Full Version: The environment and us
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Environmental Debate
Yes, it seems to me in this world we live in that the environment takes little to no importance on most all things. Economic gain, wars, and the general advance of humans seem to negate the environment to being little to nothing.
One point i would like to bring up is this, does the environment play a role in human health, not only in a phyiscal manner but a mental one also, here are two links about the subject, both are about 5 minutes of reading, but hold some nice points on the subject.
Ecological Psychology and Humanistic Psychology
Humanist Environmentalism: A Manifesto
with that in mind, besides just self destruction, how much are we loseing in mental health with our choices regarding the environment?
One point i would like to bring up is this, does the environment play a role in human health, not only in a phyiscal manner but a mental one also, here are two links about the subject, both are about 5 minutes of reading, but hold some nice points on the subject.
Ecological Psychology and Humanistic Psychology
Humanist Environmentalism: A Manifesto
with that in mind, besides just self destruction, how much are we loseing in mental health with our choices regarding the environment?
I wish them college perfessers would use smaller words!
I used to hike a bunch, car camping at night and exploring remote areas during the day, never getting more than a few hours away from the car. But the car (Ramcharger, not 4 wheel drive) was parked in a place that involved long dirt roads and I could have been trapped if a good rain storm came along.
There is a connection, for me personally, between hiking/exploring the more primitive areas of Southern Utah and my mental health. You can go days without seeing another human, and the evidence of human habitation is just as likely to be ancient as modern. Getting far away from it all, no cell phone, no radio, etc. is much like an enema for the mind.
I did this for a 4 day weekend once, and it really cleared my head. Right after that I seem to have gained the ability to write poetry.
This fall, when it cools down a bit, I am going to go back to that area and get my sanity back in sync with reality, or not, but I'm going anyway.
I used to hike a bunch, car camping at night and exploring remote areas during the day, never getting more than a few hours away from the car. But the car (Ramcharger, not 4 wheel drive) was parked in a place that involved long dirt roads and I could have been trapped if a good rain storm came along.
There is a connection, for me personally, between hiking/exploring the more primitive areas of Southern Utah and my mental health. You can go days without seeing another human, and the evidence of human habitation is just as likely to be ancient as modern. Getting far away from it all, no cell phone, no radio, etc. is much like an enema for the mind.
I did this for a 4 day weekend once, and it really cleared my head. Right after that I seem to have gained the ability to write poetry.
This fall, when it cools down a bit, I am going to go back to that area and get my sanity back in sync with reality, or not, but I'm going anyway.
The continued degradation of the environment will cause immeasurable loss. I mean this literally - and that's why it's so hard to debate this issue with anyone who will take a hard-lined capitalist-logic-based approach.
The only people who would argue that environmental destruction does not damage us all are those who cannot see the value of anything *for it's own sake.* Wilderness, solitude, quiet, nature, awe, whatever you would call it - these things cannot compute in terms of dollars and cents. By their immeasurability, then, they are worthless (or at least worth less) in comparison to the environment as equated in terms of marketable, profitable resources.
Unfortunately, mental health (on a society-wide scale) only seems to compute if there's a new antidepressant about to hit the market.
The only people who would argue that environmental destruction does not damage us all are those who cannot see the value of anything *for it's own sake.* Wilderness, solitude, quiet, nature, awe, whatever you would call it - these things cannot compute in terms of dollars and cents. By their immeasurability, then, they are worthless (or at least worth less) in comparison to the environment as equated in terms of marketable, profitable resources.
Unfortunately, mental health (on a society-wide scale) only seems to compute if there's a new antidepressant about to hit the market.
Well put, Sego.
I believe the destruction of the environment may soon be irrevocable. There have been attempts to stop this, though they seem to all have fallen apart. Most recently, KYOTO was sunk by the United States' failure to ratify it. However, from an economic viewpoint, KYOTO is just another way to screw up business...
Ah, well. Someday, maybe, people will see the damage they cause. I just hope it's before it be too late.
-Yukari
I believe the destruction of the environment may soon be irrevocable. There have been attempts to stop this, though they seem to all have fallen apart. Most recently, KYOTO was sunk by the United States' failure to ratify it. However, from an economic viewpoint, KYOTO is just another way to screw up business...
Ah, well. Someday, maybe, people will see the damage they cause. I just hope it's before it be too late.
-Yukari
QUOTE(sego @ Aug 27 2003, 10:29 AM)
The continued degradation of the environment will cause immeasurable loss. I mean this literally - and that's why it's so hard to debate this issue with anyone who will take a hard-lined capitalist-logic-based approach.
The only people who would argue that environmental destruction does not damage us all are those who cannot see the value of anything *for it's own sake.* Wilderness, solitude, quiet, nature, awe, whatever you would call it - these things cannot compute in terms of dollars and cents. By their immeasurability, then, they are worthless (or at least worth less) in comparison to the environment as equated in terms of marketable, profitable resources.
Unfortunately, mental health (on a society-wide scale) only seems to compute if there's a new antidepressant about to hit the market.
The only people who would argue that environmental destruction does not damage us all are those who cannot see the value of anything *for it's own sake.* Wilderness, solitude, quiet, nature, awe, whatever you would call it - these things cannot compute in terms of dollars and cents. By their immeasurability, then, they are worthless (or at least worth less) in comparison to the environment as equated in terms of marketable, profitable resources.
Unfortunately, mental health (on a society-wide scale) only seems to compute if there's a new antidepressant about to hit the market.
Fortunately, with advances in technology, we will soon be able to visit virtual worlds where we can find peace and solitude. This will allow us to destroy all them "natural" places and replace them with economically productive buildings, roads and factories.
There is the keyword, productive. I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but what does any of this stuff mean when the very thing that allows for life cant do that any more. If we destroy the environment, that means the end to all of this productive stuff. It would be great in that war could not really occur, but that our energy would be put back into basic survival. I am starting to think that is the natural course of humanity, but that takes all the reason out of life in the current theater. So i guess it comes down to have some fun, because it really does not mean anything in the long run, after all, its Armageddon right 
Humanism and humanity and such will only be discovered after many ugly atrocities performed by the current mind of today’s world, adaptation is how it works and the environments destruction I guess holds a benefit in bringing the worlds people as one for survival.
Humanism and humanity and such will only be discovered after many ugly atrocities performed by the current mind of today’s world, adaptation is how it works and the environments destruction I guess holds a benefit in bringing the worlds people as one for survival.
QUOTE
Thirty years ago the international community was just beginning to worry about the dual effects of technological change and population growth on the biosphere. Oceans were on the agenda at the 1972 un Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm. At that time, however, a growing dispute over restrictions on free navigation and ownership of the oceans' resources was already stalling progress and cooperation. It took another ten years for the countries of the world to arrive at the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which enshrined both the principles of a global approach to ocean problem-and the rights to oceanic resources in nothing less than a "constitution for the oceans." The convention's interactive set of commitment? holds benefits for and is binding on all of the 142 countries—plus the European Union—that have since ratified it. Yet in spite of the international pledge to the oceans' future, today there is growing cause for concern.
(What Future for the Oceans?, John Temple Swing. Taken from Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2003)It is a fine line between the commercial interests and the real world problem of destroying our environment. I can fish in White River here in Indianapolis but I'd be a fool to eat what I catch. The industrial and commercial apparatus of the modern world is good at producing but very slack when it comes to preserving. There are efforts underway to prevent the wholesale destruction but its impossible to undo much of the damage. I'll just venture an opinion about the mental health and well being of our collective unconscious in this regards. It's insane to neglect our duty to the environment and we have for far too long.
QUOTE
We hold ourselves morally accountable within our circle of language in a way we hold nothing else in the universe accountable."
I am far from convinced that we are holding ourselves morally accountable with regards to the environment. Part of the problem is this weird 'circle of language', is this a reference to rhetoric or what?
Sego wrote:
Well, Sego, I take a "hard-lined capitalist-logic-based approach", but I don't I'm hard to debate with!
You, like most of the posters here, seem to see capitalism and environmental protection as incompatible.
Some of us understand that capitalism and environmental protection can both advance in harmony if we gave serious respect to propery rights.
Free market capitalism under a system of property rights allows for a tremendous creation of weath, which free people can spend on the things they value. Vast amounts of people value a clean, protected and preserved environment. Groups that seek to preserve the environment by purchasing property for preservation have had great results, for example.
Free market capitalism also generates cleaner and more efficient technologies which allow us to produce more stuff while doing less environmental damage.
I could go on and on, but please don't make the mistake of believing that we can't have our cake and eat it too. The environmentally cleanest places in the world are the most free places, places that operate, for the most part, on free market capitalism.
QUOTE
The continued degradation of the environment will cause immeasurable loss. I mean this literally - and that's why it's so hard to debate this issue with anyone who will take a hard-lined capitalist-logic-based approach.
Well, Sego, I take a "hard-lined capitalist-logic-based approach", but I don't I'm hard to debate with!
You, like most of the posters here, seem to see capitalism and environmental protection as incompatible.
Some of us understand that capitalism and environmental protection can both advance in harmony if we gave serious respect to propery rights.
Free market capitalism under a system of property rights allows for a tremendous creation of weath, which free people can spend on the things they value. Vast amounts of people value a clean, protected and preserved environment. Groups that seek to preserve the environment by purchasing property for preservation have had great results, for example.
Free market capitalism also generates cleaner and more efficient technologies which allow us to produce more stuff while doing less environmental damage.
I could go on and on, but please don't make the mistake of believing that we can't have our cake and eat it too. The environmentally cleanest places in the world are the most free places, places that operate, for the most part, on free market capitalism.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.