Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Save our planet, what a bunch of hooey

  1. Jun 14, 2003 #1

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Okay, so I am staying in the holiday inn express this past week, and there is a sign in my room next to the clean white towels stating in bold letters:

    SAVE OUR PLANET

    the sign ultimately is asking for the hotel guest to not use excess towels because it hurts our planet to wash unused towels...

    it's not this specific deal i am griping about, but everywhere you go this whole propaganda of how the human race is destroying the earth is a bunch of crap!

    first off, if mother earth decides to blow a few volcanoes, shake us up with some earthquakes, send some tornados our way or whatever she decides to do, do we really think then that we are destroying her? she can wipe us out in an instant! and if that major asteroid were to ever head our way and zoom in on the earth, then what? if anything, our pollution, our nuclear waste, whatever unnatural substances we put into our environment WILL KILL US and all of LIFE on this planet before we destroy earth...perhaps we should re-label our motto to say:

    SAVE LIFE ON EARTH

    end of my rant...i just think that people can be mindless with untrue statements used to promote the image of those who are "concerned"...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 14, 2003 #2
    Kerrie, you have to understand what certain phrases and cliches, mean. "Save our planet", "Protect the earth", etc. are NOT referring to protecting the gravitational integrity of a planet floating around in the solar system. It IS referring to life on Earth.

    And it is not logical to justify your crimes by saying "well, what if this happens?" The possibility that something could go horribly wrong due to factors out of our control is no reasons to do what damaging things we want to.

    And I don't know how to respond to the tornadoes, earthquakes thing..it's not like Earth is a consciousness that you have a score to settle with.
     
  4. Jun 14, 2003 #3

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    what i am getting at is that the phrase save our planet, does not mean that at all, it should be save all of life on our planet...i am all for protecting the environment that sustains life, but it is a great pet peeve of mine when people half-mindedly blurt "save our planet" when our planet is perfectly capable of destroying us much faster then we can destroy it...

    this is just your opinion about it...the fact that our earth can support life might just mean that it is life itself, not the life we know currently, but logically, if something can support life, then why couldn't it be alive or life itself?
     
  5. Jun 14, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I would consider it a case of science making little sacrifices to get the point across to people. The majority of conservation efforts is to preserve biodiversity, or the state of the planet today. Saving the planet raises a heroic tone that you just don't get with "Save every amoeba" or "Prevent the gene pool from contracting." It's sad, but perhaps necessary due to human nature to sensationalise like this.
     
  6. Jun 14, 2003 #5
    I think the hotel management should have been more honest and mentioned that as a business what they are primarily trying to do is cut expenses and avoid rate hikes. I stayed a couple of nights at a hotel in Paducah, Kentucky (Ramada Suites) not very long ago and at least their little note on the bed admitted as much (with regard primarily on bed linen).
    I’m all for keeping costs down and don’t mind at all helping out, especially when asked, but in your example they appear to be attempting to lay a guilt-trip and using fear tactics instead of being a little more forthcoming.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2003
  7. Jun 14, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: Save our planet, what a bunch of hooey...

    Greetings !

    Well, I fully agree with all of this Kerrie.
    But, you're talking about the same two things so I'm
    not sure what exactly you opposed. Save our planet
    does mean save life on our planet. And I fully agree that
    it must be saved. Specificly, as far as I see it, saving
    life on Earth means stopping the distruction caused by
    mankind. I don't see mankind as much of a life that needs
    saving - we're long since gone from nature and any food
    chain, it's the rest of life that needsto be saved.

    (btw, there's a small stick-sign like this in most hotels'
    bathrooms around the world. :wink:)

    Live long and prosper.
     
  8. Jun 15, 2003 #7
    KERRIE, i see your point, but have you ever seen a landfill? we might not be destroying all life on the planet, but we're certainly not helping it. but you're right. for most americans the 'enviornmentally freindly' product is an east sell.
     
  9. Jun 15, 2003 #8

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    while i am certainly not justifying any type of destruction to our earth because of mother earth's ability to wipe us out in a heartbeat, i am saying that whatever destruction we do is destruction to us...i really don't think that is clearly understood by the majority who do chant "save our planet", as boulderhead suggested, it's just a marketing scheme rather then being sincere and direct with the true reason of why the hotel wants to save money...
     
  10. Jun 15, 2003 #9
    Yep they're trying to save money by you using fewer napkins, the sheisters. Odd that it evokes such strong anti-ecology feeling from ya Kerrie! Your choices as an individual are truly not very significant, but the logging industry loves chewing up millions of acres of forest land every day. It's not like anyone can stop them (esp. not the residents of ruined countryside). It's a runaway train that needs a brake.
     
  11. Jun 15, 2003 #10
    My sentiments exactly.

    It is really amusing to see people start hollering "Save the Earth!!
    Don't let those selfish profiteering businessmen cut down the trees! Make 'em plant trees whenever they cut one down!!!"

    It's really easy to make such statements. But i doubt they'd be so quick to act noble once they receive the bill fer having to implement these environmentally friendly measures. Besides have they really wondered why those businessmen are doing so?
     
  12. Jun 15, 2003 #11

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Actually, in the long term, a large number of environmentally friendly measures actually save money. Measures for long petrol consumption means that our supply run out slower. Measures to prevent uncontrolled forest removable prevents desertification and the damage to farming hence caused. Measures to recycle cuts down on energy use and money spent on landfill sites. Many anti-ecological solutions present only really quick fix responses, and their profits do not translate into better living standards for most people.
     
  13. Jun 15, 2003 #12

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    answers i propose:
    1) they are working on alternative fuel cars, have elimiated freon in air conditioners, and didn't they do something with propane recently too? all products that pollute our air WE and ALL OF LIFE depend on
    2) easy solution-grow hemp...it's a great replacement for paper or anything requiring lumber typically...however it would hurt the cotton and logging industry tremondously
    3) that's slowly progressing, at least here in the west there is a recycling service that picks up all your recyclables and is including with the garbage service
    4) typical american is lazy, educate them on what is happening SERIOUSLY, and tug at their hearts with dying animals, diseases to plants that could ultimately have the solution to human diseases, etc...

    bottom line, if america was serious about saving life on earth, it would be more of a priority over oil consumption...
     
  14. Jun 15, 2003 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Two words: Nuclear power.

    Not only is it clean, but its a good way to discard our old nuclear weapons. Currently the US gets half its electricity from COAL and as a result, the generation of electricity is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
     
  15. Jun 15, 2003 #14

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    (This, for some reason, reminds me of some of the
    Iraq war discussions.) WHO CARES IF THEY REALLY DO IT TO
    SAVE MONEY ?! IT ALSO IS CORRECT AND INDEED HELPS TO
    SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. Further more, the fact that there are
    stick-signs like this in almost all hotels probably ain't
    just a coincidence, it's possibly the result of some of
    those international environment conferences I believe.

    Further more, it has been realized for a long time that
    to save the environment it is uselless to go against
    the people - cause the mob just doesn't give a damn
    even if they're shown that tomorrow they'll all be dead
    from radiation/there'll be no food left/no animals/whatever.
    The policies must be skillfully adepted so that people
    would follow them because it will be the physicly and
    mainly financialy optimal solution. No one will buy
    electric cars if they're expensive. No one will buy
    dissipating nilon and shopping bags if they're expensive.
    No one will use renewable energy sources if they're expensive.
    Indeed.

    Peace and long life.
     
  16. Jun 15, 2003 #15
    I think we need to convert to solar and wind power, and electric cars, as soon as posible. Just imagine the incredible boost to the economy, huh?
     
  17. Jun 16, 2003 #16

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Indeed. The problem, however, is that the power supply
    is not constant and so you need to build more (that's
    why I liked my idea of an International Renewable Power Network
    Market idea I talked about once in the technology forum)
    than you use. Nevertheless, the main problem here is,
    in my opinion, political - the whole energy production
    proccess involves huge money and many people that are
    affected by it. Also, cars consume most of the fossil fuels
    and the electrical cars are not yet sufficiently evolved.
    Though electrical city-cars are pretty advanced already.
    I, personally, feel that an important factor may be increasing
    public transportation.

    As for comparing nuclear power to renewable energy, I think
    nuclear power is better. It's much less polluting than even
    renewable energy sources, takes a lot less space and could
    be cheaper with the right modern designs.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  18. Jun 16, 2003 #17
    Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind don't give off any pollution in the generation of energy, and nuclear has that nuclear waste problem, and nobody wants that stuff in his backyard. It does produce a lot of energy, though.

    Currently, we use fission for energy. If we can get fusion worked out to the point that it produces a viable amount of energy, then we are in business.
     
  19. Jun 17, 2003 #18

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Renewable energy sources can use polluting and dangerous
    materials in large amounts when used on a massive scale.
    They take up lots of space and can result in the distruction
    of the surrounding environment (solar panels, dams, large
    amounts of wind turbines in a single area and so on).

    As for nuclear waste, modern reactors, if built, will have fewer
    waste and much of it will be radioactive for only several
    decades as well as less radioactive in general (there are many
    relevant new designs and technologies). Further more, storing
    the nuclear waste is not really such a great practical problem.
    I believe there's more politics involved here. It's not at all
    difficult to take a deep shaft in a desert, dig a huge reservoir, cover its walls with a thick concrete wall and dump all the waste
    there. The costs, compared to the financial profits of the
    relevant amount of reactors of relevant size should be pathetic
    and no further pollution issues should exist.
    Of course, but that seems unlikely to happen on a large scale
    within the nearest few decades. Fusion would offer huge amounts
    of energy and very little and short lived nuclear waste.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  20. Jun 17, 2003 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Those would be ok if they were economically viable, but they aren't. I would however be in favor of subsidies for things like solar panels on roofs of buildings - maybe a tax credit. But thats just small potatoes compared to the terrawatts needed to make a dent in our power grid. And electric cars don't help anything unless our EXISTING power grid is taken off coal. I discussed this in another thread, but once electric power for the grid isn't an issue anymore, THEN we can think of switching cars to something better, like hydrogen fuel cells.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2003
  21. Nov 21, 2003 #20
    quote:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by russ_watters
    Two words: Nuclear power.

    Not only is it clean, but its a good way to discard our old nuclear weapons. Currently the US gets half its electricity from COAL and as a result, the generation of electricity is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Half of this is definitly true. The US does generate half of our electricity from coal, and that is one of the leading producers of air pollution in the US. Although the risks involved with nuclear power just arean't worth it. First off many nuclear power planets have been caught disposing of nuclear waste, and an answer to there call for a place to put it was one of horrendous stupidity. Yucca mountain was chosen to be partially hollowed out and filled with the nuclear waste coming directly from the power plants. (if you don't believe me look it up, it was a govermental decision after all so finding out more about yucca would be easy to do.) Problem one there burying it in salt deposits, which is more corsive and is less dense so after a long time the waste would start to rise. Problem two in order to safely move tons of nuclear waste there going to shut down the national highway system for a whole day. Other than Yucca there are two other main risks. One, a melt down while highly unlikely is still a possibility, and this would kill a lot of life wether through contaminating the ground water around the site or if an explosion happened. Two, if there is ever an attack, and a nuclear power plant is simply blown up then it could be astronamical how many people could be killed by the radiation alone, not to mention the initial explosion. I'm sorry but I don't believe nuclear power is worth the risks but I suppose it was an intersting idea.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Save our planet, what a bunch of hooey
  1. Save Zimbabwe! (Replies: 50)

  2. Save The Big Three? (Replies: 336)

  3. Save Journalism? (Replies: 87)

Loading...