This topic is raising its ugly head while we contemplate the direction of either one of our up-and-coming elected Glorious Leader's from either the Miners Party .... oops .... Labor Party, and the Christian Right ... oopsie again ... Mad Hatters Party.

You are - apparently - in either one of two camps. You believe that the climate is changing for the worse, or you don't ... apparently. This debate is a passionate debate, and it COMPLETELY blows my mind.

Regardless of whether there's a change in the global weather patterns or what is to blame for that, doesn't it just make sense that in the more developed countries where technology and common sense could push us through to function better as a species and blend us a little better with the environment?. At the moment, everything we do is in direct competition with the environment. We still have the belief that the Earth owes us and we have the right to strip it clean and fill the holes with our waste.

It's a FACT that we could, and should, function better as a species. The problem, as I see it, is that we have given all the power to the wrong people and too few of them. Every single person that is elected becomes a puppet for something larger that is looking for more profit. Anything we see from whichever leader will be a token gesture. Nothing will significantly happen for the better from our PM ... EVER.

StG,
Welcome to my world View.

In truth the argument hasn't been about Global warming and or the environment per se for a very long time.

It has gone through several stages ;
- first it was an argument over (fear of) change;
- then fear of personal loss i.e. money, jobs, percieved power (vested interest);
- and now political posturing and dogma

StG
"It's a FACT that we could, and should, function better as a species."

What would it look like, in your view, if we were functioning better as a species?

And what do you mean 'as a species'? Are you functioning now as a species? Have you ever done so? Has anyone? Has the species?

And how do you know it's a 'FACT' that we could and should function better that way?

America is having its hottest summer and hottest year ever.
AH why worry its not us,,,,,yet

Your post mirrors my sentiments quite nicely, StG, though I'll warn you that I have been slammed on this forum for making similar statements.

Although Peter Hume appears to be nitpicking rather than responding to the content of the thread, I'll assume that his questions were genuine rather than frivolous.

If we are to treat humans as a species and a part of an ecosystem (or a collection of ecosystems, more accurately), then our purpose within that ecosystem is to participate in a sustainable exchange and transfer of resources (nutrients, water, etc). Our purpose is not to overrun and destroy the ecosystems with which we are involved.

If we are to treat humans as 'above' the ecosystems that surround us, then our purpose must simply be to ensure the continuation of our own species. To do this, we must look after our ecosystems in a sustainable way.

If we are to dispense with the notion of a 'species' and assume that each person operates solely on the individual level, then our purpose must be to ensure our own longevity. To do this, we must look after our immediate surrounds to ensure a steady and sustainable supply of our basic necessities.

In any of these cases, to function better as a species, we need to engage more positively with our biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Failing to do so hinders the success of any of the 'missions' outlined above.

That we are not doing enough is evident in the volume of recyclable goods disposed of in landfill. It is evident in our wasteful use of energy, when less costly (in terms of energy) alternatives for our everyday activities are available.

All of this is, of course, simply my opinion. An informed discrediting of my ideas is more than welcome.

Peter Hume,

You response is semantic nonsense one might suggest deliberately obtuse/obfuscatious.
What ever it is it clearly fulfills political technique
#1 when in doubt answer the question you want to answer rather than the one posed.
#22 challenge the meaning of terms meaningless to distract attention.