Global Warming & Deforestation – Do You Continue Doing Art?

Originally Posted by Ancient

Hi JustASimpleGuy and Miss Hepburn! I understand what you're referring to, but I kindly disagree :) Yes, my status says "Newbie," but I've been around forums for quite some time, though I'm new to this one. I've read quite a few posts, and in my mind, people on this forum treat each other well. In short, a place for civil discussions about difficult topics, but I could be wrong. If so, I apologize for my naivety.

This question is deeply spiritual to me, so I chose this specific subforum. Love, and a sense of fulfillment, are the seat of spirituality, and when these pillars are "challenged" by outside factors that require one's attention, I'd argue we have a spiritual crisis. I did not intend to cause a debate. I'm simply asking for different people's perspectives. I can't make up my own mind, which is utterly frustrating.

All and all, this about choosing your path in life – to me, there's nothing more spiritual than that. But then again, in this context, it's also a question about privilege, which one could argue is even more of an incentive to getting this choice right.

First allow me to say I'm pleasantly surprised this thread didn't degenerate into a contentious mess as so often happens with such a charged topic where battle lines are clearly drawn leaving very little room in the middle. Perhaps it's because it is in this sub-forum and people are treading lightly?

I do see danger on both extremes and acknowledge action is required. The questions are which actions, how far to take them and how to weigh benefits vs. risks? I'm concerned about complacency born out of ignorance but equally concerned about activism born out of fear and ignorance too.

The apparent dangers of fossil fuels are obvious as they are clear and present. We've been engaged in exploration, extraction, refinement, transportation, and use for over a century and at scale. The dangers of wind and solar are not so obvious yet as we're just ramping up, but they are there just not yet in the public's consciousness.

1 - Rare-Earth Metals
2 - Energy Density
3 - Energy Intermittency
4 - Land Usage
5 - Economic Cost

My concern is a 180 degree reversal without full consideration has the potential of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, replacing one set of problems with another set that could be as environmentally damaging, just in different ways and not fully realized until we bring these new technologies up to scale.

In another life and on other forums I've debated this topic to no end, annoying partisans on both sides of the issue. While I'm not a scientist I'm a diligent and thorough little researcher. It's my nature and part of what allows me to excel at my profession (software analysis & design).

For me the most difficult part is discerning the true motivations and attitudes of the moneyed interests and not just what they publicly state. These are the same interests that brought us fossil fuels, offshoring of manufacturing, credit default swaps, gain without pain (bailouts), etc... The hammer never falls on them, at least not in the short-term. Wealth, position and power always seems to insulate them from their actions and decisions. So when Lucy tees up the football one more time should Charlie Brown really believe she won't pull it away at the last minute?

It's possible this is one of the Great Filters and one answer to the Fermi Paradox. If we solve it intelligently we go on to become an interplanetary and potentially interstellar species. If we don't we become another footnote in the history of the Cosmos, however even if that were the case and in the sense of deep time Earth will be just fine. Life is incredibly stubborn and resilient and given some tens or hundreds of thousands of years, even tens of millions of years, life will once again flourish. Of course that won't do us any good in the temporal sense however in another sense we do transcend that, which is not to say that justifies complacency.

[running]

1. The earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age.

2. its is and has always been normal for the climate to change.

3. co2 is not a pollutant but a life giving gas for the plant kingdom.

4. everything burnable will be burned to stay warm in the cold and to cook your food.
without the use of fossil fuels. fossil fuels have lessened deforestation due to having an
alternative source.

5. co2 is 4 hundredths of 1% of the atmosphere. .04%. its a trace, trace gas.

6. The Indian Minister of the Environment and Forests Prakash Javadekar basically spoke for the developing world when he was asked in 2015 why India was refusing to agree to limits on its greenhouse gas emissions. Our emissions will grow because we are not developed and we have a right, every person on this Earth has a right, to develop. If today the world is 0.8C warmer [than it was in pre-industrial times], it is not my fault.

7. Depriving the right to live is mass murder. without cheap energy every last tree will be burned down as a replacement and when nothing is left to burn many people will die. Depriving people of cheap energy is depriving them of life.

[running]

Originally Posted by Native spirit

Man is the scurge of Mother earth they destroy everything. steal what's not theirs.
The human population is growing so quickly in some countries. it is stretching resources to the limit.

Mother earth will only take so much she will hit back.
you will have more earth quakes. they build on flood planes causing flooding.
Along with deforestation.

more volcanos erupting. it will all happen.
Man broke the umberella in which we live under.
they broke it by putting stuff into space. leaving it there making a mess as they do here.
They act surprised when it falls down again its pathetic.
that is my view anyway


Namaste

its not necessarley all cause and effect. it is whats happening. as an example the dinosaurs didn't cause their own demise. it is normal for the climate to change. we have ice ages and warmer times. technically we are actually in an ice age because the poles are frozen.

we can read things and come to reasons for. reasons come from the mind. i have read to prove a point. i then said the truth. as you did by saying that is my view.

[running]

continued. to be clear. i said all i know is those things are going to happen.

[running]

continued. except that first time i opened up to it at such extreme. i played it to get what i wanted for a lot of people. maybe it was the reason. maybe it was not. i will never know entirely perhaps. maybe i was evil. maybe i was righteous. who knows? life goes on.

[8fold]

Originally Posted by running

technically we are actually in an ice age because the poles are frozen.

Is solar 25,an ice age?

[BigJohn]

?                 

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Oh, I see this really about whether we are doing ART. Sorry.
Well, no I'm retired, but I go to the bank still cashing checks from art sales.

This calling people deniers is wrong...I guess I've missed that.

With art, I'm referring to paintings, film, music, theater, etc. Not sure if you're sarcastic here or not (English is not my native tongue). Again, this is a most serious question, and I did not intend for this thread to become about climate change being real or not. I thought people would appreciate what I came here to discuss, but perhaps I placed too much trust in people's ability to understand. I hope to one day pay my bills using art (art as defined above), but again, I struggle whether there's a better way to spend my time in times like these.

To me, there's no doubt that it's us who's behind this rise in temperature, but whether you "believe" or "deny" that fact, I ask you; what would you have done if you were an artist, musician, filmmaker, actor, etc., waking up to the fact that we're ruining this planet with no planet B?

[Altair]

''Global Warming & Deforestation''

The biggest contributor to worldwide deforestation, as well as a major contributor to global warming, is the large demand for animal products. In particular, the consumption of red meat such as beef, pork and lamb puts a huge strain on land use management. Large scale animal farming is one of the most (if not the most) harmful practice to the environment.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/02...diversity-loss

''global dietary patterns need to converge around diets based more on plants, owing to the disproportionate impact of animal farming on biodiversity, land use and the environment''

Most of our farmland is used to grow crops for animals. Land that could instead be used for food production meant for our plates (shortening the food chain). Second, we would also end up with more land left for both housing and nature revitalization (using ecosystems such as forests and marshlands to protect our cities and villages from floods).

Considering spirituality, this might be of interest as well, https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hina-meat-boom

Nobody knows what will happen with this type of increase in CO2.

The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.