Human activities play an important role in destroying the ecosystem.

[GirlNextDoor15]

So, I got this ridiculous topic from my teacher. It's actually a Biology debate and I'm the first speaker. Can anyone generate some ideas to me so that my head will not explode? :) I really need this ASAP. Thanks! :D
p/s : I'm on the opposing side.

[Accipiter]

Forestry says it all really

We're killing earth by destroying it's nature.

[GommeInc]

Interesting debate. We're also technically saving it with conservation so we're not entirely destroying it, nor saving it. I suppose you could mention burning fossil fuels and inventing things like cars and keeping with the same type of fuel for 100s of years when within that time we should of been developing alternative fuels sooner than later.

You could also mention how the advances of technology mean we're a damn sight lazier than we used to be, so even though a shop may only be a mile or two away, we still prefer to take the car than to walk or cycle, even though man was built to withstand cycling and walking, and carrying back shopping. You could also mention cleaning products we use often like bleach, anti-bacterial and washing up liquid which all have an environmental impact.

[Celacia]

I don't understand what we're debating.

We farm the planet for resources. Cage and capture animals at endangered levels just to keep them alive and destroy native animal's ecosystems. We allow greenhouse gasses worldwide to accumulate in our atmosphere which further alters the climate of ecosystems. We industrialize and create kilotons of practically non degradable waste which we simply bury. ...it is quite clear that the human race has left its mark on our one and only Earth. How quickly we, as a united people, realize this and think forward into the future will determine how it affects the generations to come.

[FlyingJesus]

Well of course humans have an impact on it, we're part of it. Not everything that a lion does is good for the overall condition of the planet, same with an ant or a salmon or any other animal or even plantlife with their limited choices but widespread influence. There's nothing unnatural about a semi-parasitic race like ours destroying the area they live in, and with humans living in nearly all inhabitable areas of the globe it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that the rest of the natural world has been somewhat subdued to our whims. Let's not be so foolish as to think that we're going to completely destroy the planet and all its wonders just by living though - there are vast expanses that have little to no human contact and will likely remain so for all time. The only (current) threat to life as a whole is nuclear damage

[Celacia]

The only (current) threat to life as a whole is nuclear damage.

What about run away greenhouse effect? I don't suppose you've taken a look at Venus lately?

[AgnesIO]

I don't understand what we're debating.

We farm the planet for resources. Cage and capture animals at endangered levels just to keep them alive and destroy native animal's ecosystems. We allow greenhouse gasses worldwide to accumulate in our atmosphere which further alters the climate of ecosystems. We industrialize and create kilotons of practically non degradable waste which we simply bury. ...it is quite clear that the human race has left its mark on our one and only Earth. How quickly we, as a united people, realize this and think forward into the future will determine how it affects the generations to come.

Because humans are not already trying to change it? :S

Haven't you seen those hideous, tall white things that destroy landscapes?

[Celacia]

Because humans are not already trying to change it?
When humans advance technology, we don't usually like to go backward. People want to live with the same amenities they have experienced in the past. With our current advancements in alternative energy, we simply cannot supply the sheer amount of energy needed to power our homes, gadgets, vehicles, factories, etc.

Wind = Clean, dependent, but just doesn't produce enough energy.
Hydroelectric = Dependent, destroys ecosystems, but overall an important energy source.
Geothermal = Short-term it's great, the elevation of areas using geothermal energy is dropping yearly, though. Also depends on the area.
Solar = expensive, daytime reliant, technology isn't good enough yet.
Nuclear = amazing energy output, dangerous, could be discontinued or changed, produces waste that we cannot efficiently destroy.

For us to continue living this way, we will need to use non-renewable energy, it's that simple. For us to reverse the atmospheric damage we would need to all but eliminate CO2 output for a little over 100 years.

[FlyingJesus]

What about run away greenhouse effect? I don't suppose you've taken a look at Venus lately?

Well no, but I don't recall a time when Venus was inhabitable and I don't imagine you do either. It's a completely different planet with completely different atmosphere and geology. That aside, we're nowhere near a stage where greenhouse effects are going to actually destroy all life, and they're largely natural anyway

[Celacia]

I don't recall a time when Venus was inhabitable
Well no **** sherlock, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. All scientific theories about the universe are based on speculation in conjunction with scientific law and observable evidence.

And that's the point. We don't know what happened to Venus' atmosphere. All we know is what happened on Venus happened in the goldilocks zone. If not for its atmosphere it could very well have been similar to Earth.


It's a completely different planet with completely different atmosphere and geology.
1. Planets are formed in similar ways.
2. The most abundent elements found on Venus are found on Earth and throughout the Universe.
3. As per its Geography, the surface (the crust) of Venus is six times older (600 million years old) than Earth's surface.


That aside, we're nowhere near a stage where greenhouse effects are going to actually destroy all life
Climate change is a funny thing. An Ice Age only takes a temperature change of two degrees celsius to throw our planet for a loop.
It's a delicate balance, and while global warming likely won't drastically affect us in our lifetime, we have to admit that we're harming our planet and we need to find a solution.

[FlyingJesus]

1. Planets are formed in similar ways.

lmao only the first 4 planets in our solar system are even solid let alone built the same. If you want to debate a point you shouldn't depend on conjecture (Venus MIGHT have had a similar atmosphere to Earth) and false facts (planets are formed in similar ways)

[Conservative,]

Man-made global warming climate change has the same amount of truth and evidence as the 21st May Judgement Day prediction.

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe until sufficient evidence is put forward to me, that we are the cause of slight increases in global temperatures (minuscule...as in 10 to the -3/4/5).

The earth (as proven by scientists) goes through fluctuations of hot and cold periods. These have happened long before and will happen long after man kind existed.

30 years ago they taught in schools that there would be an ice age within a century or so. Then they taught us the planet is warming up too much and that the heat will go out of control. Now they have realised they don't have sufficient evidence for either and want more funding to put into pointless research so scare the governments by saying 'climate change' is happening. Yes, it is, on a very very small scale which is natural. However we have nothing to do with it.

[Celacia]

If you want to debate a point you shouldn't depend on...
Look, we're getting off topic and I don't feel like arguing this point, but you can't attack character or say something is wrong without backing up your claim.

And yes, planets are formed in the same way.

"The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula) into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar) forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk). Through accretion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29) (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetesimal) form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction. These concentrations become ever denser until they collapse inward under gravity to form protoplanets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanet).[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#cite_note-64) After a planet reaches a diameter larger than the Earth's moon, it begins to accumulate an extended atmosphere, greatly increasing the capture rate of the planetesimals by means of atmospheric drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29).[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#cite_note-65)"

[FlyingJesus]

I can cook scrambled eggs in a pan, I can cook pasta in a pan, therefore eggs = pasta? This is essentially what you're suggesting now.

Earth and Venus are not anywhere near being the same planet, so your point that you originally brought up about greenhouse effects doesn't make any sense. I could say "MAYBE Venus was once a lush and vibrant planet but then lack of nuclear leakage and CO2 gases turned it into a desolate giant stormplain", but it wouldn't hold any weight in a debate.

[Celacia]

I can cook scrambled eggs in a pan, I can cook pasta in a pan, therefore eggs = pasta? This is essentially what you're suggesting now.

Earth and Venus are not anywhere near being the same planet, so your point that you originally brought up about greenhouse effects doesn't make any sense. I could say "MAYBE Venus was once a lush and vibrant planet but then lack of nuclear leakage and CO2 gases turned it into a desolate giant stormplain", but it wouldn't hold any weight in a debate.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Also, stop making points without backing them up.

Be sure to read all the rules of the debating forums, which are located here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=617161).

[Celacia]

When I was referring to Venus, I didn't mean for it to distract from the issue at hand.

I merely listed it as an example of a planet that:
-Is solid
-Has an atmosphere
-Has an overabundance of greenhouse gasses that make the planet unlivable

I suggested that at one time:
-It may have been similar to Earth. I backed that up with facts like the crust of Venus is 500 million years older than Earths, our past ice ages were caused by global warming, which was initially caused by volcanic activity and other factors, much like Venus, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone, much like Earth, etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When humans advance technology, we don't usually like to go backward. People want to live with the same amenities they have experienced in the past. With our current advancements in alternative energy, we simply cannot supply the sheer amount of energy needed to power our homes, gadgets, vehicles, factories, etc.

Er we can actually. As of recent there have been massive shale gas and shale oil despoits found which will last for hudreds of years, coupled with the fact that the British Isles alone have enough coal to supply them for 350 years into the future. That is also not to mention the fact that there are vast oil and gas deposits not only that we know of, but those which we still have not explored.

The planet is bigger than humans like to imagine.


Wind = Clean, dependent, but just doesn't produce enough energy.
Hydroelectric = Dependent, destroys ecosystems, but overall an important energy source.
Geothermal = Short-term it's great, the elevation of areas using geothermal energy is dropping yearly, though. Also depends on the area.
Solar = expensive, daytime reliant, technology isn't good enough yet.
Nuclear = amazing energy output, dangerous, could be discontinued or changed, produces waste that we cannot efficiently destroy.

Indeed.


For us to continue living this way, we will need to use non-renewable energy, it's that simple. For us to reverse the atmospheric damage we would need to all but eliminate CO2 output for a little over 100 years.

This is something we do not need to do though because humans have a very little if no impact on the climate of the Earth and even if we did so, as you state - to prevent this we would have to go back to the stone age. World temperatures after all have fallen over the last 10 to 15 years, directly contradicting the claims of the AGW lobby.

[Celacia]

World temperatures after all have fallen over the last 10 to 15 years, directly contradicting the claims of the AGW lobby.
This type of rhetoric is ridiculous. Yes, there is variability, you're looking at a very small sample.



to prevent this we would have to go back to the stone age.

Nope. I'm just saying that the vast majority of our energy is supplied by fossil fuels and we don't have the resources, funding, or technology to change that at this point in time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This type of rhetoric is ridiculous. Yes, there is variability, you're looking at a very small sample.

Well to be fair its not rhetoric, its just whats happened. Sure it doesn't fit into the AGW thesis, but too bad - afterall with Climategate we saw this confirmed, when the scientist/fraudster there said in an email (what he certainly wouldn't have said publically) that there has been cooling and that they simply cannot account for it when all their models predicted warming.


Nope. I'm just saying that the vast majority of our energy is supplied by fossil fuels and we don't have the resources, funding, or technology to change that at this point in time.

Indeed, thats my point.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Also, stop making points without backing them up.

Be sure to read all the rules of the debating forums, which are located here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=617161).

Which points have I made without backup? Pretty sure I haven't actually been making new points for a few posts just taking yours apart, so it would be difficult for me to "stop" something that I'm not even doing... and I'm well aware of debate rules as well as debate etiquette, in which people don't bring up useless analogies to try proving a point that has no actual basis

You suggested that the Earth and Venus are similar enough that greenhouse gases are a probable cause of Venus' current state (and yes, you did infer that by simply replying "What about run away greenhouse effect? I don't suppose you've taken a look at Venus lately?")
You said that planets are formed in similar ways and tried using that to back up your ridiculous theory
You suggested that the way in which planets are created somehow means that they're all going to age the same way

And all of this because strangely enough on two solid planets the same materials exist. I see no backup of your argument, yet you're attempting to blast me for not backing myself up when I don't even have a need to. As for not meaning to change the subject, you're the one who threw Venus into the mix for no reason other than it having an uninhabitable atmosphere - I don't know if you tend to expect people to just bow down and agree with you when you come up with random theories but generally a debate does have people picking apart your ideas, especially absurd ones like that

[GommeInc]

I blame life in general if we have to point a finger at anything. Animals also produce large amounts of CO2 *glares at cows*, insects destroy large amounts of green, grassy areas in some hot climates and something as simple as water wears away at land, completely destroying habitats. Blaming man for everything is futile, when there's more evidence of nature in general "destroying" the earth. We'd moan if we were getting cold and approaching an ice age - the world likes to moan.