Does the planet really need saving?

[JeromeTash]

"Save the earth", "Save the Ocean", "Save the forests", "The earth is bleeding" etc are very common phrases we come across in this century. What is funny is that humans aren't even looking at saving themselves (like "Save the humans"  ) except shelling the shit out of ourselves in the name of wars based on egos of our leaders.

From what I see, The earth doesn't give a damn on whether we try to save it or not. We found the Earth here, and we shall probably go extinct at one point and leave it behind, just like the dinosaurs are now a distant history to it. The earth will always heal no matter what.

All this "Save the earth" projects or themes won't make sense if a random asteroid came from nowhere and hit our planet, wiping out everyone. I think our priorities are misplaced. We should be looking at saving each other, avoid pointless wars and survive peacefully.

[1715203893]

1715203893

[1715203893]

1715203893

[1715203893]

1715203893

[Ultegra134]

The earth will always recover no matter what, it doesn't need saving for itself, but for us, humans, who are making life unbearable for ourselves. Plastics require years to decompose and they are filling our oceans, land and beachers, we need to preserve for the future generations, for humanity. Honestly, I was thinking of participating in a master's degree related with the preservation of the environment.

Edit: Grammar and context.

[BADecker]

If all the nukes in the world were set off, in the long run it might harm the planet some... just as millions of people living in big cities seem to ham climate locally, a bit.

When you consider that all the people in the world could fit into two cubic miles, people don't seem to be so much after all, and there isn't really a population explosion that the world can't handle... considering that the earth has approximately 259,500,000,000 cubic miles.

Now, of course, we can't live in most of those cubic miles. But when you calculate it out, you will find that there is plenty of room for all the people... and a whole lot more.

[yourthankyou]

It's the same thing. People who are destriying the planet make these wars. And ordinary people who leave rubbish in streets, hate other people and nations. 

[Coyster]

What is funny is that humans aren't even looking at saving themselves (like "Save the humans"  ) except shelling the shit out of ourselves in the name of wars based on egos of our leaders.

Well, the thing is humans are actually looking out for themselves when they try to save earth and its natural resources. These resources are what makes it possible for man to somewhat survive here on earth, but when these resources are depleted and abused, over time it will definitely come back to haunt man who is always in dire need of them. Thus the call for eco-consciousness and other sort of campaigns that advocate for more care for the enviroment is basically just man looking out for himself, now and in the long run.

[OgNasty]

The sad truth is that the earth’s days are numbered. It is going to die a fiery death at the hands of the sun. The only way to ensure the survival of mankind is to make it a multi planetary species. That’s the Elon Musk speech anyway. I think it’s the proper way to think about things as well. While we are destroying the earth at unacceptable levels by over utilizing resources, we shouldn’t forget that the ultimate goal is not needing the earth to survive.

[TheNineClub]

"Save the earth", "Save the Ocean", "Save the forests", "The earth is bleeding" etc are very common phrases we come across in this century. What is funny is that humans aren't even looking at saving themselves (like "Save the humans"  ) except shelling the shit out of ourselves in the name of wars based on egos of our leaders.

From what I see, The earth doesn't give a damn on whether we try to save it or not. We found the Earth here, and we shall probably go extinct at one point and leave it behind, just like the dinosaurs are now a distant history to it. The earth will always heal no matter what.

All this "Save the earth" projects or themes won't make sense if a random asteroid came from nowhere and hit our planet, wiping out everyone. I think our priorities are misplaced. We should be looking at saving each other, avoid pointless wars and survive peacefully.

Lemme then gives a counterargument to that, why would we save the humans, if we are all going today anyway? What would be the point? Why procreate if you basically just give birth to someone on a death sentence?

The earth itself might not care for us, but its unique conditions (and yes, since we haven't seen many examples besides earth, they are somewhat unique, at least to our solar system) ''cared'' enough to give us a chance to form and evolve, so by caring for the planet would be caring for something that is not ours (we did not make it, therefore, we are not permitted to destroy it, we are not the Gods of 'it'), but gave birth to us, no matter if we as a species outlive it in whatever form or condition.

I hope I made that clear enough.

[yazher]

We are saving the earth because we are making a better world for the next generations where is less pollution and have someplace to stay like how it used to be. When there were more trees on the road that can shade you from direct sunlight and the like of it. I think those people who weren't aware of how bad it is to live in a place where there are no trees, are people who live with some air conditioner in their homes. People that are used to living in those kinds of places are already feeling the changes that's why some people are dedicating their lives to making it back. Like these couple here:

[jrrsparkles]

If we don't stop doing all the things which harm the environment will not only be the reason for extinction of human but also most of the living things in this world sooner than what it supposed to be. However climate change will happen for sure even if we stop everything but it slowen the process so more time for human or atleast a century more.

[BADecker]

...

You should see how scrawny, brown and withered those trees look in the winter.

[Mr.right85]

Cut one tree and plant two in its place. This is another of those and the truth is, they all help. Humans, we are both creative and destructive in nature and have altered so much about the earth's structure due to our curiosity but in all that, we are doing our best to remediate and build.

If we are to look at it, nature doesn't really needs us to save it but it could save itself. I mean, the design is so unique that it goes in circles to correct what alterations that might have been done in the past but, should we let nature save itself, its going to follow a path that might bring harm to humans.
It therefore means, in our plight to save nature, we act as facilitators an indeed save ourselves in the process.

[Ultegra134]

Cut one tree and plant two in its place. This is another of those and the truth is, they all help. Humans, we are both creative and destructive in nature and have altered so much about the earth's structure due to our curiosity but in all that, we are doing our best to remediate and build.

If we are to look at it, nature doesn't really needs us to save it but it could save itself. I mean, the design is so unique that it goes in circles to correct what alterations that might have been done in the past but, should we let nature save itself, its going to follow a path that might bring harm to humans.
It therefore means, in our plight to save nature, we act as facilitators an indeed save ourselves in the process.

Nature doesn't need saving, it can live without us, it'll take thousands or even millions of years to recover but eventually our footprint will have been deleted. We're the ones who can't live without it, each year, we're depleting more resources that can be produced, pollution is rapidly increasing and so is the temperature of the planet, if action isn't taken now, the future generations are doomed. On top of that, our forests, the source of oxygen, are being depleted, either by wildfires or for our own personal gain.

[BADecker]

Cut one tree and plant two in its place. This is another of those and the truth is, they all help. Humans, we are both creative and destructive in nature and have altered so much about the earth's structure due to our curiosity but in all that, we are doing our best to remediate and build.

If we are to look at it, nature doesn't really needs us to save it but it could save itself. I mean, the design is so unique that it goes in circles to correct what alterations that might have been done in the past but, should we let nature save itself, its going to follow a path that might bring harm to humans.
It therefore means, in our plight to save nature, we act as facilitators an indeed save ourselves in the process.

But, but, but...

People who cut trees down and plant new trees, work harder than if they did nothing. This puts more CO2 into the atmosphere from all their heavy breathing. That means more climate change, right.

Stop both, cutting trees down and re-planting, right?

[Mr.right85]

But, but, but...

People who cut trees down and plant new trees, work harder than if they did nothing. This puts more CO2 into the atmosphere from all their heavy breathing. That means more climate change, right.

Stop both, cutting trees down and re-planting, right?

Unfortunately, that's the impossibility to the situation. Resources would always be mined and used. It doesn't matter if they are plants, animals and minerals. As humans, we've got taste and needs and these things in our environs is what we could used in satisfying them. We aren't going to leave things be to fly out of space and get the resource we need to fix ourselves up. We would always get it right here but, our actions to the correction of the problems we create is what matters.

If we are to say, they shouldn't cut trees, do nothing and there won't be any heavy breathing and no CO₂ increase in the environment, then wht about the athletes. At least, they aren't cutting trees but thy get to perform there sports, burn energy and in turn, release CO₂ into the atmosphere.
In all, we still have to try and follow processes that ensures its remediation.

[franky1]

we are able to drill holes deeper then aquifers and water tables to suck oil up..

yet when it comes to disposing of plastics and toxic chemicals
we try to just lay them in shallow ground pretending we cannot put them in safer places any deeper. pretending its impossible to go down deep enough to put them in places.

the solution is simple. fill up the deep mines/underground reservoirs we first got the oil out of way below the water table, way below aquifers, where they cannot leak into our ground water systems.

same with nuclear. put them in the very spot we got the nuclear material from
if we were able to extract them, refine them and transport them safely to nuclear power plants, we can do the same in reverse
..
the actual excuse is not ability. but cost.
just putting plastic in landfill is free because humans pay their local government utility company (trash companies) to take it away and dispose of on cheap land handed to them for free by local government
..

if it was good enough to have nuclear material in those spots for millions of years before us, then we can put it back where it came from(in reverse)

EG
coal quarries.
we can sequester carbon into solids and put it into the quarries coal was extracted from.

silly people have silly idea.s to sequester carbon and then sell it to fizzy drinks companies to carbonate drinks which we should then consume.

however they think its impossible to put it back into the very mines from which it came

[coolcoinz]

It doesn't need saving, it just needs us to make a step back and stop polluting it. We only have one Earth.

You can see how easy it is to pull nature out of balance and how damaging it can be. There's a recent problem on a river between Germany and Poland where tons of fish were found dead because apparently the water became too salty.

I feel like we're focusing on the carbon footprint and melting ice caps but the real disaster will hit us where no one expects it.

[af_newbie]

"Save the earth", "Save the Ocean", "Save the forests", "The earth is bleeding" etc are very common phrases we come across in this century. What is funny is that humans aren't even looking at saving themselves (like "Save the humans"  ) except shelling the shit out of ourselves in the name of wars based on egos of our leaders.

From what I see, The earth doesn't give a damn on whether we try to save it or not. We found the Earth here, and we shall probably go extinct at one point and leave it behind, just like the dinosaurs are now a distant history to it. The earth will always heal no matter what.

All this "Save the earth" projects or themes won't make sense if a random asteroid came from nowhere and hit our planet, wiping out everyone. I think our priorities are misplaced. We should be looking at saving each other, avoid pointless wars and survive peacefully.

The planet does not need saving. We need to protect our environment and our limited resources.

We are only protected by a 1-3 mm ozone layer. When it will be gone, most of life will go with it.

We need to stop using fossil fuels, and we need to stop the exponential growth of the human population.

Don't shit where you eat.

[Ultegra134]

"Save the earth", "Save the Ocean", "Save the forests", "The earth is bleeding" etc are very common phrases we come across in this century. What is funny is that humans aren't even looking at saving themselves (like "Save the humans"  ) except shelling the shit out of ourselves in the name of wars based on egos of our leaders.

From what I see, The earth doesn't give a damn on whether we try to save it or not. We found the Earth here, and we shall probably go extinct at one point and leave it behind, just like the dinosaurs are now a distant history to it. The earth will always heal no matter what.

All this "Save the earth" projects or themes won't make sense if a random asteroid came from nowhere and hit our planet, wiping out everyone. I think our priorities are misplaced. We should be looking at saving each other, avoid pointless wars and survive peacefully.

The planet does not need saving. We need to protect our environment and our limited resources.

We are only protected by a 1-3 mm ozone layer. When it will be gone, most of life will go with it.

We need to stop using fossil fuels, and we need to stop the exponential growth of the human population.

Don't shit where you eat.

Supposedly, the ozone layer is showing signs of healing after 2000, a result of reducing the usage of ozone depleting substances, such as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), however, HCFCs are yet to be banned and are still used in refrigerators and freezers.



In 2019, the ozone hole was considerably smaller, but honestly, I don't see too much improvement in recent years.

I'm starting to believe that our generation is pretty much doomed.

[Gyfts]

The modern green initiatives don't do much to actually stop climate change so the question to ask is whether people should feel comfortable paying 2x-3x their energy cost in order to reduce carbon emissions by using renewable/cleaner energy sources. And by doing so, making only a fractional impact on global average temperature increases over the next 100 years. Most people wouldn't even pay 1.1x their current energy costs even if it made a more sizeable impact than what the projections show. Russia, India, China, don't have any intentions on reducing their emissions any time soon.

The green energy hippies would rather have you freeze to death in the winter than emit carbon pollution.

[Kavelj22]

When I remember the changes that took place on the planet during the period of mass quarantine when the pandemic spread, I realize that the planet indeed deserves an urgent rescue mission.
All indicators of the scientific community confirm that the health of the planet requires urgent intervention. Unfortunately, there are no practical solutions that are effectively implemented on the ground, despite all the warnings of danger.