Modifying The Environment

[manhunter098]

This topic will cover the ethics involved with, and the losses and benefits of altering the natural environment in a way that would be scientifically engineered to benefit humans, though any various means including but not necessarily limited producing more food for humans, reducing pollution in either the air, ground, or water, or anything else you can think of that you can see as a benefit to humans.

To an extent this has been something humans have done ever since we discovered agriculture, but this is slightly different, as it covers much more than simply planting things and raising animals in order to eat, but rather anything that would serve to promote and sustain a larger human population, without creating an upset in the ecological balance of the planet.

(I hope that was a good way to put it)


Things that are likely to come up in this topic are the ethics of intentionally forcing a species to extinction in the wild (not necessarily biological extinction), replacing a species with a machine that could perform the ecological role of that animal more efficiently, major geographical alterations (building rivers, leveling mountains), etc. Hopefully this can give people something to think about when they read this topic, and feel free to come up with more things, since discussion certainly isn't limited to what I have mentioned in this paragraph.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion on this matter is that it is perfectly fine to alter the environment to our needs, simply because we as I feel any other species has a right to do everything in its power to promote the conversion of as much biomass as would be possible into their own kind, without going so far as to exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. In the case of an organism such as humans, we are capable of altering the carrying capacity of our environment. To go so far in growth though as to reduce the ability of the environment to sustain our population is a negative thing, so every move in altering our environment should be down slowly, through small very calculated changes.

We have little to loose and a lot to gain by altering environments, and while I think it will reduce the biodiversity found in the environment (though for all I know it might not) it doesnt mean that it would necessarily make the environemnt look ugly or anything like that.

I support this idea to the extent that I am majoring in environmental engineering for the purposes of changing the environment to better mankind. Not that I am some altruist or anything, since mankind does include myself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will probably add some things to what I am looking for in this debate in order to promote further or better discussion within this topic. For example I might end up asking opinions about the viability and extent to which this could be performed in the present day and/or future. But I will save those additions for later.



With that said I hope to hear people’s opinions and to get some good discussion going in this thread.

 

[Pure-???]

Assuming we achieve higher technology, we could do amazing things. we could create mountains, we could create oceans, drain the ocean, flood canyons. the sky's the limit. we could drain ocean water into say, death valley, giving us a saltwater lake which we could fill with fish, and it would slightly empty the ocean, giving us a slight increase in land. Remember, this is all hypothetical.

 

[Ørion]

The human race, like all other species, has a right to self-preservation and expansion as best as the race is capable of. Humans are the only beings intelligent enough to modify their environment to a great extent that could actually have a significant impact on the biosphere at large. With the intelligence of our race, I believe we do has certain obligations to the rest of nature. While we should not deny ourselves necessary space, it is wrong to purposely alter the environment out of favor of the rest of the area and into our favor if it is not something important. We also have a responsibility to help at least some of the displaced animals etc. However, we do have the same right as any other species to attempt to continue. We just happen to be better at it than any other animal and have the most affect on the environment.

 

[Kur]

This planet was not put here for us to use. WE evolved to make use of the planet.

Like any other species it is our right to use whatever of the planet we like. Some animals drive others to extinction, that is natures way. However unlike other animals, we have the foresight to see that the planet is not a limitless resource.

We have a responsibility to our future heirs to make sure the planet is here for them to use as well. But it is also important to realize that no matter what we do to the planet, it will continue on and life will always be here with or without us. It really does not matter if we save the whales because they will be extinct in the blink of an eye anyway as far as the planet is concerned. But we like whales, and they happen to benefit us in our existence on this planet by helping to balance the ecology of the oceans. So we saved them. But lets not get carried away here either. The polar bear has no business on the endangered species list. There are more of them today than 25 years ago.



None of this means that global warming is real btw, it just means we should do our best to find alternative and renewable sources for energy, materials, and food without sacrificing our freedoms to drive SUVs and use light bulbs. And also without sacrificing our economy. They want us to spend 45 trillion dollars (the budget for the US in the past 15 years doesn't even add up to 20 trillion) to fix global warming and it isn't even real.

So if we can make artificial machines to do the job of bees on some kind of crop, or make our honey, then go for it. Bees will still be alive and well in the wild and in our attics. Bees will not go extinct because of machines that do their job better for us.

 

[Vro]

None of this means that global warming is real btw, it just means we should do our best to find alternative and renewable sources for energy, materials, and food without sacrificing our freedoms to drive SUVs and use light bulbs. And also without sacrificing our economy. They want us to spend 45 trillion dollars (the budget for the US in the past 15 years doesn't even add up to 20 trillion) to fix global warming and it isn't even real.

I believe that is another subject. Your statements are controversial, and to my knowledge, an opinion.

---

As far as the discussion goes, I agree with everyone in that we do have the right to change the environment in an effort of self-preservation so long as it involves as little financial interest and is done in an effort for world preservation, not just necessarily human preservation.

One of the examples you used was replacing animals with technology that could perform that ecological function more efficiently. My question is, is that possible? Is this just an example or is science on its way to that? It would seem that there are many, many issues with changing the diversity in an ecosystem. Machines may be able to be lower maintenance, but are they self-sustaining as animal species are? Can machines replace the roles of animals in the food chain?

Should technology not be an issue, and as long as the repercussions are outweighed by the benefits of our manipulation of the environment, I see no reason why not to modify it. The saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But if the world is broken, where do we go from there? We should take initiative to enhance our chances of preservation as soon as possible.

 

[manhunter098]

Well any machine can be run on solar power, which is what every living organism (aside from those using chemosynthesis or consuming animals using chemosynthesis) essentially use for energy. The energy in oil is essentially solar energy since solar energy was used to make the carbohydrates that form a portion of plants, which were then over millions of years converted to oil. So essentially if we can make effecient use of solar power, then we will be able to make a machine that could synthesize glucose, or fix nitrogen in the soil, etc.


Also, I think that every species has a right beyond self preservation, and that is proliferation. Every species has the right to expand as much as it possibly can, and of course through that idea every species can be forced to extinction or to smaller population sized by another species that is exercising its right to proliferate. The ONLY duty we have is to make sure that through to proliferation of our species, we do not exceed the carrying capacity of our environment, and being a species that can modify the environment to our advantage, we can increase our carrying capacity, thus it becomes our duty to increase the carrying capacity of our enviornment by modifying it, through any possible means to allow it to sustain more humans than it once could. This would continue on until we can no longer make the enviornment any more effecient (or something else comes along and kills us off).

 

[Zook]

No, I don't agree to this.

What do we have to gain by leveling mountains, carving lakes from forests, filling in rivers? How is that supposed to help humanity expand? We'll just be making new roads, new amusement parks, new parking lots, new overpriced condos for people who already have homes. Sure, we could modify the environment for farms and new housing, but we already have the land- it's just being wasted. And we wouldn't use it for farms, either.

I live in New Hampshire, I'm forced to watch as the natural world secedes and humanity bloats in. More and more forests are leveled every day, and do you think it's being used to help people? No, it's being used so people can throw thousands upon thousands of dollars into a McMansion.

Guys, the natural world is a precious, precious thing. And humanity will never understand that. Sure, you can smash down a hill, fill in a lake and make a farm on it, but at the same time you lose a bit more of nature, of where we come from. Unfortunately, this will happen (not 'this might,' it will happen), but I'd like it if we could delay as long as possible.

Besides, we still have space to colonize.

 

[Vro]

What do we have to gain by leveling mountains, carving lakes from forests, filling in rivers? How is that supposed to help humanity expand? We'll just be making new roads, new amusement parks, new parking lots, new overpriced condos for people who already have homes. Sure, we could modify the environment for farms and new housing, but we already have the land- it's just being wasted. And we wouldn't use it for farms, either.

That form of thinking is very limited. Why do many of our mountains offer except a small ecosystem? If we level off the top of various mountains, that would create a huge amount of unused land. Seldom are there ecosystems atop the peaks of mountains. Creating lakes could be a great asset to any nation, providing fresh, self-sustaining water.

There will be prices to these. We might build new roads and parks. However, following the same line of thought, we shouldn't be modifying the environment at all unless we seek the benefit of it. The nature of this discussion is a benign modification of the environment.

Guys, the natural world is a precious, precious thing. And humanity will never understand that. Sure, you can smash down a hill, fill in a lake and make a farm on it, but at the same time you lose a bit more of nature, of where we come from. Unfortunately, this will happen (not 'this might,' it will happen), but I'd like it if we could delay as long as possible.

We agree with you that the world is precious. However, valuing something can also be shown thru efforts of improving it. Would you let a precious car go by without oil checks or tire rotations? I know the world is not a machine, but how can having a hands off approach help the environment whilst going down hill? We should carefully consider all of our modifications to the environment, if any, with the ideal that the world is precious.

And space colonization is cool. =)

 

[manhunter098]

Actually, I was thinking in regards to leveling mountains as changing the rain patterns to one that would possibly benefit growing crops more. I mean if we took out a good chunk of the Rocky Mountains then we would allow rain to enter the desert and change the ecosystem there to be more suitable for growing crops and raising animals. Mountains themselves could be used for shelter (natural temperature regulation and a solid construction would make it ideal for creating human living space), and they dont necessarily need to be taken down totally, just shortened enough to get the desired effect.

Im also against wasting the environment. Leveling mountains would be something of a list ditch resort, or if we can see some benefit that far outweighs the mountains existence then it would be done. Its not like we will just go around filling in rivers, and dredging lakes (out of perfectly productive forests?) just for the hell of it.

This topic is about the calculated alteration of the environment for the benefit of human expansion (in other words increasing the carrying capacity of the environment in regards to the human population), not "lets level this patch of forest over here so we can build a shopping mall."

 

[yossarian22]

Actually, I was thinking in regards to leveling mountains as changing the rain patterns to one that would possibly benefit growing crops more. I mean if we took out a good chunk of the Rocky Mountains then we would allow rain to enter the desert and change the ecosystem there to be more suitable for growing crops and raising animals.

And cause lots of other nasty effects. I would hesitate to do anything near this scale on the planet.
1: How do we do this in a cost effective matter?
2: Where do we put all that rock?

We can't just vaporize all of it. We can't throw it in the ocean.
Doing it will play hell with the climate as well. I doubt that we can actually predict what would happen if we did level the mountains. Irrigation of the deserts would be cheaper anyhow.

 

[manhunter098]

Well cost is something that balances itself out over time, and we definitely have the capacity to level mountains, and finding a location for the rock someplace where it wont get in the way of much isnt so much of a problem (the arctic, deep ocean, its easy to find a good spot) , but rather transporting it to that new location. But essentially leveling mountains is something that would only occur if there are massive benefits, or we are pushed against a wall and finally need the extra productivity that could be gained by removing (or rather flattening) the mountain.

Either way, removal of mountains is still not something that would come to fruition any time soon. But I wouldnt expect the effects to be too unpredictable, or rather the effects would be so massive, that it would make prediction somewhat easier. For example take out a mountain range that is causing a rain shadow effect, and we KNOW the rain shadow effect will disappear, we also know it isnt going to destroy the worlds climate or something...since mountains didnt always exist in their current locations or at their current height, so we know the earth doesnt need them. And it shouldnt really make the area uninhabitable or unuseable either, since the range of possible outcomes (while potentially massive) would all still leave the area useful to us in some way, and probably moreso than the desert. All in all though my mountain example was just more of a statement that the modifications I am talking about dont have to be small, they could be as large as well...a mountain.

 

[yossarian22]

Well cost is something that balances itself out over time, and we definitely have the capacity to level mountains, and finding a location for the rock someplace where it wont get in the way of much isnt so much of a problem (the arctic, deep ocean, its easy to find a good spot) , but rather transporting it to that new location. But essentially leveling mountains is something that would only occur if there are massive benefits, or we are pushed against a wall and finally need the extra productivity that could be gained by removing (or rather flattening) the mountain.

Yep. Ocean won't work though. We'd probably cause tidal waves.

For example take out a mountain range that is causing a rain shadow effect, and we KNOW the rain shadow effect will disappear, we also know it isnt going to destroy the worlds climate or something...since mountains didnt always exist in their current locations or at their current height, so we know the earth doesnt need them.

It would, in all probability, drastically change the Earth's climate. Air now has a new, convenient way to move around. New currents will prop up. Something we probably can't predict. My experience with climatology is, however, very poor.

 

[Zook]

This topic is about the calculated alteration of the environment for the benefit of human expansion (in other words increasing the carrying capacity of the environment in regards to the human population), not "lets level this patch of forest over here so we can build a shopping mall."

But, you see, this would still happen. Even if we did alter the ecosystem for the better of humanity, some will use it as an excuse for chopping down the rain forest. Which is what I am against.

To me, it seems the people for altering the enivronment in a huge way are too trusting of humanity. When people come across great power, they don't use it for good, they abuse the **** out of it.

 

[manhunter098]

Yep. Ocean won't work though. We'd probably cause tidal waves.


It would, in all probability, drastically change the Earth's climate. Air now has a new, convenient way to move around. New currents will prop up. Something we probably can't predict. My experience with climatology is, however, very poor.

We wouldnt cause tidal waves. We dont have to drop it all on the ocean at once. Its not like we are going to cut off the top of the mountain and then drop it in the ocean, it we be just dropping very large chunks of rock into the ocean.


I dont exactly get what you mean by drastically change the climate though. It wont really affect global average temperature, since there isnt really any reason for it to, it will change the circulation of air somewhat, but because of the Coriolis effect its not going to change global air circulation patterns either, just those in that region. Then again there is no telling exactly what changes we would get. But we know average temperature shouldnt change much, for example if this is done in the mid lattitudes, it would be impossible for it to cause the temperature to drop or rise to within a certain limit. The largest unforseen changes I could see have more to do with rainfall than anything else, and even that is somewhat predictable, as in we still know the rain shadow effect the mountain range was causing will be gone.

But, you see, this would still happen. Even if we did alter the ecosystem for the better of humanity, some will use it as an excuse for chopping down the rain forest. Which is what I am against.

To me, it seems the people for altering the enivronment in a huge way are too trusting of humanity. When people come across great power, they don't use it for good, they abuse the **** out of it.

Under who's authority would this happen? To place a shopping mall in the middle of land that is being altered in order to make the environment there more able to produce for human needs would only hinder the goals of those alterations. Like I said before, this is about calculated alterations, meaning that we analyze the potential effects of an already decided upon method of altering the environment in an area. I guess you could compare it to to the current project taking place to rebuild the Florida Everglades, there is no room for a mall in the middle of rebuilding the Everglades, it would hinder the entire project.

For the most part when I talk about alterations for human benefit, I am talking about raising the primary productivity of a given area and focusing it on producing things that humans can use.

 

[Kur]

No, I don't agree to this.

What do we have to gain by leveling mountains, carving lakes from forests, filling in rivers? How is that supposed to help humanity expand? We'll just be making new roads, new amusement parks, new parking lots, new overpriced condos for people who already have homes. Sure, we could modify the environment for farms and new housing, but we already have the land- it's just being wasted. And we wouldn't use it for farms, either.

I live in New Hampshire, I'm forced to watch as the natural world secedes and humanity bloats in. More and more forests are leveled every day, and do you think it's being used to help people? No, it's being used so people can throw thousands upon thousands of dollars into a McMansion.

Guys, the natural world is a precious, precious thing. And humanity will never understand that. Sure, you can smash down a hill, fill in a lake and make a farm on it, but at the same time you lose a bit more of nature, of where we come from. Unfortunately, this will happen (not 'this might,' it will happen), but I'd like it if we could delay as long as possible.

Besides, we still have space to colonize.

I hate to be Captain Obvious here but I think I can sum up your post rather nicely.

"Who are you to think you have any right over nature? How dare you make so much money, not share it with poor people, and then waste it by buying things you want? Don't you think we could do without roads, amusement parks, and condos for the sake of the trees and redistribute the money to the poor and hungry?"

I get the feeling from reading your post that you are a democrat, probably a borderline socialist with some marxism thrown in.

Yes we as humans came from nature. But we are still part of it. Just because we have the ability to do more with the natural resources we have, does not separate us from nature. It would be nice to have wild land all over the place and never have to cut down a tree or whatever, but we need to support ourselves. Human life is more important that some trees, or the migratory pattern of some caribu.

If a rich guy has money to blow on a huge house he only uses for 2 months a year, who are you to tell him he can't or even that he shouldn't? What is wrong with it anyway?

The planet is a natural resource. Every animal (including us) has the right to use it as they see fit. Do not fault humanity for needing to use more of it than some smelt on the california coast line.

 

[yossarian22]

We wouldnt cause tidal waves. We dont have to drop it all on the ocean at once. Its not like we are going to cut off the top of the mountain and then drop it in the ocean, it we be just dropping very large chunks of rock into the ocean.


I dont exactly get what you mean by drastically change the climate though. It wont really affect global average temperature, since there isnt really any reason for it to, it will change the circulation of air somewhat, but because of the Coriolis effect its not going to change global air circulation patterns either, just those in that region. Then again there is no telling exactly what changes we would get. But we know average temperature shouldnt change much, for example if this is done in the mid lattitudes, it would be impossible for it to cause the temperature to drop or rise to within a certain limit. The largest unforseen changes I could see have more to do with rainfall than anything else, and even that is somewhat predictable, as in we still know the rain shadow effect the mountain range was causing will be gone.

And shall we just assume the seabed is a nice, stable little dumping ground? I was not talking about dropping the stuff in. I was talking about the possibility of undersea landslides.

It won't effect overall temperature appreciably. It will screw with the air currents. The Coriolis effect really has nothing to do with this. Air flows from warm to cold. Removing a mountain creates a new path for air to move through. But I am skating on thin ice here. I know next to nothing about climatology and have never been interested in it anyhow.

 

[Kur]

And shall we just assume the seabed is a nice, stable little dumping ground? I was not talking about dropping the stuff in. I was talking about the possibility of undersea landslides.

It won't effect overall temperature appreciably. It will screw with the air currents. The Coriolis effect really has nothing to do with this. Air flows from warm to cold. Removing a mountain creates a new path for air to move through. But I am skating on thin ice here. I know next to nothing about climatology and have never been interested in it anyhow.

Not really much we could do anyway.

There is no way (currently) for humans to level mountains of the size required to effect the climate in such a way.

Leveling smaller mountains like Papago, Camelback, Squaw Peak, in Phoenix Arizona would free up huge amounts of land for development but would not have any effect on the climate at all.

Leveling 500 miles of the Rockies would though. But that is impossible given current technology. But even if we could, what would really happen? Less rain on one side of the mountains? More rain on the other? And in the long run who cares? A few million years from now and the Rockies will be gone anyway. Remember they weren't there a few million years ago.

People seem to forget that the earth constantly changes.

Everyody has heard of Pangea. The supercontinent that broke up into all the smaller continents we know today. But how many know that this process has happened more than once? That before Pangea there was Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland, and many others. The Earth creates supercontinents about every 300-500 million years. And those supercontinents break up and spread around creating smaller land masses.

And people are worried about leveling a mountain?

 

[Zook]

I hate to be Captain Obvious here but I think I can sum up your post rather nicely.

"Who are you to think you have any right over nature? How dare you make so much money, not share it with poor people, and then waste it by buying things you want? Don't you think we could do without roads, amusement parks, and condos for the sake of the trees and redistribute the money to the poor and hungry?"

I get the feeling from reading your post that you are a democrat, probably a borderline socialist with some marxism thrown in.

Yes we as humans came from nature. But we are still part of it. Just because we have the ability to do more with the natural resources we have, does not separate us from nature. It would be nice to have wild land all over the place and never have to cut down a tree or whatever, but we need to support ourselves. Human life is more important that some trees, or the migratory pattern of some caribu.

If a rich guy has money to blow on a huge house he only uses for 2 months a year, who are you to tell him he can't or even that he shouldn't? What is wrong with it anyway?

The planet is a natural resource. Every animal (including us) has the right to use it as they see fit. Do not fault humanity for needing to use more of it than some smelt on the california coast line.

Aha! Please excuse me-- In post too quickly, I'm a dumb 15 year old, and often end up sounding like an ***. Yes, my ideas are wholly unrealistic, for the most part.

Need to think about what to say next more, post later.