Our earth....

Originally posted by galveston75
There has always been bad. No arguement there at all. But just asking, as opposed to say just a two hundred years ago, do you think children are better off now with the sex slave trade that is going on now world wide? How many children die every day because of bad water or little or no food? How about sicknesses? How about just being kidnapped for who knows what purposses? Just a few examples.
Just asking.......

Infant mortality in England and Wales in 2011 was at 4.1 deaths per 1000 children, the lowest ever. In 1911 that figure was at 130 deaths per 1000 and in 1840 it was around 166 deaths per 1000 births. Somalia and Afghanistan don't reach those levels today in 2013.

Originally posted by galveston75
Bad stuff for sure. The bible says that things would go "from bad to worse" and on a global scale it has.
How about hunger?
How about just from 1 country every day, 365 days a year?
I think that's a little over a million a year?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/16/10424930-indias-hunger-shame-3000-children-die-every-day-despite-economic-growth?lite

Appalling, but to think that people never died of hunger in the past is ludicrous. There have been famines documented for millennia.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just asking.......

Don't just ask, tell me what you think too. I think children are generally better off. And I think this is the case in nearly every country in the world.
I have family records going back many generations and two hundred years ago, many of the children born died before reaching adulthood, and many of the women died during child birth. That was in England.
Things are still bad in Zambia, for the poor and people living in rurual areas, child mortality is still quite high, but not as bad as it was 200 years ago.

Originally posted by galveston75
Bad stuff for sure. The bible says that things would go "from bad to worse" and on a global scale it has.
How about hunger?
How about just from 1 country every day, 365 days a year?
I think that's a little over a million a year?

Can you be clear about whether you mean more instances of bad due to the larger population, or more bad statistically ie do you think more people are hungry, or more people are hungry on average. There is a significant difference between the two and its not clear which you are claiming.

Originally posted by rwingett
He likes to pretend that the wonders of modern dentistry can be examined separately from environmental degradation, but it's a package deal. There's no way to separate the two.

Yes and he seems to leave out autism rates as well as the rise of auto immune diseases. How about education? You mentioned environmental degradation already, but how about the aluminum and barium oxides that are being sprayed on the population in the guise of controlling "global warming"? I agree that one has to consider the whole package to make such a claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you be clear about whether you mean more instances of bad due to the larger population, or more bad statistically ie do you think more people are hungry, or more people are hungry on average. There is a significant difference between the two and its not clear which you are claiming.

This subect of "is it worse now then before because of popualtion growth" has been discussed many times by myself an others including yourself. This is not what this thread is about.
But I'll ask this...... If there were a hundred people on the planet an one child died because if sickness, murder, bad water or whatever is that better or worse as a million children dying today just in one country for the same reasons?
If your going by percentage of population and that is your deciding factor whether things were worse then now, it makes no sense and you are completely missing the point. It seems by your comments and wanting to argue that the millions of children and even adults that die each day is not a big deal as things are "getting better."
Anyway this thread is not on this subject it is on the planet itsself and the life, all life that is in danger of become instict within a few decades...

Originally posted by joe beyser
Yes and he seems to leave out autism rates as well as the rise of auto immune diseases. How about education? You mentioned environmental degradation already, but how about the aluminum and barium oxides that are being sprayed on the population in the guise of controlling "global warming"? I agree that one has to consider the whole package to make such a claim.

Thanks. God comments as there are so many levels of things getting worse that we may never know even a small percentage of it all.
I'm in Washington State and for the first time ever, the agancies involved here have just warned all to not eat the resident fish out of the lower Columbia. This is a first. Maybe they can clean it up but many of the local Indian tribes are furious as this has been their fishing area for hundreds of years...
Just another river going to suffer and this is a huge resourse and income loss for many.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks. God comments as there are so many levels of things getting worse that we may never know even a small percentage of it all.
I'm in Washington State and for the first time ever, the agancies involved here have just warned all to not eat the resident fish out of the lower Columbia. This is a first. Maybe they can clean it up but many of the local ...[text shortened]... s...
Just another river going to suffer and this is a huge resourse and income loss for many.

Where I live, and no doubt throughout munch of the UK, rivers are at their cleanest since the industrial revolution. Dolphin, porpoises, salmon and Atlantic Grey seals and otters have returned to the River Mersey for instance after being absent for decades.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Where I live, and no doubt throughout munch of the UK, rivers are at their cleanest since the industrial revolution. Dolphin, porpoises, salmon and Atlantic Grey seals and otters have returned to the River Mersey for instance after being absent for decades.

Are you claiming that our overall environmental health is better now than it was during the industrial revolution? Or just that of the River Mersey?

Originally posted by galveston75
This subect of "is it worse now then before because of popualtion growth" has been discussed many times by myself an others including yourself. This is not what this thread is about.

I didn't ask you what the thread was about, I asked you what your claim was referring to as it was not clear.

But I'll ask this...... If there were a hundred people on the planet an one child died because if sickness, murder, bad water or whatever is that better or worse as a million children dying today just in one country for the same reasons?
I am not sure if that question can be answered. What do you think? If we just killed every human on the planet then next year there would be no murders at all! Would that be better?

If your going by percentage of population and that is your deciding factor whether things were worse then now, it makes no sense and you are completely missing the point.
I think that ignoring population is foolish. When you did your statistics about death rates you gave a time periods. You said so many die in a year, or so many die in a day.
So let me repose your question back to you:
If a million children die today (in one day), is that better or worse than three million children dying in the year 1600 (in one year)? If you are just counting up deaths, you should say 1600 was worse. If you are doing statistics, you should see the error in your own question.

It seems by your comments and wanting to argue that the millions of children and even adults that die each day is not a big deal as things are "getting better."
I never said it was not a big deal. I said it was not getting worse. I know its a big deal. Of the people I grew up with and went to school with, more than half have died. Its a big deal to me. However, 200 years ago, 90% would be dead and probably I would too. I have passed the average life expectancy for that time. I have also passed the current life expectancy for Zambia.

Anyway this thread is not on this subject it is on the planet itsself and the life, all life that is in danger of become instict within a few decades...
You made claims that appeared to be talking about the here and now being worse than the past, and you seemed to be very rude to anyone who disagreed with you. I just wanted to clear up exactly what your claims were.
You may now get back to the subject of the thread. Are you saying all life is in danger of going extinct, or just some? If the former then I disagree. If the latter, then I don't think it includes humans. I don't think we could go extinct. I do think we could suffer quite a lot. My biggest fear is that the human capacity for violence is significant. It seems that wealth and stable occupations keep it under control, but the moment people start to go down in wealth or loose their occupations, violence breaks out. The problem with our current economic systems is they are prone to fluctuations and this leads to violence.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Where I live, and no doubt throughout munch of the UK, rivers are at their cleanest since the industrial revolution. Dolphin, porpoises, salmon and Atlantic Grey seals and otters have returned to the River Mersey for instance after being absent for decades.

ditto for the Thames

Originally posted by galveston75

Anyway this thread is not on this subject it is on the planet itsself and the life, all life that is in danger of become instict within a few decades...

Don't stray off topic then with unsubstantiated claims!

So your premise is we will ruin the planet in 30 years.
Quite possibly.
But I doubt it.
I believe Global Warming is real and dangerous but we will adapt.

I guess you will be quite upset unless everyone dies?

Of course after everyone is dead we get zero suffering so the Earth will be a better place!!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Don't stray off topic then with unsubstantiated claims!

So your premise is we will ruin the planet in 30 years.
Quite possibly.
But I doubt it.
I believe Global Warming is real and dangerous but we will adapt.

I guess you will be quite upset unless everyone dies?

Of course after everyone is dead we get zero suffering so the Earth will be a better place!!

"I guess you will be quite upset unless everyone dies?"

What a foolish statement to make.

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you claiming that our overall environmental health is better now than it was during the industrial revolution? Or just that of the River Mersey?

I would say all rivers in England are in their rudest health since the Industrial Revolution.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I would say all rivers in England are in their rudest health since the Industrial Revolution.

Still, that's a rather selective vision in a world that is otherwise filled with worsening environmental indicators. For every environmental disaster we manage to clean up, several more are made significantly worse. It's a race, I'm afraid, that we are not winning. But the technological positivists bask in the glow of Fukushima and tell us in Panglossian fashion that it is the best of all possible worlds.