Teaching enviromentalism "indoctrination"?

[Ilander]

I think that we should avoid teaching students that touching a scalding-hot pan is painful, since some people out there might disagree, and find the experience pleasurable.

/sarcasm

Seriously, folks. Nevermind evolution v creationism (that is, theory that is not incompatible with the existence of a deity or group of deities versus a theory that is incompatible with the idea that there is no omniscient creator)...Environmental conservatism is a good thing. Sustainability is a good thing. Getting our cars off of gasoline and onto battery power is a good thing. These are PROGRESS.

So, those of you who demand that we confuse our students and waste their time with the point of view that global warming does not exist, that there will always be enough gasoline, and that we should drill up the arctic to get it rather than switching to free and abundant energy available to us from the sun (which, by the way, includes wind energy, indirectly) are, to my point of view, the new useless hippie apologist.

Definition: A New Useless Hippie Apologist is a Useless Hippie Apologist who thinks that you should not teach something in a school because there is not a universal agreement upon the results, and it might hurt someone's feelings if they got it wrong.

Seriously, you all. An "overwhelming majority" of the world's scientific community thinks that mankind has had some accelerating affect on global warming. These are the scientists. The people you indirectly pay to be skeptical on your behalf, and as such, disprove everything about your world-view that is certifiably wrong. You wonder why so many of them are atheists, and yet their minds must be shaped into the most rational of structures to ever exist that they lead themselves down the path. Evidence, and evidence alone dictates reality.

Before I get too tangential, though. Should kids be taught things that most scientists agree on? Yes. There you go. It's not indoctrination. It's teaching them facts.

Can a scientist prove that there isn't a God? No. Here's the tack to take if you want to shut up an atheist:

"So, the universe is extremely complex, and appears to have taken billions of years to attain its current form, right?"
"Yes"
"Let us say, then, that an infinitely powerful being created it in its current form at this very instant, and that, being infinitely powerful, placed every particle in exactly the right position to yield the current reality."
"Well...there's really no way I can disprove that."
"So, then, there's conceptual room for a god?"
"Yeah, I guess."

Problem solved.

[Legolas]

That's usually when the flying spaghetti monster rears its head.

For my part, I'm sure humans have a big effect on their environment. Almost all we do is dedicated to making our local areas safe and comfortable, and we populate a fair bit of the land mass. If other beings thrive in the same environment we call them a pest to be exterminated, and otherwise creatures are welcome to live in a small patch of designated land or find shelter in a zoo so we can look at them when it pleases us. No different for plants and weeds, though smaller life is often overlooked.
On a more global scale we're all for letting nature run wild, mostly because that's far enough distant that it won't affect our lives unless we choose to go out and experience it. Of course, that's where other local people have their own terraforming plans.

I think it's evident that pollution is something undesirable, and re-using old junk is not as wasteful as making everything disposable, expecting it to go away and get some replacement.
As climate change goes, though, I'm not convinced it's all that disastrous. Nature is largely self-regulating and the world will always keep changing. At a risk of sounding uncaring, if hundreds of millions lose their homes or die, and thousands of species disappear forever, there will still be humans and other life. It won't be the same, and it won't be the end.

What gets me concerned are the scientists planning to slow or halt the climate change with experimental designs as in Discovery's Project Earth for instance. Whether it's wrapping our glaciers in canvas, putting thousands of lenses between the earth and the sun to dim the lights, making masses of artificial clouds or pumping the colder ocean water up to the surface, they strike me as dreadful gambles as likely to disrupt the planet as they are to stabilize it.
It's the scale of geo-engineering you need to make nature and weather as predictable and suitable as possible I'm sure, but I don't believe that's what I want.

[MagiK]

Ilander, you are soooo wrong about batteries...all you would be doing is trading one polutant for another.

Batteries by their very nature and construction are highly toxic and require
methods of extraction from the earth which are at least as damaging to the environment as pumping oil.

Like most people who are on the "Green" bandwagon you dont do the in depth research to see the harm that your "Green" solution does, all you do is look at the harm that is being done by the technology you wish to demonize at the time.

Not meaning to sound to harsh or critical here but people must avoid the shallow feel good solutions and give up the junk science (Batteries being cleaner than gas is junk science and is far far from an accurate picture)
Popular Mechanics had a really great article last year about the real cost/benefit analysis of battery powered automobiles....its not as cheery and green as it appears on the surface. It doesnt do us any good to give up one mess by creating another that will be as bad or worse, but different.

You are right we need efficiency over waste, reusability over throw away but you arent going to get it by mandating it if the science and technology isnt yet there.

[Ilander]

I made no claim that current batteries are the ultimate solution. There needs to be done a lot of research. Doesn't mean that batteries in the long term won't be the ultimate solution, though. Power plants are a fair amount more efficient than gasoline engines (even the oil-burning ones, thanks to the ability to operate at higher temperatures).

I advocate an electric solution because I don't particularly want to wait until we've exhausted all the gasoline to get started.

Hell, if we have to pump oil out of the ground to make the chemicals to make the batteries, I'm for it, so long as that's not a long-term solution.

I'm well aware of how poisonous lead, cadmium, sulfur, etc are. That said, fluorescent lights contain mercury, and the EPA is fine with them, basically saying "Well, we don't like the mercury, but until we can develop something better, the energy savings over incandescent are more important."

We're a society on the brink of nano-technology. We'll figure out something.

Plus, what's the harm in diversifying the energy used for our vehicles? Run some on CNG, some on gas, some on diesel, some on hopes and dreams (my current car).

So, would I trade CO2 emissions for a more localized problem of e-waste that can be eased with good policy decisions? Yep. Sure would.

It's about management, containment.

[MagiK]

First want to apologize, I didnt mean to be singling you out
in my comments, sorry.


Second, if we will figure something out, then we should do so BEFORE wrecking our economy (as if it could get much worse) and costing the tax payers billions and billions. You cannot force industry to invent technology on demand. Government can lend incentives to the game by giving corporate tax breaks for those companies who are doing the research and I mean serious incentives, if the tech is too costly to research, it won't get done. This is called a progressive scheme, a Regressive scheme is what I see the Green movement backing too much of the time. Regressive plans are things like Putting extra taxes on gas and oil, or taxing people who buy SUV's at higher rates regressive policies hurt the consumer, the people and do nothing or very little to spur innovation and growth.

I don't know anyone in my personal life who is not for cleaner more efficient technology. I do know that none of them want to get there by going back to the horse and buggy days while we research the better alternatives. (Do you know how deep the horse waste would be in a city if we had to go back to livestock driven transportation? That is something no one ever remembers...the smell of all that dung.)

But I digresss

Edit: You asked a question I missed. Something along the lines of "Whats the harm in diversifying the energy used for trasportation" thats a failry simple answer....Economy of Scale. COST is the factor. The reason Electric and Hybrid vehicles and CNG are not widely used is COST, and NEED. Right now Electric and Hybrid vehicles do not meet the needs of many if not most americans. Whether due to range or carry capacity or cost. It costs MORE to produce a variety than it does to produce a large quantity of one item. Technology is advancing but the reality is Battery technology has not really changed very much from the 1800's. It has been mostly evolutionary change when what is needed is REVOLUTIONARY changes. No one has come up with a way to seriously improve the battery in the way we have improved transportation, or food production and that is something we need...but physics may not allow it....we do not know.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Whooooosshh..

[MagiK]

Wooosh?

A timely article on just this subject The Original subject of the post that is
About indoctrination.

Read it all and ask yourself what you really think. It isnt that long.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

What are you, a parrot?

[MagiK]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood What are you, a parrot?

Do you know any parrots who can form complete sentences?

the little ? at the end of my whoosh was indicative of a question...as in WTF? only a little politer

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I know, I'm messin' with ya.

It just meant that this was over my head.

Here are some song lyrics of one of my fav. bands: The Fixx

Driven out by thieves
I watch them pillage the planet
Fueled by a fattening breeze
Trees fall to the hatchet

We're chopping against the grain
Our spirits in a vacuum
Sadly ignore the pain
The end arrives, we all lose
We all lose
I hope it comes, it comes, it comes around

Driven out
Holding out
Day by day survival
Castaways have silent lives
With a strength to rival you

So now I'm driving in my car
I used to be able to walk this far
Now I turn on the light
I used to be able to sleep at night

I'm cooking with microwaves
To warm up food that's not seen the soil
Plugged into my TV
Yeah, I'm used to the lies they're telling me
They're telling me
I hope it comes, it comes, it comes around

Driven out
Holding out
Day by day survival
All castaways have silent lives
With a strength to rival
Driven out
Holding out
Driven out
Holding out
With a strength to rival you

So now I'm hoping that we'll find
More to life than meets the eye
Can we escape the grind?
Live a life that's more worthwhile?
Get rid of this empty pride
Let's pull our foolishness inside
Debate in a turning tide
Until then, we all hide
We all hide
I hope it comes, it comes, it comes around

Driven out
Holding out
Day by day survival oh
Castaways have silent lives
With a strength to rival
Driven out
Holding out
Yeah, it could take up your best time
Driven out
Holding out
With a strength to rival you
Rival you, oohoo

In the end, the greed of man will prevail. I, however, will do my part to keep the planet clean.