|
| Thread: Philosophy question over a glass of beer anyone? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV |
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted February 04, 2005 09:51 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 4 Feb 2005
|
TA, about pollution;
Interesting ideas you put forth. But consider this: Is it possible that it is normal to use all the ressouces of our planet? I am totally against this thought, but I still find it fascinating to think about it.
Consider that one planet is a very small part of the galaxy, let alone the universe and that the consumption of it's resources is inevitable. Actually, it isn't consumption. It's transformation. Indeed, we say we consume the resources but we our only sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for example. We've only transformed carbon petrol into noxious gaz (the same kind that exists in abundance in other worlds.)
But what if this is normal? Is it really polution? It's a fact that some other planets have CO2 in there atmosphere, and yet we don't consider them to be polluted. Does it matter if we pollute the earth? As long as we get off of it in time, who cares?
Say we are in the future... we inhabit 10 worlds and earth gets so transformed by us that it becomes uninhabitable. so we move to a 11th world, but still have 10 because we lost earth.
Some people actually think that the total consumption (transformation) of a world's ressources is unavoidable, and that you must accept this. They say we should protect earth only to make it last longer.
What do you think?
Oh, and by the way, I'm the 100th reply to this thread, YAY! 
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 05, 2005 03:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Some people actually think that the total consumption (transformation) of a world's ressources is unavoidable, and that you must accept this. They say we should protect earth only to make it last longer.
Transformation of resources is unavoidable, but it's in a constant equiriblium with their renewal. Also, you must accept this, and take care to maintain that equiriblium on an acceptable level. Given that, Earth can last as long as the sun lasts. Losing Earth isnt just losing 1 planet out of 11. Its like you say to a mother who has one child: "Its OK if this one dies. In the future you'll have 11 so no problemo."
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2005 02:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Transformation of resources is unavoidable, but it's in a constant equiriblium with their renewal. Also, you must accept this, and take care to maintain that equiriblium on an acceptable level. Given that, Earth can last as long as the sun lasts.
I don't think so. For instance, if we burn all the fossil fuels like we are probably going to do, then would you say we are no longer in equilibrium? If not, then you mean to say that uninhabited planets that are not very mature and that their atmosphere contains high levels of CO2 and that the planet does not contain any fossil fuels is unbalanced?
It is all relative, is what I am trying to argue. You speak of equilibrium, but only equilibrium of ressources enough for us to live on earth... those standards are very far from being balanced, actually. That amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere could be considered unbalanced by people who breath CO2...
Quote:
Losing Earth isnt just losing 1 planet out of 11. Its like you say to a mother who has one child: "Its OK if this one dies. In the future you'll have 11 so no problemo."
Good point, but earth is not a human being and we did not create it. And we did not lose earth per say ... we just can't live on it anymore. It's not like if eath would no longer exist.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 06, 2005 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think so. For instance, if we burn all the fossil fuels like we are probably going to do, then would you say we are no longer in equilibrium?
Equilibrium in the sense of a relation between usable and used, and human's abillity to survive longterm from mediating in that relation. This includes essentially only energy and matter, and concrete forms of it are irrelevant. The same way we'd replace an extinct specie of geese with cows for example, we'd replace fossil fuels with other energy sources. (see the thread about american dream in other side for more)
Quote:
And we did not lose earth per say ... we just can't live on it anymore. It's not like if eath would no longer exist.
Yes, big difference. Only if you praise the fact that Earth would be just a huge floating rock somewhere in the universe. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2005 05:18 AM |
|
|
Speaking of the Earth and the environment, I got this in an email today. It certainly is very provocative and
maybe kind of scary.
_______________________________________________________________
Battlefield Earth
>
> The environment is in trouble and the religious right doesn't care. It's time to act as if the future depends on us – because it does.
>
> By Bill Moyers
>
> Recently the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School presented its fourth annual Global Environment Citizen Award to Bill Moyers. In presenting the award, Meryl Streep, a member of the Center board, said, "Through resourceful, intrepid reportage and perceptive voices from the forward edge of the debate, Moyers has examined an environment under siege with the aim of engaging citizens." Following is the text of Bill Moyers' response to Ms. Streep's presentation of the award.
>
> 12/08/04 " AlterNet" -- I accept this award on behalf of all the people behind the camera whom you never see. And for all those scientists, advocates, activists, and just plain citizens whose stories we have covered in reporting on how environmental change affects our daily lives. We journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. We tell their stories.
>
> The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend, Bill McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the environment. His best seller "The End of Nature" carried on where Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" left off.
>
> Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described how the problems we journalists routinely cover – conventional, manageable programs like budget shortfalls and pollution – may be about to convert to chaotic, unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all, he writes, could be the accelerating deterioration of the environment, creating perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is causing the melting of the Arctic to release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic that even the Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream could yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that could radically alter civilizations.
>
> That's one challenge we journalists face – how to tell such a story without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the people we most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what they read and hear.
>
> As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a readable narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and viewers, there is an even harder challenge – to pierce the ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
>
> Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
>
> Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the bible is literally true – one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That's right – the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
>
> Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the Messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
>
> I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed – an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 – just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of god will return, the righteous will enter heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
>
> So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer – "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
>
> As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election – 231 legislators in total – more since the election – are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." he seemed to be relishing the thought.
>
> And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in the motel turn some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same god who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"
>
> Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, America's providential history. You'll find there these words: "the secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in god is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in god's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that god has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.
>
> I can see in the look on your faces just how hard it is for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."
>
> I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that – it's just that I read the news and connect the dots:
>
> I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.
>
> That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
>
> That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
>
> That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
>
> That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
>
> I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars – two million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council – to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.
>
> I read all this in the news.
>
> I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the international policy network, which is supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising," [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."
>
> I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.
>
> I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer – pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, 9 months. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
>
> And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?
>
> What has happened to our moral imagination?
>
> On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"
>
> I see it feelingly.
>
> The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free – not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites called "hochma" – the science of the heart ... the capacity to see ... to feel ... and then to act ... as if the future depended on you.
>
> Believe me, it does.
>
> Bill Moyers is the host of the weekly public affairs series NOW with Bill Moyers, which airs Friday nights on PBS.
>
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 01:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Equilibrium in the sense of a relation between usable and used, and human's abillity to survive longterm from mediating in that relation. This includes essentially only energy and matter, and concrete forms of it are irrelevant.
So then most worlds are not in Equilibrium, since the balance between matter and energy is not one we could live in... so then it is polluted?
Used and usable are very subjective terms. What is used to us is usable for another lifeform. Therefore it is not pollution to them. So then, if I get this right, it is equilibrium for us, but pollution for others.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 01:50 AM |
|
|
2nd law of thermodynamic entropy means you simply
cannot maintain the resources of the entire universe
indefinetly we may as well use up earth and anything
else we find. I do however recomend we dont cause the
extinction of other life just presever our own until
the univers is no longer survivable
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 01:59 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 7 Feb 2005
|
If anyone could translate this I would appreciate. It seems I am better at explaining myself in French...
La loi de Le Châtelier stipule que rien ne se perd, rien ne se créé, tout se transforme. Et ceci, peut importe si on parle d'énergie ou de matière.
Ainsi, l'énergie peut, grâce à une réaction chimique, devenir matière et vice-versa.
Dans cette optique, nous observons que la pollution n'est qu'une transformation d'éléments. La consommation n'est en effet qu'une transformation.
C'est ainsi dire que la pollution n'est qu'une transformation non souhaitable pour l'être humain. elle ne réfère qu'à notre capacité de vivre.
Finalement, si on suit cette logique, un monde où il y a un déséquilibre et où nous ne pouvons pas vivre grâce à ce déséquilibre serait donc pollué.
Orion! nice to see you are posting somewhere else than the TPAM thread!! j/k
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
2nd law of thermodynamic entropy means you simply
cannot maintain the resources of the entire universe
indefinetly we may as well use up earth and anything
else we find.
Thermodynamical entropy has nothing to do with what you said. It's a principle that the free motion of particles in an isolated system aimes at disorder. How on Earth did you find a connection?
Energy and matter in the universe are almost endless (although theoretically not (or maybe yes), in practice for us humans they are absolutely endless, and we can never run out of them).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 03:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Orion on 7 Feb 2005
|
its called the heat death when all entropy is what
allows everything to happen fusion in the sun core
gives us heat becuase there is less energy out here
the in there when all the energy in the universe is
balanced out life techology will no longer be possible
this is billion of years from now but it will happen
if we use resources now at leastwe can have an enjoyable
life
as for never running out if we last for a billion
billion billion years you believe we are still going
to have a source of resources and energy somehow i doubt that
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 03:28 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 7 Feb 2005
|
First of all, how do u expect me to discuss with u Orion, if i have to guess what you wanna say? That is why Europeans a long time ago invented punctuation.
Entropy doesnt allow everything to happen; Its just a principle of transfering heat and energy between adjectened systems. Energy from the sun comes through emission; that has nothing to do with entropy.
"When all the energy in the universe is balanced out", in other words when the sun dies out, which as you say will happen in billions of years, by then, we'll have hopefully found a way to convert mass into bioenergy. I even think it's done even today (the other day i heard about some scientists from japan who managed to breed plants with infrared electro-magnetic radiation, i.e. no sunlight), so u can only imagine that in billion of years it would be piece of cake. Using carelessly all our resources now to have an enjoyable life is the stupidest suggestion mankind can get. No offence. And the most dengerous one.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 03:42 AM |
|
Edited By: Orion on 7 Feb 2005
|
i was not refering to just the sun but all sources of energy
and why should the suns heat get from the core where the fusion occurs to the surface entropy of course
entropy refers to
more than just the way heat is tranfered but to the transfer of all energy
the same as it can be used in information systems
electricity travels through a circuit because of a
difference in potential this is entropy it affects everything
entropy refers to the flow of enery or matter from a
source with more energy to a body with less
as for using other sources of energy the time scale i mentioned would be set after proton decay
what mass are u talking about it would all be gone
even blackholes would have decayed through hawking radiation
there will be no mass or enery in a usable form
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 03:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
as for using other sources of energy the time scale i
would be set after proton decay what mass are u talking
about even blackholes would have decayed through
hawking radiation
there will be no mass or enery in a usable form
Proton decay time scales what??? 
anyway, according to the principle of energy conservation, energy cant dissappear, it will still be around, just more spread out. As I said, I'm not talking about using sun, therefore radiation energy, but converting mass into energy, as its done through fission and fusion. Since we're talking billions of billions years, its no sci fiction )actually it is, but.. anyway, u know what i mean ) to suppose that by then we'll have mastered it. Unless it destroys us int the meantime.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 04:07 AM |
|
|
energy cant dissappear but it is not usable if the energy is equaly distributed through all bodies
electricity wouldnt flow through a circuit if the potential was equal at both ends heat would pass
from a fire to your hand it they had the same temp it simply doesnt happen
proton decay is when even the proton that make up atoms have broken down without them no solid matter
therefore no fission, fusion, batteries, gereator, people, planets etc
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 04:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
proton decay is when even the proton that make up atoms have broken down without them no solid matter
LOL. I'm talking about tomorrow, and you're telling me about year Infinity. The time it would take for this to happen cant be imagined (even though i've never heard of practical example of protons breaking down). Its like having claustrophobia when u r in outer space, cos the universe seems too small.
And this entire theory of entropy cataclysm is only valid as long as the universe is expanding. So if it reverses into collapsing, we're gonna die an inferno death. The other option would be an absolute zero winter death, so either way, we're screwed. I prefer summer to winter though.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2005 04:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
energy cant dissappear but it is not usable if the energy is equaly distributed through all bodies
The highly hypotetical situation of equal energy distribution happening, is when there's nothing in the entire unverse but radiation, which is outside the realms of "real science", so i'm not too fond of discussing stuff like this.
And energy cant be equally distributed through all the bodies, since as long as there are bodies in the universe, energy isnt equally distributed, and we can still theoretically survive in such environment.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 12:09 AM |
|
|
what is the point in planning for now if you do not consider the far future
the greatest good for the greatest number must mean the
longest good, since the marjority of humanity is yet to come
i dont remember where i got that quote from but still
it proves my point
we may as well use our planets resources however we need to survive
im not saying waste them but simply use them to further our species
if that means destroy the earth to form a dyson sphere round the sun
so be it i consider the sacrifice of mere resources worth
the survival of our intelligent self-aware life
everything else is just there to be used
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted February 24, 2005 08:21 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 15 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
If anyone could translate this I would appreciate. It seems I am better at explaining myself in French...
La loi de Le Châtelier stipule que rien ne se perd, rien ne se créé, tout se transforme. Et ceci, peut importe si on parle d'énergie ou de matière.
Ainsi, l'énergie peut, grâce à une réaction chimique, devenir matière et vice-versa.
Dans cette optique, nous observons que la pollution n'est qu'une transformation d'éléments. La consommation n'est en effet qu'une transformation.
C'est ainsi dire que la pollution n'est qu'une transformation non souhaitable pour l'être humain. elle ne réfère qu'à notre capacité de vivre.
Finalement, si on suit cette logique, un monde où il y a un déséquilibre et où nous ne pouvons pas vivre grâce à ce déséquilibre serait donc pollué.
I'll translate it! 
The "Le Chatelier" Law says that nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. This applies to energy and matter. Hence, energy can, by a chemical reaction, help a form of matter to take another form. So we can see here that pollution is only a transformation of elements, of matter. Consumption is indeed transformation.
This means that pollution is only a transformation that has a negative impact on humans. It only refers to our capacity to survive.
Finally, if we cannot survive in a world because this transformation has taken place for other reasons than human intervention, this world is qualified as polluted, even if it was never thouched by a human hand.
I just realized by translating my post that it did not make any sense... LOL  . I would define pollution as a transformation of matter caused by human intervention - that has a negative impact on us. So basically, scrash that idea. I'll come back when I organize my thoughts better!
*BUMP*
Can't let this thread go too far, can I?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
| |
|
|
