Scientists Warn That Coral Reefs Face Total Wipeout

[Uncle Siggy]

Here A novel solution, let humans beings be human beings, if Darwinism is true, like some think, let's take it to its logical conclusion, eventually the strongest will survive, and evolve.

That's why Socialism was created, to stop that from happening...

 

[USincognito]

You know I'm kinda curious as to why the article failed to mention pollution and overfishing as reasons the reefs could be dying off???

Evidence?

 

[USincognito]

We have to make the sacrifices, but not the third world, gotcha! Here A novel solution, let humans beings be human beings, if Darwinism is true, like some think, let's take it to its logical conclusion, eventually the strongest will survive, and evolve.

If you're going to try and be a clever boy, at least get your facts straight. Evolution is about the "most fit" not the strongest. In many situations, rats and mice would be more fit than humans or bears for example.

 

[dgiharris]

We have to make the sacrifices, but not the third world, gotcha!.

It's not about sacrifices, it's about evolving socially and economically. When the car was invented do you think it was an easy thing transitioning from a society that depended on animal labor to a society that utilized the combustion engine?

And do you think everyone managed the switch simultaneously or were some nations better suited to go first and then the rest followed???

We have to make the sacrifices, but not the third world, gotcha!

The 3rd world is not equivalent to the 1st world socially or economically or technologically. Do I really have to make this point? So it is impossible for them to be on the same time scale as us. 1st world got computers in the 1990s, 3rd world got them 20 years later. 1st world got cell phones in the 90s, 3rd world got them 20 years later...

Same thing with a new energy resource and paradigm.

Here A novel solution, let humans beings be human beings, if Darwinism is true, like some think, let's take it to its logical conclusion, eventually the strongest will survive, and evolve.

I don't think you understand the history of man at all. Part of being human is having the ability to adapt to one's surroundings. On every corner of the planet, humans have been able to adapt and change to accomplish the task of survival.

What I feel that you are failing to grasp is that severe environmental impacts like the world's coral reefs dying have a "potential" to lead to catastrophic effects to the entire world. The world's biosphere is so complex that our current level of science doesn't quite know how to model it. We are all linked together and something like the coral reefs all dying off in a short period of time (decades not centuries) is something that literally could lead to a cascade effect that fundamentally hurts every living organism on the planet.

So yeah, this is a big deal.

I dunno, maybe we old crusty types just don't care because we'll be dead in 20, 30, or 40 years and we don't care what mess we leave our children and grandchildren...

So we lie to ourselves, downplay it, tell ourselves that it is just "scaremongering" so we can go on earning stock dividends or not have to change our standards of living and way of life.

Just kick that can down the road and let our grandchildren and their grandchildren deal with the consequences of our laziness and selfishness

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

If you're going to try and be a clever boy, at least get your facts straight. Evolution is about the "most fit" not the strongest. In many situations, rats and mice would be more fit than humans or bears for example.

Then put to test, instead of promoting it, then, walking it back when humans are about to die off. half the folks in the politics forum has a less than positive view of humans anyways, why not let the rats, and mice survive, cockroaches too, since they survive a nuclear blast.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

It's not about sacrifices, it's about evolving socially and economically. When the car was invented do you think it was an easy thing transitioning from a society that depended on animal labor to a society that utilized the combustion engine?

And do you think everyone managed the switch simultaneously or were some nations better suited to go first and then the rest followed???



The 3rd world is not equivalent to the 1st world socially or economically or technologically. Do I really have to make this point? So it is impossible for them to be on the same time scale as us. 1st world got computers in the 1990s, 3rd world got them 20 years later. 1st world got cell phones in the 90s, 3rd world got them 20 years later...

Same thing with a new energy resource and paradigm.



I don't think you understand the history of man at all. Part of being human is having the ability to adapt to one's surroundings. On every corner of the planet, humans have been able to adapt and change to accomplish the task of survival.

What I feel that you are failing to grasp is that severe environmental impacts like the world's coral reefs dying have a "potential" to lead to catastrophic effects to the entire world. The world's biosphere is so complex that our current level of science doesn't quite know how to model it. We are all linked together and something like the coral reefs all dying off in a short period of time (decades not centuries) is something that literally could lead to a cascade effect that fundamentally hurts every living organism on the planet.

So yeah, this is a big deal.

I dunno, maybe we old crusty types just don't care because we'll be dead in 20, 30, or 40 years and we don't care what mess we leave our children and grandchildren...

So we lie to ourselves, downplay it, tell ourselves that it is just "scaremongering" so we can go on earning stock dividends or not have to change our standards of living and way of life.

Just kick that can down the road and let our grandchildren and their grandchildren deal with the consequences of our laziness and selfishness

Yes laziness, and selfishness is sad, however to say it just because of stock dividends is misleading, or do you think your opponents are inherently evil? I thought the new rage by the Scientific & atheistic crowd is realitivism?

 

[USincognito]

Then put to test, instead of promoting it, then, walking it back when humans are about to die off. half the folks in the politics forum has a less than positive view of humans anyways, why not let the rats, and mice survive, cockroaches too, since they survive a nuclear blast.

Huh? What the heck are you babbling about?

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Huh? What the heck are you babbling about?

My point is put evolution to its logical conclusion, if the planet is going to die, then let's see who the fittest to survive, instead of preach it, then walk it back with some social justice feel good stuff, when the going gets tough.

 

[dgiharris]

Yes laziness, and selfishness is sad, however to say it just because of stock dividends is misleading, or do you think your opponents are inherently evil?

It's not so much about being inherently evil as it is about being willfully ignorant.

THe world economy is addicted to oil and fossil fuels. The first "serious" movement towards renewable energy is going to be met with firm resistance and as a nation we will go through withdrawal symptoms similar to a heroin addict jonesin bad for a fix.

Also, it is just human nature to "want" to believe whatever supports your viewpoints and to disbelief everything that will cause you difficulty.

...I thought the new rage by the Scientific & atheistic crowd is realitivism?

Moral Relativism is nothing new. IIRC that philosophy is hundreds of years old.

A much better philosophy to subscribe to is Utilitarianism. If there is a such at a thing as a "Scientific Crowd" they would subscribe to that philosophy well before they subscribe to Moral Relativism simply because there is more math behind Utilitarianism. Basically, with Utility, you view things in terms of total good and total benefit to the group (or society) as a whole.

 

[dgiharris]

My point is put evolution to its logical conclusion, if the planet is going to die, then let's see who the fittest to survive, instead of preach it, then walk it back with some social justice feel good stuff, when the going gets tough.

I'm at a loss trying to understand exactly what you are arguing???

How exactly does mankind burning fossil fuels and screwing up the environment have anything to do with evolution in the manner in which you are arguing evolution?

This is more of a socio-political issue and we can discuss evolution in terms of socio-economic factors. But that is going to be a different than evolution in a strictly biological sense as relates to our actions killing an entire ecosystem.
It seems as if you are trying to use this as a way to indirectly bash the theory of evolution???

I dunno, I'm not sure what you are getting at...

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

My point is put evolution to its logical conclusion, if the planet is going to die, then let's see who the fittest to survive, instead of preach it, then walk it back with some social justice feel good stuff, when the going gets tough.

Or we could try to take care of the planet. Like God should or would want us too.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Evidence?

That's why I asked the question cause those are the 3 most common theories about reefs dying off climate change, pollution and over fishing. Or was this just meant to be clickbait so someone could get a giggle at the responses...

 

[essentialsaltes]

My point is put evolution to its logical conclusion

Your point is bizarre and mistaken. The logical conclusion to the theory of gravity is not to topple everything over so it falls down.

 

[rambot]

Wasn't it science that got us into this environmental degradation fix in the first place?

No. It was human hubris and the ignorant idea that we can do whatever we want and, well God made this world and he's in control, so we just do whatever and whatever happens happens!"
The attitude of ambivalence is what sent us down this path. Don't blame science.

more global warming scaremongering by scientists with a agenda.

When the doctor's come in with a positive test result for prostrate cancer and provides it, do you rebut with "Pffft. You're just trying to get me to eat healthier. I don't really have cancer"? Because that is not a proper response to negative news.

Coral is bleaching whether you choose to accept that or not is up to you. There is a reason (or perhaps several contributing reasons) and scientists know them. Again, you can choose to ignore them, but it's not like you know better. We (you included) have not been studying coral reefs for decades; we don't know how coral grows at a cellular level or what it is made out of or what can affect it. But, for some reason, it's okay to dismiss people who DO know becaaaaaauuuuseeeeee....?

You know I'm kinda curious as to why the article failed to mention pollution and overfishing as reasons the reefs could be dying off???

Science really likes to support their hypotheses with evidence instead of "but what IF!!". Rising ocean temps are the biggest threat to coral reefs.
But, for fun:
1) What would constitute pollution? Perhaps an increase in the acidification of ocean water due to increase amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a slightly warmer ocean? If you are calling that a kind of pollution, I'd agree. But if you're saying "It's all the plastic bags and stuff"...macrogarbage? No.
If you are talking about the various and sundry other types of pollution that gets loosed into our oceans, well, what's your list? What are your main concerns?

2) Overfishing? That will not bleach and kill the coral.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I bet if we had worldwide prayer, we could do just about anything.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic lol. If you are, it's amusing satire, if you're serious, I can point to some times in history where various religions did hold sway over most parts of the world, and the outcome wasn't great.

 

[section9+1]

Science made all the bad behavior possible. I'm not going to impact much of anything if I'm living in a buffalo hide tepee and shooting stone arrowheads at wild animals and the land is largely empty of humans.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Science has waged a culture war on religion for years on behalf of either Libertinism or Social Liberalism, now they us to cooperate, no thanks amigo!

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Or we could try to take care of the planet. Like God should or would want us too.

I would think that point would be rather obvious for people of faith to know, but sadly that is not always the case.

 

[Larniavc]

Does it matter?

Words fail me.

Yay CF

 

[Belk]

Science has waged a culture war on religion for years on behalf of either Libertinism or Social Liberalism, now they us to cooperate, no thanks amigo!

No, "Science" has done no such thing.