Reply #22: The central argument I presented was actually not OIL [View All]

[IrateCitizen]

The oil issue was just one smaller one in the greater theme. The problem is the way in which we are already ravaging the planet, and the way we will absolutely destroy it if we continue down the current path.

What do we do if the majority of the developing nations are able to "develop" -- and centered on the same petroleum-based economic model that we used? What damages do you think will be done to the air and water as a result of the pollution that will result? Even if reserves are NOT depleted, the planet will rapidly become uninhabitable to humans -- and the majority of other species.

It's interesting that you brought up food. Did you know that it takes approximately 1,000 years to create just under 2 inches of topsoil? Over the past hundred years, we have been rapidly destroying the topsoil all over our planet. How do we sustain agriculture, when there is no soil left in which to grow the food? Do we change over to "catfish and tilapia farms"? What then happens with all of the waste that is created by these farms, and the aquatic ecosystems that are destroyed as a result? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

It's nice to believe that all is well and good, that despite the fact that we are destroying the natural world, we will survive. Such optimism flies in the face of reality. We cannot destroy the "natural world" and still survive, because we are a part of the natural world. As much as we seem to have forgotten, we are but one strand in the web of life. As we thrash around and destroy all the strands around us, sooner or later, our strand will break as well...