palm oil is in it. But nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants.

I haven't seen any updates on the polar bears. But I've read that the people there will have to burn all the rubbish to prevent polar bears from reaching in town in mass numbers.

No updates on the relocation of polar bears.

Lepus
__________________
“People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”
― Walter C. Langer
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16-02-2019, 02:07 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,982
  Altair's Avatar
Hi Lepus..

Africa is an interesting case when it comes to wildlife. It seems the natives achieved some sort of balance there and the animals knew how to respond to human behaviour, having co-existed with them for much longer, being able to adapt to gradual human evolutionary changes, unlike the animals that all went extinct after human arrived in other regions, especially throughout the Holocene.

And unfortunately, modern weaponry has removed that advantage that African megafauna used to have. And poaching is the biggest issue..

I'm not too optimistic either about the large population we have and the impact increasing economic growth will have. In the short term it leads to increased human happiness and progress but if we take a longer view we're making a big mistake.. If earth was 50x larger it would have been perhaps okay..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepus
Green fuel is not environmental friendly since palm oil is in it. But nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants.
Exactly. I know so many greens who are in the dark about nuclear. Good to hear you're not..
Not that it doesn't has disadvantages but if we demand energy for all that also has less impact then obviously nuclear should be included. Since it has far less spatial impact it's also going to be far less harmful to wildlife. A large solar park or wind farm is just more man made stuff that disturb animal habitat. Unfortunately, preserving animal habitat is usually not too high on the agenda on any environmental discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-02-2019, 02:31 PM
Che Lazou Che Lazou is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 367
 
I have heard the arguments for nuclear before.

The information I have from the scientists is that nuclear fission reactors are subsidised bomb factories.

In other words they don't produce energy they produce the raw materials for rockets.

Of course some energy is produced, but it is less than what is put in.

Same with solar.

Same with anything one could argue.

The laws of thermodynamics have yet to be broken.

Is money energy.

If you're just pumping money in, the real reason being that you want a weapon of control, with a little energy production being a convenient biproduct that acts as a smokescreen, what is the point?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17-02-2019, 11:45 AM
Lepus Lepus is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,128
  Lepus's Avatar
Hello

That's part of the disadvantage of nuclear power plants. You'd have to scale up to 14,500 power plants in order to meet current and future energy needs, and there's the potential for nuclear proliferation. To avoid weapons proliferation, it is important that countries with high levels of corruption and instability be discouraged from creating nuclear programs.

Anyways, we are getting off topic.

No updates on the polar bears. Anyone?

Lepus
__________________
“People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”
― Walter C. Langer
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17-02-2019, 07:34 PM
blackraven blackraven is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,503
  blackraven's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepus
Hello

We can avoid products that causes deforestation, culling of animals, pollution, CO2 emissions, anything harmful to the environment. But human overpopulation is the cause of environmental issues, such as environmental pollution, habitat loss, animal extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, like fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels. Poor countries with mass birthrates tend to induce pollution, deforestation, and animal poaching. Lets not forget the ongoing demand of ivory, palm oil, and soy, produced in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Bolivia, and Paraguay, which is causing elephants and rhinoceros to decline and forests turning into barren lands. Also poor nations are on the receving end of toxic e-waste. And how long until the poor countries start developing infrastructures?

I'd like to see few roads, buildings, and city lights on Earth and instead see more biodiversity. There are a few places that didn't succumb to infrastructure. But how long will that last? I've heard that the Amazon rainforest is in danger of deforestation. And it's the biggest forest in the world. It would be foolish to destroy what it is called the lungs of the Earth to simply build roads.

Anyway, I haven't seen any updates on the polar bears. I'll keep an eye on it until new updates show up. But it looks like the people are not aiming to kill any of the bears.

Thank you all for sharing!

Lepus

Very powerful and true words, Lepus! I couldn't agree more.

We melt miles of polar ice, the home for polar bears, then when we melt it with our CO2 emissions - well do humans really have to ask why there is a polar bear invasion. Dugh.

And yes, the rain forest is slowly being cut down for short term profit and long term devastation for the planet.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17-02-2019, 08:31 PM
janielee janielee is offline
Suspended
Master
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2,784
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepus
Hello

We can avoid products that causes deforestation, culling of animals, pollution, CO2 emissions, anything harmful to the environment. But human overpopulation is the cause of environmental issues, such as environmental pollution, habitat loss, animal extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, like fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels. Poor countries with mass birthrates tend to induce pollution, deforestation, and animal poaching. Lets not forget the ongoing demand of ivory, palm oil, and soy, produced in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Bolivia, and Paraguay, which is causing elephants and rhinoceros to decline and forests turning into barren lands. Also poor nations are on the receving end of toxic e-waste. And how long until the poor countries start developing infrastructures?

I'd like to see few roads, buildings, and city lights on Earth and instead see more biodiversity. There are a few places that didn't succumb to infrastructure. But how long will that last? I've heard that the Amazon rainforest is in danger of deforestation. And it's the biggest forest in the world. It would be foolish to destroy what it is called the lungs of the Earth to simply build roads.

Anyway, I haven't seen any updates on the polar bears. I'll keep an eye on it until new updates show up. But it looks like the people are not aiming to kill any of the bears.

Thank you all for sharing!

Lepus

Thank you so much Lepus.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18-02-2019, 12:43 PM
Che Lazou Che Lazou is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 367
 
I think people write with very little knowledge of the true history of environmentalism in Russia and the Soviet Union.

This is a spiritual forum, so perhaps it is better to simply mention that the word "shaman" is actually a native Siberian word of the forest applied to the Americas.

What is magic if it is not the bending of nature to one's will?

And why do we not hear of the emense and often successful pressure by the Soviet people for preserving and leaving nature in peace?

Whereas people were put in reservations in America, nature itself was put in reservations in Russia, much like in Africa.

What is the spiritual significance of closing off?

Earth and Heaven, as above so below, the union of the upper and lower trigrams of the yi jing spring to mind, but Russia is not China.

Pandas and Polar bears are probably cousins, one is Christian, the other Buddhist at a guess, here I am talking about diet.

We must talk about the spirituality of generalisations and isomorphisms, I did not start this thread.

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18-02-2019, 01:46 PM
Che Lazou Che Lazou is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 367
 
I don't know much about the shamans of Siberia other than that they faired better under Soviet times when they were simply given a few simple metallic gifts such as knives in exchange for leaving them to preserve the forest's life as they wanted it.

I also refer to Soviet biology as being an attempt at a different kind of science based on Marxist philosophy of time rather than Einsteins.

And as a defence of the regime I will also point out that it was a Soviet scientist who was the first to raise the alarm of global warming in response to rising CO2 levels.

My last post may have been propaganda, this one is factual up to a point.

I would encourage people to take broader perspectives when forming opinions and do their own research as far as possible, within the confines of good manners.

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums