Thread: Will pollution increase with new technology into the apocalypse?

Often I find myself thinking that all we need is a new technological solution for the problems we face--carbon sequestration for global warming, GMO for food security etc.--but lately I've been feeling like this reasoning is flawed.

Going back to what is essentially the first significant piece of technology, agriculture, we can see destruction of ecosystems in salinization--and for on throughout history it seems that there are unforeseen costs for technology often larger than the gains which that technology brings--HFCs were godsends until we found they distroyed O3, fossil fuels and climate, industrialism and air pollution, fertilizers and deadzones. While agriculture had a narrow area of effect, we are now putting technology into the globe so severe it can effect global weather patterns; it seems reasonable to assume that global technology will only increase, and global pollution will increase with it.

The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it?

Originally Posted by G Bronson

The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it?

While we know our actions have consequences, it can sometimes be impossible to see them until it's too late. Even today with talk of GMO and geoengineering, we could be making alterations far more powerful and far-reaching than ever before. As the old saying goes, "The path the hell is paved with good intentions".

I agree. I remember recently I saw a ted talk in which someone used nanotechnology as a water filter--I was thinking great, we're solving one problem, now we just have to wait and see what kind of damage nano-technology pollution causes.

If companies that produce CO2 had a proven method for carbon capture, something that they could turn a profit on of course, then would environmentalists find that acceptable? Maybe I didn't word that right but I'm thinking if the same people responsible for carbon emissions were just as efficient at removing it then is there still a problem?

I don't see how there could be.

Originally Posted by G Bronson

Often I find myself thinking that all we need is a new technological solution for the problems we face--carbon sequestration for global warming, GMO for food security etc.--but lately I've been feeling like this reasoning is flawed.

Going back to what is essentially the first significant piece of technology, agriculture, we can see destruction of ecosystems in salinization--and for on throughout history it seems that there are unforeseen costs for technology often larger than the gains which that technology brings--HFCs were godsends until we found they distroyed O3, fossil fuels and climate, industrialism and air pollution, fertilizers and deadzones. While agriculture had a narrow area of effect, we are now putting technology into the globe so severe it can effect global weather patterns; it seems reasonable to assume that global technology will only increase, and global pollution will increase with it.

The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it?

After thinking I wondered if (human beings) themselves were the problem and not technology. Human beings have destroyed things like you described above when modern technology did not exist. Humans have caused many animals to go extinct in the times of simplistic technology (animals like dodo birds, European lions, ex.ex.)

Around the time of Christopher Columbus Europe already cut down all their trees, polluted all their rivers, and destroyed all of the fish stock without modern technology.
Then Europeans came to America and cut down all of Americas trees and destroyed all of Americas fish stock (and they did this with wooden sailing boats, simple nets, and hand axes.)

You said agriculture based technology caused the destruction of ecosystems. But in the time of Christopher Columbus Native Americans had powerful agriculture technology, they burned down grasslands and forests to make convenient places for buffalo to live and graze, and they could have destroyed North America if they wished. But they did not cause any plants or animals to go extinct (because they had respect for the land and animals.)


Today CO2 caused global warming threatens this entire planet, and humans fully know about the dangers. But this problem could already be solved by driving cars with very small engines, building solar power plants, building power plants using the oceans waves for power, using solar powered air conditioners, using organic farming, ex.ex. but human beings don't take action to fix the problem. Instead humans worry more about business profits and say "if we combat global warming our large corporations will make less money.

Fact is technology is a good thing, it cures our heart disease, cancer, and other contagious diseases. It provides food, comfort, and communication. And the list of benefits from technology goes on and on.

So if technology is a good thing whats the problem?

Is it human disrespect?
-like not caring when a large factory is putting chemicals in a river and killing all the fish.
-or not caring when logging corporations are about to cut down every single giant redwood tree in America.


Is human stupidity the problem (or) is money, business, capitalism, and large corporations the problem?

We are all connected by capitalism and it decides the human destiny.
What is our unemployment rate? Capitalism decides that.
Will we explore our solar systems frozen moons for life? Not anytime soon (because capitalism says we can't afford too.)

Since humans have an advanced brain and capitalism has no brain, I would say capitalism is the problem and not humans.
Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature?


If technology is not the problem what is?

This post was made on accident and deleted. I also deleted posts bellow regarding computer problems I was having.

I apologize for all the deleted posts in this thread,
Chad.

Post deleted.

Originally Posted by chad

Since humans have an advanced brain and capitalism has no brain, I would say capitalism is the problem and not humans.

Given that the communist USSR was a much bigger polluter than the US, and given that China now occupies #1 polluter position, I'd say that it's inherent to all economic systems.

If technology is not the problem what is?

Our use of it. Technology is just a tool; it is our use of it that causes problems.

If technology is not the problem what is?

Your historical revisionism for starters.

Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature?

Seriously? All societies that had fairly high population densities, aka all those not purely nomadic hunters/gatherers/scavengers were highly destructive to their respective surroundings. The Native Americans burned and cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture, the Sumerians caused massive destructions of the Marshes as they rerouted water for agriculture and transportation, Greeks farming methods removed most of their own top soils (it's amazing how wide the coast plain is today at the Battle of Thermopylae because the Gulf of Malin filled with former top soil), the Polynesians (and every other wave of humanity) caused mini extinctions everywhere they colonized as a result of their lifestyle and invasive species.

The difference today is scale and that science and engineering have allowed us to not only change the environment faster and over larger areas but also for the first time given us an awareness of the consequences and measure those changes.

Post deleted.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If technology is not the problem what is?

Your historical revisionism for starters.

Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature?

Seriously? All societies that had fairly high population densities, aka all those not purely nomadic hunters/gatherers/scavengers were highly destructive to their respective surroundings. The Native Americans burned and cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture, the Sumerians caused massive destructions of the Marshes as they rerouted water for agriculture and transportation, Greeks farming methods removed most of their own top soils (it's amazing how wide the coast plain is today at the Battle of Thermopylae because the Gulf of Malin filled with former top soil), the Polynesians (and every other wave of humanity) caused mini extinctions everywhere they colonized as a result of their lifestyle and invasive species.

The difference today is scale and that science and engineering have allowed us to not only change the environment faster and over larger areas but also for the first time given us an awareness of the consequences and measure those changes.

The question is do societies that use advanced economic systems destroy the environment more than a complex society (that is not obsessed with money.)

Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct? What humans were hurt? I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

But a capitalist-like society is like an organism, and its only goal is to make money. And within the capitalist organism there are greedy people who care about nothing but money. And once these greedy people get into the mechanism of business they will destroy nature and kill their own people to make money.

America's logging corporations would have cut down every giant redwood in America (if a few people did not chain themselves to the trees to stop them, and then get lucky getting a national park created.) Cigarette and asbestos corporations knew their products were killing people, but they hid the evidence and lied about it so they could continue to make money.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people? No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

As always I apologize if I was rude, and I hope that you are doing well,
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

[Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct?

Ground sloths, American lions, dire wolves and short-faced bears. Also 19 species of birds.

From About.com:
==========
At the end of the last ice age, at the same time as the human colonization of the last, farthest-flung regions from Africa, large-bodied mammals (called megafauna) became extinct all over the world. The mass extinctions were neither synchronous nor universal, and the reasons proffered for those extinctions include (but are not limited to) climate change and human intervention.
Before Homo sapiens left Africa to colonize the rest of the world, all of the continents were already populated by a large and diverse animal population, including our hominid cousins Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Animals with body weights greater than 100 pounds (45 kg), called megafauna, were abundant. Extinct elephant, horse, emu, wolves, hippos: the fauna varied with the continent, but most of them were plant eaters, with few predator species. Almost all of these megafauna species are now extinct; most of the extinctions followed the path of Homo sapiens colonization.
=============

What humans were hurt?

The thousands killed during the Osage-Iroquois war would be one example.

I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

That's like saying that we have respect for nature because some US citizens are Wiccans and some buy organic milk. The myth of the noble savage was debunked long ago. Not surprisingly, native Americans had a lot of the same problems every other society in the world had.

But a capitalist-like society is like an organism, and its only goal is to make money. And within the capitalist organism there are greedy people who care about nothing but money. And once these greedy people get into the mechanism of business they will destroy nature and kill their own people to make money.

The American Indians did all those things as well. We did not invent greed.

America's logging corporations would have cut down every giant redwood in America (if a few people did not chain themselves to the trees to stop them, and then get lucky getting a national park created.)

And native Americans would have killed every buffalo in the US if they could have managed it.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people?

They DID kill people. War was endemic among the Mayans, for example.

No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

Instead they were saying "leave and give us your hunting grounds or we will kill you and take them."

Originally Posted by chad

Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct?

List of North American animals extinct in the Holocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What humans were hurt? I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

This is mostly a myth-based idea of the noble savage. Some did out of necessity seem to embrace sustainable philosophies with respect to certain animals, but even in those cases it was often more of utilitarian value, such as not to waste most of an animal kill, than out of any deep morality about preserving nature.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people? No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

Some did, some didn't. Compared to modern peoples they were far far more violent and war like.

I'm not arguing that current forms of international capitalism aren't contributing in some ways to hasten environmental destruction, but I don't think it's does so dramatically any worse than past systems. As written earlier, humans only recently developed the tools to understand, measure and predict changes and hence make real information-based choices about how we consume--past societies in large part didn't have that understanding or clear moral choices to make.

I'll also add that capitalism for all its warts, when combined with representative government, has been pretty effective at reducing environmental impacts at the local and regional levels compared to other economies with non-representative nations. Compare formerly Western to Eastern Germany for example--Western Germany, is far more environmentally friendly while its Eastern side was left a disaster by comparison. Want to compare the Republic of Korea with North Korea?

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by chad

[Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct?

Ground sloths, American lions, dire wolves and short-faced bears. Also 19 species of birds.

From About.com:
==========
At the end of the last ice age, at the same time as the human colonization of the last, farthest-flung regions from Africa, large-bodied mammals (called megafauna) became extinct all over the world. The mass extinctions were neither synchronous nor universal, and the reasons proffered for those extinctions include (but are not limited to) climate change and human intervention.
Before Homo sapiens left Africa to colonize the rest of the world, all of the continents were already populated by a large and diverse animal population, including our hominid cousins Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Animals with body weights greater than 100 pounds (45 kg), called megafauna, were abundant. Extinct elephant, horse, emu, wolves, hippos: the fauna varied with the continent, but most of them were plant eaters, with few predator species. Almost all of these megafauna species are now extinct; most of the extinctions followed the path of Homo sapiens colonization.
=============

What humans were hurt?

The thousands killed during the Osage-Iroquois war would be one example.

I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

That's like saying that we have respect for nature because some US citizens are Wiccans and some buy organic milk. The myth of the noble savage was debunked long ago. Not surprisingly, native Americans had a lot of the same problems every other society in the world had.

But a capitalist-like society is like an organism, and its only goal is to make money. And within the capitalist organism there are greedy people who care about nothing but money. And once these greedy people get into the mechanism of business they will destroy nature and kill their own people to make money.

The American Indians did all those things as well. We did not invent greed.

America's logging corporations would have cut down every giant redwood in America (if a few people did not chain themselves to the trees to stop them, and then get lucky getting a national park created.)

And native Americans would have killed every buffalo in the US if they could have managed it.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people?

They DID kill people. War was endemic among the Mayans, for example.

No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

Instead they were saying "leave and give us your hunting grounds or we will kill you and take them."

"Why did the ground sloths become extinct at the end of the Pleistocene along with so many other big mammals? Some paleontologists say that climate changes altered sloths' favored plant communities. Other researchers credit human predation and habitat disruption for the extinction of the sloths. But much more research is needed to find the answers."
San Diego Natural History Museum Fossil Mysteries Field Guide: Giant ground sloth

And the dire wolfs extinction can not be fully linked to humans either, only some scientists believe humans played a (part) in the dire wolfs extinction.
Dire Wolf Evolution - The Dire Wolf Project

But I will concede perhaps (ancient) native Americans made a few animals become extinct, but how many? 5-20


But today 30%-50% of all plant and animal species are going to go extinct in the next 35 years.
The Extinction Crisis

And surely capitalism is playing a part in 30%-50% of all species about to become extinct. And its not just large businesses polluting and destroying nature causing these problems, its also capitalism not caring about the poor and needy, and forcing them to do things like slash and burn in the rain forests. If this world was led by scientists rather than business people, then this mass extinction we face would be much less.


And yes thousands were killed during the native American Osage-Iroquois war, but 50-70 million people were killed during the capitalist countries WWII.


And with all due respect to say native Americans did not respect nature more than a capitalist culture is laughable. Native Americans believed animals, plants, animals, rocks and natural phenomena had a spirit just like humans.
Meaning of Animals ***

Native Americans also considered many of the animals around them to be "Power Animals", they were guides to sources of food and other essential items or as guides to the changing seasons.
Power Animals ***

They also have many other beliefs respecting animals.
Native American Culture - Religion, Beliefs, Rituals and Ceremonies ***

And its not just animals they had respect for they had the same respect for trees.
Meaning of Trees ***


Then you said "the native Americans would have killed every buffalo in the US if they could have managed it."

But to native Americans the buffalo symbolizes the sacred, life, great strength, abundance and gratitude.
Meaning of Animals ***

Do you honestly believe the native Americans would have killed every buffalo when they considered them sacred animals?

I challenge you to show (1) animal that culturally developed North American Native Indians made go extinct.


Then you spoke about the Mayans but the Mayans were capitalists. Their "economy was a mixed capitalist/command system combining free market trade and direct government control over areas considered vital to the population of any specific state. Maya economics functioned on a simple supply and demand theory."
Trade in Maya civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chad.

While it is true there is little direct evidence, such as appearance of the remains of many of these animals in camp sites etc, it should also be noted that actual sites are quite sparse. Also like modern extinctions, the impact that drive the organism isn't usually direct, it's almost always indirect by means of changing the environment, destroying habitat or introduction of invasive species that compete with native populations. Dozens of large animals had already survived multiple interglacial/glacial periods, some of which were nearly identical to the most recent event for which they wouldn't survive--the most obvious difference was the apex predator and flexible animals--humans. And, it's a story told over and over and over as humans spread about the globe, long before the economic systems you seem so intent to condemn--when in fact it coupled with representative/secular governments are the only system that's actually seemed to even consider the bigger questions of sustainability.

Do you honestly believe the native Americans would have killed every buffalo when they considered them sacred animals?

Yes absolutely, but by the 1850 they were killing up to half a million a year and only eating roughly 4% of their kills--sacred because they played a huge role in their tribes existence...not sacred because they actually have any sort of inherent respect or understanding that they were playing a huge part in killing them off faster than they could reproduce.

Along with technological advancement there has always been population increase. I posit that if you could advance technologicly with out the population increase then pollution would not be a problem. It is population growth that is driving the increase in pollution.

Beware the myth of the nobel savage, because it is a myth and talking like it was true leads to incorrect conclusins.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

I posit that if you could advance technologically with out the population increase then pollution would not be a problem. It is population growth that is driving the increase in pollution.

To a large degree that depends on what type of pollution and at what stage in development. Ecological footprint and total pollution is much much larger for an average American than for someone living in a simple agrarian society. On the other hand developing nations, such as China (they are pretty far along), India, etc often go through a similar dirty stage as we (and European's) did while pursuing the highest industrial production before there's a strict regulatory framework or cleanest tech are implemented.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by chad

Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct?

List of North American animals extinct in the Holocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What humans were hurt? I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

This is mostly a myth-based idea of the noble savage. Some did out of necessity seem to embrace sustainable philosophies with respect to certain animals, but even in those cases it was often more of utilitarian value, such as not to waste most of an animal kill, than out of any deep morality about preserving nature.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people? No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

Some did, some didn't. Compared to modern peoples they were far far more violent and war like.

I'm not arguing that current forms of international capitalism aren't contributing in some ways to hasten environmental destruction, but I don't think it's does so dramatically any worse than past systems. As written earlier, humans only recently developed the tools to understand, measure and predict changes and hence make real information-based choices about how we consume--past societies in large part didn't have that understanding or clear moral choices to make.

I'll also add that capitalism for all its warts, when combined with representative government, has been pretty effective at reducing environmental impacts at the local and regional levels compared to other economies with non-representative nations. Compare formerly Western to Eastern Germany for example--Western Germany, is far more environmentally friendly while its Eastern side was left a disaster by comparison. Want to compare the Republic of Korea with North Korea?

Native Americans had a spiritual respect for war. They had a belief of "Mourning War" it assured the spiritual power of the clan would be preserved. ex.ex.

Native Americans did not even have great wars until Europeans brought capitalism to North America. "Native American inter-tribal wars began as private and social enterprises that, after the introduction of European trade, created new rivalries and these wars assumed an entirely different aspect. These changes could be first documented in the battle for Fort Orange in 1626."

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pd...SOFWARFARE.pdf


And European capitalist war is 100x more evil, savage, and illogical than traditional native American war. Native American wars were for fought for a reason, like someone entering your hunting grounds, someone being dishonest in trading, or disrespect. And the people that were killed were killed for a reason.

But in wars in a capitalist society bombs are dropped on innocent men, women, and children (and these civilian people killed did absolutely nothing to the attacking military forces.)

Example, Americas recent Iraq war. Dick Cheney was a Haliburton corporation CEO, and him and 12 other members of the GW Bush White House were connected to Haliburton. The Bush White House attacked Iraq in the name of Sept 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11.

935 false statements were made to get the Iraq war.
Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

Then after invading Iraq Dick Cheney gave Haliburton corporation billion's of dollars of no-bid US government contracts in Iraq.
FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

Even republican sources say the above is true.
Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed For The Iraq War So Halliburton Would Profit

What did those 100,000 Iraq people do to deserve to be killed by Americas military?

Those capitalist actions killed 100,000 innocent Iraq people, and killed 1,000's of US soldiers. Can you list any Native American war were so many innocent people who did nothing to the opposing side were killed?


You say Native Americans were far more violent and war like than Europeans.

But Native Americans helped Europeans when they first came to North America.
Native Americans Helped the Europeans when they Suffered Disease

While Europeans went to war with Native Americans and stole their whole country and resources.
American Indian Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is the more war like and violent people?

Chad.

There is a direct correlation between business controlled capitalism and CO2 emissions.

America, Germany, and Switzerland are all highly industrialized countries. And each of them have very similar industrial economies.

In America you need $800 million dollars in campaign money to run for president, and businesses, corporations, and CEO's provide that money. That money from capitalist businesses causes republican politicians to publically say "global warming is a hoax", they say this because combating global warming would reduce corporate profits.

But in Germany and Switzerland businesses have not infiltrated their governments. Rather workers unions and regular citizens have great power in their politics.

CO2 emissions per capita (2010),

America- 17.6 tons.
Germany- 9.1 tons.
Switzerland- 5.4 tons.

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table

Originally Posted by chad

Native Americans had a spiritual respect for war. They had a belief of "Mourning War" it assured the spiritual power of the clan would be preserved. ex.ex.

Native Americans did not even have great wars until Europeans brought capitalism to North Americas. "Native American inter-tribal wars began as private and social enterprises that, after the introduction of European trade, created new rivalries and these wars assumed an entirely different aspect. These changes could be first documented in the battle for Fort Orange in 1626."

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pd...SOFWARFARE.pdf

You should drop the noble savage pitch.
Here's an entire seminar including many discussions specifically about the scope and breath of pre-columbian warfare in the Americas. The objective evidence shows that it happened quite often, in many places, and was often of large scope including genocides.
2011 Symposium, Abstracts
--

CO2 emissions per capita (2010),

America- 17.6 tons.
Germany- 9.1 tons.
Switzerland- 5.4 tons.

You aren't making a causal argument, you are simply reflecting a correlation that more than anything else reflects a difference in the standards of living. And you'd ever lived in Germany, as I have, you'd realize capitalism is quite alive and well there.

Originally Posted by chad

But I will concede perhaps (ancient) native Americans made a few animals become extinct, but how many? 5-20

Probably thousands. We know about the big ones that were really notable, and the native Americans remembered. We, of course, do not know anything all the species that they drove extinct that they didn't notice either.

But today 30%-50% of all plant and animal species are going to go extinct in the next 35 years.

Doubtful - but maybe.

And surely capitalism is playing a part in 30%-50% of all species about to become extinct.

Probably. And communism would play an even larger part, when we look at what the USSR and China has laid waste to.

And its not just large businesses polluting and destroying nature causing these problems, its also capitalism not caring about the poor and needy

Bullshit. The poor in America are better off than the poor in almost every country out there.

and forcing them to do things like slash and burn in the rain forests.

They are doing that because they are poor and want to be rich. If they were in the US, our evil capitalist society wouldn't allow them to slash and burn - and they wouldn't need to. Would you prefer they just die off?

If this world was led by scientists rather than business people, then this mass extinction we face would be much less.

Dictatorships rarely work out well.

And with all due respect to say native Americans did not respect nature more than a capitalist culture is laughable. Native Americans believed animals, plants, animals, rocks and natural phenomena had a spirit just like humans.

Yep. And many Americans believe that there is an omniscient God that will punish us if we mistreat animals.

You've fallen for the current popular spin on native Americans. When we first encountered native Americans we had a popular image of them as peaceful heathens. This was useful because early settlers needed all the help they could get. Then as we came into conflict with them the popular image became that of a soulless violent savage. This was also useful to rally people to kill them. Now that they operate casinos and run reservations we have gone back to the other extreme. The truth, as usual, was somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by chad

Native Americans had a spiritual respect for war. They had a belief of "Mourning War" it assured the spiritual power of the clan would be preserved. ex.ex.

Native Americans did not even have great wars until Europeans brought capitalism to North Americas. "Native American inter-tribal wars began as private and social enterprises that, after the introduction of European trade, created new rivalries and these wars assumed an entirely different aspect. These changes could be first documented in the battle for Fort Orange in 1626."

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pd...SOFWARFARE.pdf

You should drop the noble savage pitch.
Here's an entire seminar including many discussions specifically about the scope and breath of pre-columbian warfare in the Americas. The objective evidence shows that it happened quite often, in many places, and was often of large scope including genocides.
2011 Symposium, Abstracts
--

CO2 emissions per capita (2010),

America- 17.6 tons.
Germany- 9.1 tons.
Switzerland- 5.4 tons.

You aren't making a causal argument, you are simply reflecting a correlation that more than anything else reflects a difference in the standards of living. And you'd ever lived in Germany, as I have, you'd realize capitalism is quite alive and well there.

“I did not see anything [in New York 1886] to help my people. I could see that the Wasichus [white man] did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation's hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.”
― Black Elk


“I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people's dream died there. It was a beautiful dream...”
― Black Elk


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by chad

[Yes native Americans altered their environment in major ways. But what animals or plants went extinct?

Ground sloths, American lions, dire wolves and short-faced bears. Also 19 species of birds.

From About.com:
==========
At the end of the last ice age, at the same time as the human colonization of the last, farthest-flung regions from Africa, large-bodied mammals (called megafauna) became extinct all over the world. The mass extinctions were neither synchronous nor universal, and the reasons proffered for those extinctions include (but are not limited to) climate change and human intervention.
Before Homo sapiens left Africa to colonize the rest of the world, all of the continents were already populated by a large and diverse animal population, including our hominid cousins Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Animals with body weights greater than 100 pounds (45 kg), called megafauna, were abundant. Extinct elephant, horse, emu, wolves, hippos: the fauna varied with the continent, but most of them were plant eaters, with few predator species. Almost all of these megafauna species are now extinct; most of the extinctions followed the path of Homo sapiens colonization.
=============

What humans were hurt?

The thousands killed during the Osage-Iroquois war would be one example.

I would say none or very little because native Americans had respect for nature.

That's like saying that we have respect for nature because some US citizens are Wiccans and some buy organic milk. The myth of the noble savage was debunked long ago. Not surprisingly, native Americans had a lot of the same problems every other society in the world had.

But a capitalist-like society is like an organism, and its only goal is to make money. And within the capitalist organism there are greedy people who care about nothing but money. And once these greedy people get into the mechanism of business they will destroy nature and kill their own people to make money.

The American Indians did all those things as well. We did not invent greed.

America's logging corporations would have cut down every giant redwood in America (if a few people did not chain themselves to the trees to stop them, and then get lucky getting a national park created.)

And native Americans would have killed every buffalo in the US if they could have managed it.

Would non-capitalist Native Americans cut down every giant redwood or trade products with their neighbors that killed people?

They DID kill people. War was endemic among the Mayans, for example.

No because they had respect for nature, and one was saying "trade this product with your neighbor that will kill them, and then you will get a mansion and a brand new Lamborghini."

Instead they were saying "leave and give us your hunting grounds or we will kill you and take them."

In your newest post #22 you make the accusation that Native Americans made 1,000's of species of animals go extinct. But lets look at your above accusations first. You stated above that Native Americans made Ground sloths, American lions, dire wolves, and short-faced bears go extinct.

But science says that climate change, lack of food from climate change, and (perhaps) help from humans made these animals go extinct. This is a forum of science and how can you state (as fact) that Native Americans made these animals go extinct, when science says more research is needed to find the cause of these animals extinction?

San Diego Natural History Museum Fossil Mysteries Field Guide: Giant ground sloth
Dire Wolf Evolution - The Dire Wolf Project

Originally Posted by chad

But science says that climate change, lack of food from climate change, and (perhaps) help from humans made these animals go extinct. This is a forum of science and how can you state (as fact) that humans made these animals go extinct when science says more research is needed to find the cause of these animals extinction?

OK. So if we don't know why any animals are going extinct, and we need more research before we know anything, then climate change is currently no worry.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by chad

But I will concede perhaps (ancient) native Americans made a few animals become extinct, but how many? 5-20

Probably thousands. We know about the big ones that were really notable, and the native Americans remembered. We, of course, do not know anything all the species that they drove extinct that they didn't notice either.

But today 30%-50% of all plant and animal species are going to go extinct in the next 35 years.

Doubtful - but maybe.

And surely capitalism is playing a part in 30%-50% of all species about to become extinct.

Probably. And communism would play an even larger part, when we look at what the USSR and China has laid waste to.

And its not just large businesses polluting and destroying nature causing these problems, its also capitalism not caring about the poor and needy

Bullshit. The poor in America are better off than the poor in almost every country out there.

and forcing them to do things like slash and burn in the rain forests.

They are doing that because they are poor and want to be rich. If they were in the US, our evil capitalist society wouldn't allow them to slash and burn - and they wouldn't need to. Would you prefer they just die off?

If this world was led by scientists rather than business people, then this mass extinction we face would be much less.

Dictatorships rarely work out well.

And with all due respect to say native Americans did not respect nature more than a capitalist culture is laughable. Native Americans believed animals, plants, animals, rocks and natural phenomena had a spirit just like humans.

Yep. And many Americans believe that there is an omniscient God that will punish us if we mistreat animals.

You've fallen for the current popular spin on native Americans. When we first encountered native Americans we had a popular image of them as peaceful heathens. This was useful because early settlers needed all the help they could get. Then as we came into conflict with them the popular image became that of a soulless violent savage. This was also useful to rally people to kill them. Now that they operate casinos and run reservations we have gone back to the other extreme. The truth, as usual, was somewhere in between.

You said Native Americans probably made 1,000's of species of animals go extinct, could you please provide sources for your statement. But so far you have not proved that Native Americans made (1) species of animal go extinct.


Then you say its doubtful that 30%-50% of all species are about to go extinct. But according to science this coming mass extinction is real.

The Extinction Crisis
Mass Extinction Underway | Biodiversity Crisis | Global Species Loss
Half of All Animal Species Will Be Extinct in Your Lifetime, Unless Emissions Peak by 2020 : TreeHugger

Note the following source speaks of extinctions in the next 50 years, the above sources speak of the next 80-100 years.
Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health

Originally Posted by chad

You said Native Americans probably made 1,000's of species of animals go extinct, could you please provide sources for your statement. But so far you have not proved that Native Americans made (1) species of animal go extinct. Then you say its doubtful that 30%-50% of all species are about to go extinct. But according to science this coming mass extinction is real.

You keep flipping back and forth here. You don't believe the reports on early American extinctions because although there is scientific evidence that it was caused by early humans - and even though those animals are in fact extinct - "we need more research." Then you say that a PREDICTED extinction is real even though it hasn't happened yet?

You'll have to make up your mind on this.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by chad

You said Native Americans probably made 1,000's of species of animals go extinct, could you please provide sources for your statement. But so far you have not proved that Native Americans made (1) species of animal go extinct. Then you say its doubtful that 30%-50% of all species are about to go extinct. But according to science this coming mass extinction is real.

You keep flipping back and forth here. You don't believe the reports on early American extinctions because although there is scientific evidence that it was caused by early humans - and even though those animals are in fact extinct - "we need more research." Then you say that a PREDICTED extinction is real even though it hasn't happened yet?

You'll have to make up your mind on this.

You said native Americans made animal species go extinct. Then you listed animal species that the native Americans made go extinct (problem is the scientists in my previously listed sources say "we don't know if humans made those animals go extinct, and more research is needed to find the cause of those animals extinctions".)

And your newest statement is "Native Americans probably made 1,000's of animal species go extinct."
And I'm still waiting for a source to back up your newest claim.


And now you are having objections with what my other sources say.

The following source says " Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century."
The Extinction Crisis

In regards to the above source you said "Then you say that a PREDICTED extinction is real even though it hasn't happened yet?"

What is your opinion about the above source?

Chad.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by chad

Native Americans had a spiritual respect for war. They had a belief of "Mourning War" it assured the spiritual power of the clan would be preserved. ex.ex.

Native Americans did not even have great wars until Europeans brought capitalism to North Americas. "Native American inter-tribal wars began as private and social enterprises that, after the introduction of European trade, created new rivalries and these wars assumed an entirely different aspect. These changes could be first documented in the battle for Fort Orange in 1626."

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pd...SOFWARFARE.pdf

You should drop the noble savage pitch.
Here's an entire seminar including many discussions specifically about the scope and breath of pre-columbian warfare in the Americas. The objective evidence shows that it happened quite often, in many places, and was often of large scope including genocides.
2011 Symposium, Abstracts
--

CO2 emissions per capita (2010),

America- 17.6 tons.
Germany- 9.1 tons.
Switzerland- 5.4 tons.

You aren't making a causal argument, you are simply reflecting a correlation that more than anything else reflects a difference in the standards of living. And you'd ever lived in Germany, as I have, you'd realize capitalism is quite alive and well there.

Your source speaks of South American natives before Columbus. But South Americans were capitalists. "The (Mayan) economy was a mixed capitalist/command system combining free market trade and direct government control over areas considered vital to the population of any specific state. Maya economics functioned on a simple supply and demand theory."
Trade in Maya civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In all of my posts I have been specifically talking about North American natives (not capitalist South American natives.)

Non-capitalist societies do not have rich and poor, they do not have materialistic greed, and they do not fight business related wars. And their culture causes them to have more respect for their neighbors, and more respect for nature (a source for this statement is in the video bellow.)

I learned much of this from a TV show called "Meet the Natives USA." It was about a group of traditional tribal natives who helped American soldiers during WWII, and they consider themselves spiritual brothers/sisters with America. Recently they heard their neighbors saying bad things about America in regards to the USA invading other countries, so a group of them came to America to speak to us about this "on a spiritual mission of peace."

If you watch the first minute of the following Youtube video, you will see they have a chief, medicine man, holy man, ex.ex. just like the North American Indians had. But it also shows that they have that same "spiritual connection" North American Indians did, when the chief gives those people the stick and basket it shows this.

MEET THE NATIVES USA 08 - YouTube


My mother is from Germany and I have family in Germany, and I have been there many times. I used Germany as an example because they have an economy just like America, but (business) does not control Germanys government, and Germany does not have corporate workers in government saying "global warming is hoax."

Rather Germany is taking major steps to reduce global warming. On a recent Sunday Germany got 74% of their nations energy needs from solar power and wind power.

Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy | ThinkProgress


And clearly when you have one government that is controlled by business/capitalism, and you have another government controlled by non-business leaders (the government controlled by non-business leaders will put out less pollution and respect the environment more.)

Chad.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by chad

Since humans have an advanced brain and capitalism has no brain, I would say capitalism is the problem and not humans.

Given that the communist USSR was a much bigger polluter than the US, and given that China now occupies #1 polluter position, I'd say that it's inherent to all economic systems.

If technology is not the problem what is?

Our use of it. Technology is just a tool; it is our use of it that causes problems.

To Billvon and Lynx_Fox,

After reading your above post I realized I lost touch in this thread. My emotions concerning the loss of species, global warming, and native Americans, clearly made me set aside reasonable conversation. In later posts I thought that the writer of the above post and the person I was talking too in later posts were different forum members (I did not keep track of names in this thread.)

I apologize for my rudeness and debating style in this thread, clearly I am at fault.

I'm sorry,
Chad.