Fish vs Plastic

[LONDONER]

Will there be more fish or plastic in the sea in 2050?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-3556225...ine_150216

[Insertnamehere]

Meh, I vote for fish.

Reproduction in large amounts still trumps a products that id made from a limnited primary source.

Has anyone monitored the entirety of all the oceans to tell whihc one, anyway? Is it even possible?

[LJay]

Whether the problem can be quantified precisely or not is probably sidestepping what we know to be a crisis. We must stop raping the earth.

We must also work toward developing edible plastic.

[Insertnamehere]

OMG so many typos in that post...dafuq was I smoking.

Ah, yes, evironmentalism. An irrelevant notion.

Irrelevant when it comes to the planet and the majority of species. It and they will survive alright in spite of us. Unless we dish out the nukes generously.

They only real victims of environment depredation are ourselves, in a short term context. In the long run eveyrone and everything is doomed anyway.

Maybe a few species can suffer, although no human intervention can top what mass extinction processes do every now and then.

I don't know. I find it hard to care about the next generations if the end result of human kind will be the same anyway. The planet will fucking be consumed in a fiery hell at some point when that sun of ours reaches the end of its life and gets all red giant on us.

Assuming there is a humanity by then and no comet, gamma ray burst, or any other naturally ocurring phenomenon has wiped us out, that no virus, bacteria or fungal infection has wiped us out, that we ourselves have not wiped each other out.

Assuming that not one thing of the many many many things that can eliminate us does it, still, the planet has an expiration date, that coincides more or less with that of our own star.

Caring is so pointless, cause everything, ultimately, is irrelevant.

Well, ok, I've gotten nihilistic enough....

Yes, plastic bad, humans bad, go environment.
[MENTION=20933]LJay[/MENTION] sidestepping, maybe. It's still a logical response to the question asked, no? Pragsmatism, people1!

[MickTheMousie]

You're right the sun is gonna kill the planet, but nobody says it has to kill us or the plants and animals, we can simply just go to another planet, in the future when we have space ships that can fly on solar energy (nasa is working on that) then it will also be a LOT more cheap to travel to other planets and we wont have to worry about not having enough for the many billions of people we'll be at that time.
And the animals and plants dont have to die, we can just take them along with us, ofc some of the species will go exstinkt, but we can save the animals that we want, then we'll also get rid of the animals that we dont want so in the end, earths dome, may be in our favor

[Insertnamehere]

You're right the sun is gonna kill the planet, but nobody says it has to kill us or the plants and animals, we can simply just go to another planet, in the future when we have space ships that can fly on solar energy (nasa is working on that) then it will also be a LOT more cheap to travel to other planets and we wont have to worry about not having enough for the many billions of people we'll be at that time.
And the animals and plants dont have to die, we can just take them along with us, ofc some of the species will go exstinkt, but we can save the animals that we want, then we'll also get rid of the animals that we dont want so in the end, earths dome, may be in our favor

Hmm, if NASA does pull off Solar-Powered trnasportation, I would deem it nice to first spread it around here and end this polluting fossil fuel consumption, no?

First, there needs to be an inhabitable planet within reasonable distance for the lot of us to go there and colonize. Not so much luck in that department yet.