What do you think is the biggest environmental

[MarxSchmarx]

Any others?

[piet11111]

poverty ofcourse

because of poverty the vast majority of the worlds population cant afford to use durable alternatives to fullfill their needs.

example: if south american farmers where capable of using all the agricultural technology we have developed then they would not need to burn down parts of the rainforest for new land to replace the depleted land they previously used.

so obviously i voted capitalism as the biggest problem.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Capitalism, as there is no solution to most of the other most serious problems noted whilst we have a competative, parasitic class system

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, capitalism, under which human beings are still vulnerable to the destructive forces of nature (though, of course, less vulnurable than under previous historical epochs).

With communism, human beings will bring nature under the genuine command of humanity, and truly become the masters of their natural environment. That's how environmental problems will be solved.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Capitalism pretty much covers every other option.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:39 pm
Yes, capitalism, under which human beings are still vulnerable to the destructive forces of nature (though, of course, less vulnurable than under previous historical epochs).

With communism, human beings will bring nature under the genuine command of humanity, and truly become the masters of their natural environment. That's how environmental problems will be solved.
That is a joke, right?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 05:07 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 05:07 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:39 pm
Yes, capitalism, under which human beings are still vulnerable to the destructive forces of nature (though, of course, less vulnurable than under previous historical epochs).

With communism, human beings will bring nature under the genuine command of humanity, and truly become the masters of their natural environment. That's how environmental problems will be solved.
That is a joke, right? [/b]
No. Why?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 01, 2007 05:09 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 01, 2007 05:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:07 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 04:39 pm
Yes, capitalism, under which human beings are still vulnerable to the destructive forces of nature (though, of course, less vulnurable than under previous historical epochs).

With communism, human beings will bring nature under the genuine command of humanity, and truly become the masters of their natural environment. That's how environmental problems will be solved.
That is a joke, right?
No. Why? [/b]
Environmental problems arise, because of human interference.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 05:11 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 05:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:09 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:07 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 04:39 pm
Yes, capitalism, under which human beings are still vulnerable to the destructive forces of nature (though, of course, less vulnurable than under previous historical epochs).

With communism, human beings will bring nature under the genuine command of humanity, and truly become the masters of their natural environment. That's how environmental problems will be solved.
That is a joke, right?
No. Why?
Environmental problems arise, because of human interference. [/b]
That depends on what you define as an environmental problem. For example, environmental problems like earthquakes and disease aren't man-made. But all environmental problems will be solved through greater human mastery of nature - i.e. of greater conscious control of our surroundings, which isn't possible under capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While capitalism is the cause of many environmental problems, it is not the cause of one of the biggest problems facing us today - the energy crisis.

The energy crisis is one of the biggest barriers preventing us from becoming a Type I civilisation.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:28 pm
While capitalism is the cause of many environmental problems, it is not the cause of one of the biggest problems facing us today - the energy crisis.

The energy crisis is one of the biggest barriers preventing us from becoming a Type I civilisation.
I would have to disagree with the energy crisis being one of the biggest problem, but maybe I am biased because I am a hydrogeologist. I see the water shortage crisis being a bigger problem (which was not on the list). People can live without electricity, but not without fresh water.

Also, the environment has definitely suffered under both Soviet and Chinese regimes. Look at Chernobyl and the Yangtze River.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 05:32 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 05:32 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 05:28 pm
While capitalism is the cause of many environmental problems, it is not the cause of one of the biggest problems facing us today - the energy crisis.

The energy crisis is one of the biggest barriers preventing us from becoming a Type I civilisation.
I would have to disagree with the energy crisis being one of the biggest problem, but maybe I am biased because I am a hydrogeologist. I see the water shortage crisis being a bigger problem (which was not on the list). People can live without electricity, but not without fresh water. [/b]

The Earth is not running out of water, it is running out of water treatment plants, which use energy. If we had the energy, we could easily solve the water "shortage".

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 01, 2007 04:58 pm
Capitalism pretty much covers every other option.
QFT. The prescence of capitalism on this renders this poll stupid.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by NoXion+November 01, 2007 05:54 pm--> (NoXion @ November 01, 2007 05:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:32 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 05:28 pm
While capitalism is the cause of many environmental problems, it is not the cause of one of the biggest problems facing us today - the energy crisis.

The energy crisis is one of the biggest barriers preventing us from becoming a Type I civilisation.
I would have to disagree with the energy crisis being one of the biggest problem, but maybe I am biased because I am a hydrogeologist. I see the water shortage crisis being a bigger problem (which was not on the list). People can live without electricity, but not without fresh water.

The Earth is not running out of water, it is running out of water treatment plants, which use energy. If we had the energy, we could easily solve the water "shortage". [/b]
The earth is running out of fresh water. The problem with water treatment is not really energy use per se but the effectiveness of water treatment. Desal plants cannot treat enough water to supply large populations. Using grey water for drinking is something people just don't want to do. As a water professional, I don't have a problem with it, but I have an uphilll battle convincing others there is nothing wrong with it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem with water treatment is not really energy use per se but the effectiveness of water treatment.

Distillation is a foolproof method of providing clean water, but it is energy intensive.


Desal plants cannot treat enough water to supply large populations.

But if you build more, then you can supply more people with desalinated water. But that requires more energy. It always comes back to energy.

I suspect that most "fresh" water on the Earth is not all that safe to drink, thanks to natural contaminants such as animal excrement, silt, mud, waterborne parasites, bacteria etc etc. So most water on Earth needs at least a modicum of treatment anyway.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:14 pm

The problem with water treatment is not really energy use per se but the effectiveness of water treatment.

Distillation is a foolproof method of providing clean water, but it is energy intensive.


Desal plants cannot treat enough water to supply large populations.

But if you build more, then you can supply more people with desalinated water. But that requires more energy. It always comes back to energy.

I suspect that most "fresh" water on the Earth is not all that safe to drink, thanks to natural contaminants such as animal excrement, silt, mud, waterborne parasites, bacteria etc etc. So most water on Earth needs at least a modicum of treatment anyway.
Distillation can be done using solar stills.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Wait, how can we run out of drinking water?

I thought it got refilled each time it rained. Is it not raining enough anymore or something?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:33 pm
Wait, how can we run out of drinking water?

I thought it got refilled each time it rained. Is it not raining enough anymore or something?
The problem is that it is raining in different quantities in different places. Basically the distribution of water is being changed. The problem is that most water on the planet is not fresh water, and most of the fresh water on the planet is in the form of ice.

[Led Zeppelin]

Take out capitalism and all the other problems can be solved.

[RedAnarchist]

I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don't think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 11:19 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 11:19 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don't think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems. [/b]
Yeah, thats true, but capitalism is profit-driven so any environmentally-friendly actions by the capitalists probably made them a profit.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 11:19 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 11:19 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don't think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems. [/b]
So wait, all the good technologies that have benefited the environment are because of capitalism, and we should be thankful for the system because of that, but all the bad technologies that harmed the environment are not the fault of capitalism?

You just contradicted yourself.

[Faux Real]

Capitalism isn&#39;t an environmental problem, it is a bloody economic system that sustains and encourages the creation of such problems. ><

I voted for overpopulation, with deforestation as my second choice.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 11:19 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 11:19 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don&#39;t think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems. [/b]
Actually, we can say that capitalism has improved man&#39;s position in relation to his environment. From a human perspective, our environment was in a worse state under previous historical epochs. In reality, man is a lot less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of his natural environment today than ever before.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 01, 2007 11:54 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 01, 2007 11:54 am)
Sir Aunty [email protected] 01, 2007 04:58 pm
Capitalism pretty much covers every other option.
QFT. The prescence of capitalism on this renders this poll stupid. [/b]
I agree, in itself, capitalism is not an environmental problem. It has, however, done alot to damage the environment.

[Comrade Rage]

I cast my vote for capitalism.

Most of the others&#39; root cause is capitalism, also.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 01, 2007 11:23 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 01, 2007 11:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:19 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don&#39;t think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems.
So wait, all the good technologies that have benefited the environment are because of capitalism, and we should be thankful for the system because of that, but all the bad technologies that harmed the environment are not the fault of capitalism?

You just contradicted yourself. [/b]
No you misinterpret. Capitalism has done some good things for the environment, and communism has done some bad things. You cannot blame capitalism entirely for the problems with the environment.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:28 pm
While capitalism is the cause of many environmental problems, it is not the cause of one of the biggest problems facing us today - the energy crisis.

The energy crisis is one of the biggest barriers preventing us from becoming a Type I civilisation.
i would consider capitalism the cause of the energy crisis.
first of all capitalism never bothered to be durable and second of all the development of energy sources that are durable where not immediatly profitable and because of that they never got the funding they require.

now that we are starting to desperatly need durable energy sources like fusion capitalism starts to fail in delivering the goods.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 02, 2007 01:03 am--> (lvleph @ November 02, 2007 01:03 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 01, 2007 11:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:19 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 10:50 pm
I voted for capitalism, which ahs done nothing but damage the environment.
I think that it is a bit delusional to think that capitalism has done nothing but damage the environment. There have been advances in technology that have done good things for the environment, and those technologies were developed under capitalism. However, capitalism unleashed would destroy the environment. I just don&#39;t think you can in all honesty blame capitalism for all our environmental problems.
So wait, all the good technologies that have benefited the environment are because of capitalism, and we should be thankful for the system because of that, but all the bad technologies that harmed the environment are not the fault of capitalism?

You just contradicted yourself.
No you misinterpret. Capitalism has done some good things for the environment, and communism has done some bad things. You cannot blame capitalism entirely for the problems with the environment. [/b]
There has never been a communist economic system, because communism has never existed, and neither has socialism. Socialism and communism require higher material conditions than even any capitalist state has today.

That&#39;s why under a socialist/communist society, not a transitional stage to such a society, the environment will definitely not be harmed as much as under capitalism, or even at all.

A socialist/communist economic system is based on rational planning. When it is seen that something hurts the environment, we&#39;ll rationally choose to remedy the situation, because we know the environment is important to our survival. Capitalists don&#39;t give a shit, they only care about the survival of their fat bank accounts.

That&#39;s the difference.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 02, 2007 10:31 am
There has never been a communist economic system, because communism has never existed, and neither has socialism. Socialism and communism require higher material conditions than even any capitalist state has today.

That&#39;s why under a socialist/communist society, not a transitional stage to such a society, the environment will definitely not be harmed as much as under capitalism, or even at all.

A socialist/communist economic system is based on rational planning. When it is seen that something hurts the environment, we&#39;ll rationally choose to remedy the situation, because we know the environment is important to our survival. Capitalists don&#39;t give a shit, they only care about the survival of their fat bank accounts.

That&#39;s the difference.
I guess I can&#39;t argue with that, I misspoke. But my point is that you cannot blame capitalism for everything.

[Comrade J]

I voted capitalism. Whilst it is not an environmental problem in itself, it is an economic system that works against the environment, and has no chance of solving great environmental problems like global warming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i would consider capitalism the cause of the energy crisis.
first of all capitalism never bothered to be durable and second of all the development of energy sources that are durable where not immediatly profitable and because of that they never got the funding they require.

now that we are starting to desperatly need durable energy sources like fusion capitalism starts to fail in delivering the goods.

Peak Oil would have occurred with or without capitalism. I have yet to see any evidence that technological progress would have been faster in a non-capitalist society.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:19 pm

i would consider capitalism the cause of the energy crisis.
first of all capitalism never bothered to be durable and second of all the development of energy sources that are durable where not immediatly profitable and because of that they never got the funding they require.

now that we are starting to desperatly need durable energy sources like fusion capitalism starts to fail in delivering the goods.

Peak Oil would have occurred with or without capitalism. I have yet to see any evidence that technological progress would have been faster in a non-capitalist society.
perhaps without capitalism we would have prepared for peak oil and switched to another fuel source years ago.

but now that oil prices are going through the roof we are going to have to pay a very very high price to try to switch to alternative fuel sources.

i cant back this up with evidence but in my mind there is no doubt that were we living under communism we would have been prepared for peak oil many years ago.

[Comrade J]

I think we should have a re-run of this poll with capitalism excluded.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10, 2007 05:33 pm
I think we should have a re-run of this poll with capitalism excluded.
No because capitalism is the ROOT of the problem. If capitalism goes away, so do those problems.

So we must concentrate on the root of the problem.

[jesper]

I choose to vote Capitalism, since it is pretty much the root of the other problems.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:04 pm
I choose to vote Capitalism, since it is pretty much the root of the other problems.
I&#39;m glad to see that most comrades are concerntrating on the big picture.

[Exovedate]

I just thought I should point out it is kind of difficult to decide what to vote for as most of these problems are interlinked. Air pollution, deforestation, and lack of renewable energies contribute to global warming. Global warming and deforestation both contribute to threats to biodiversity, as does the usage of poor agricultural /silvicultural/aquacultural practices (global warming can also contribute to deforestation if one considers the effects of tropospheric ozone on trees and other plants). Overpopulation often leads to air and water pollution and sometimes deforestation. Pesticides, Herbicides, and other agricultural /silvicultural/aquacultural practices, if misused, contribute to air and water pollution, and sometimes deforestation. Also, shitty urban planning leads to air and water pollution (ex. combined sewer systems). While capitalism is not really the direct cause of these problems, it often does nothing to try to stop them unless there is a monetary incentive.

EDIT: I voted for global warming because it order to combat global warming we need to deal with a lot of the other issues such as renewable (and green) energy, air and water pollution, deforestation, agricultural /silvicultural/aquacultural practices (to increase sequestration of carbon), and in many cases overpopulation. Addressing these issues will help end some of the threats to biodiversity.

[Jude]

Deforestation contributes to global warming because energy is stored in the wood that is eventually burned, and those trees can&#39;t grow back to store that energy.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:50 am
Deforestation contributes to global warming because energy is stored in the wood that is eventually burned, and those trees can&#39;t grow back to store that energy.
I think what you are referring to is the carbon sequestered in the trees that is released back into the atmosphere when the wood is burned. I don&#39;t know what you mean about the trees not growing back though, trees are a renewable resource, they will grow back and store carbon again.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 02, 2007 04:01 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 02, 2007 04:01 am)
Comrade [email protected] 10, 2007 05:33 pm
I think we should have a re-run of this poll with capitalism excluded.
No because capitalism is the ROOT of the problem. If capitalism goes away, so do those problems.

So we must concentrate on the root of the problem. [/b]
Yes I am sure if capitalism were abolished the carbon would disappear from the skies, forests would sprout from the ground, and the polluted waters would be suddenly be pure again. After you abolish capitalism you still have to change people&#39;s mindsets, make them realize that their actions affect the environment, and that takes a lot of time. You also have to still develop new greener technologies, and until then we will be stuck with what we have got. I agree that capitalism is a problem, but you have to admit that when there is an incentive to make loads of cash, those capitalists sure get to work. I bet you a lot of green technologies will be developed once we truly run out of oil, but not a second before (after all once the supply gets low, the demand will be huge&#33;). My point is once capitalism is abolished you still have to get people into the sustainable development mindset, and people can be very stubborn when they are asked to change their lifestyles.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To put all the blame on capitalism is simplistic, and makes you look like a sloganeer instead of someone who actually thinks about their political positions.

Pollution is an unavoidable fact of industrial civilisation. You can minimise the damage, but you can never not produce any kind of pollution or effect the environment in unforseen, negative ways.