How can we humans get back in balance with nature?

mickeyrat

brianlux wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thanks for great thoughts here, Chadwick, and that video of Lonesome George- oh, heartbreaking. It's hard to think about the reality of a species as grand as his being reduced to one member. And of course people are going to want to go to places like the Galapagos with the excuse of being "Eco-tourists", an absurd oxymoron. Why do have we have to place our mark on everything? This morning I made an excursion to my porch to watch a hummingbird searching for food in the midst of strong wind and pounding rain. I didn't need to get in a car or plane and go to some far off exotic place to educate myself about nature. I just stepped outside.

Edit: By "Eco-tourism" I mean going to places that have fragile ecosystems with the thought or intent of someone believing they have a right to do so because they are "environmentally conscious" or because they honestly believe that is the way to become educated about a particular facet of nature. In the past, I've been to two Nature Conservancy preserves so to some degree it could be said I've engaged in eco-tourism. That was probably twenty years ago. I don't do that any more.

I don't consider going to a park, weather it be local, state, national or international the same as eco-tourism. Most often I would refer to that as "industrial tourism", especially going to places like Yosemite or Yellowstone which I've also done but with decreasing frequently. More often, I find myself on a beach or in the forest or field somewhere enjoying nature and picking up other people's trash.

this , in my book, is eco-tourism.

Which part, Mickyrat?

the bolded part. ecologically conscious tourism.

brianlux

mickeyrat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

this , in my book, is eco-tourism.

Which part, Mickyrat?

the bolded part. ecologically conscious tourism.

I never thought of picking up other people's trash that way but, why not.

brianlux

Another interesting way to look at things--

mickeyrat

brianlux wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

the bolded part. ecologically conscious tourism.

I never thought of picking up other people's trash that way but, why not.

its the wave of the future for the current next gen of hipsters, it wouldnt last of course. But think of how much trash could be collected.

Hmm, THEN use that trash to make art with.

I could be on to something big here.

mickeyrat

brianlux wrote:

Another interesting way to look at things--

thats awesome!!!!hahahahaha

brianlux

mickeyrat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

the bolded part. ecologically conscious tourism.

I never thought of picking up other people's trash that way but, why not.

its the wave of the future for the current next gen of hipsters, it wouldnt last of course. But think of how much trash could be collected.

Hmm, THEN use that trash to make art with.

I could be on to something big here.

I think you are, indeed! I can't find the article, but here are similar pictures for further inspiration for you! Hurry, before the idea catches on here in the west!

http://www.google.com/search?q=art+made ... 66&bih=596

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

Another interesting way to look at things--

:thumbup:

polaris_x

you cannot balance what you don't respect ...

we will ultimately find a balance ... it is inevitable ... what nature will be when that happens - i am not sure ... i do know that between then and now - we will witness mass suffering, extinction and tragedy ... it is sad to think that we, as humans, are in many ways stupider than we ever have been and continue to get more so with each passing day ...

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

you cannot balance what you don't respect ...

we will ultimately find a balance ... it is inevitable ... what nature will be when that happens - i am not sure ... i do know that between then and now - we will witness mass suffering, extinction and tragedy ... it is sad to think that we, as humans, are in many ways stupider than we ever have been and continue to get more so with each passing day ...

Exactly. If I had to answer my own question with one simple phrase (though I don't see a solution as being "simple") it would be: The best course for bringing humans back into balance with nature is for us to become biocentric in our thinking as opposed to anthropocentric.

We see ourselves as separate from nature and as more important that the rest of life. As long as we maintain this line of thinking we have sealed our fate. What makes sense (to me anyway) would be to begin to change our thinking to a biocentric view and let that kind of thinking and action be an example to children.

It is sad, polaris_x, to see how stupid we have become- and not just stupid, but greatly arrogant to think we are smart enough to live outside of and outsmart nature.

brianlux

Having said what I just suggested about changing our thinking and action to biocentric-- what about our world leaders? Somebody please explain to me why our leaders are not addressing issues such as this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/03-0

Global Pollution Hits Record High, Frighteningly Hot Future Seems 'Inevitable'
'Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second'
- Common Dreams staff

New global carbon emission numbers released on Sunday show that the world is heading in the exact wrong direction when it comes to its energy production policies and scientists at the Global Carbon Project now say that frightening climate change impacts are all but inevitable without a "radical plan" to decrease the level of greenhouse gasses spewing into the atmosphere.

Activists have been protesting at the climate change conference in Doha as new report shows emissions are at an all-time high (Reuters) The research by the Global Carbon Project, which releases an annual report card on global CO2 pollution, says emissions grew by over 3 percent in 2011, keeping the world on a nearly certain path towards dangerous changes to the climate, including more floods, droughts and more powerful and frequent storms.

As the Associated Press reports:

[...] all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, according to new international calculations on global emissions published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. That's about a billion tons more than the previous year.

The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds (1.1 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide released into the air every second.

The GCP report is the latest in a string of dramatic scientific findings released as the UN Climate Change Conference deliberates a new global framework in Doha, Qatar. All the reports tell parts to the same story: climate change is here now and it's going to get much worse if world governments cannot find a way to change course in short order.

Though a past agreement saw leaders agree that preventing anything more than a 2°C global temperature rise should be the unifying goal, all the scientific evidence, including this latest report, show temperatures rising much beyond that.

"Unless large and concerted global mitigation efforts are initiated soon, the goal of remaining below 2°C will soon become unachievable," says the report. "A shift to a 2°C pathway requires immediate significant and sustained global mitigation, with a probable reliance on net negative emissions in the longer term."

"I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan," co-author Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Britain and professor at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian.

As negotiators from around the world convene in Doha, however, a workable and achievable deal seems as far away as ever.

"The prospect of catastrophic climate change needs to change the mindsets of political leaders," said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace climate campaigner.

But even Christiana Figueres, the UN Executive Secretary of the climate convention, said the global negotiations —even if nominally successful—would not be sufficient to the task. Realizing the countries are still primarily concerned with national interests, the big fights over policy would still need to be handled at that level.

“We won’t get an international agreement until enough domestic legislation and action are in place to begin to have an effect,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. “Governments have to find ways in which action on the ground can be accelerated and taken to a higher level, because that is absolutely needed.”

The New York Times reports:

Over all, global emissions jumped 3 percent in 2011 and are expected to jump 2.6 percent in 2012, researchers reported in two papers released by scientific journals on Sunday. It has become routine to set new emissions records each year, although the global economic crisis led to a brief decline in 2009.

The level of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, has increased about 41 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and scientists fear it could double or triple before emissions are brought under control. The temperature of the planet has already increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850.

Further increases in carbon dioxide are likely to have a profound effect on climate, scientists say, leading to higher seas and greater coastal flooding, more intense weather disasters like droughts and heat waves, and an extreme acidification of the ocean. Many experts believe the effects are already being seen, but they are projected to worsen.