We need to treat the environment with respect, if for no other reason than to ensure our own prospects for survival.

Clearly, global warming is a real phenomenon, and human action is having an impact on that warming.

As someone has already mentioned, the greatest cause of negative impacts on the environment stems from the growth of human population on this planet.

The world’s population is thought to have reached one billion in 1804. By 2010 it will be at or near seven billion. That is a sevenfold increase in slightly more than two centuries.

Population growth is already having an impact on available resources, especially fresh water and suitable agricultural land. That impact will only be exacerbated by such phenomena as rising sea levels, the increased use of fossil fuels for energy and other factors.

Whether or not we will find ways to deal with these issues responsibly and humanely will determine what sort of future we will enjoy. I doubt humankind will destroy itself or make our planet completely uninhabitable (although there is always the chance we may), but our failure to address these issues will ensure a future that is far meaner and more desperate than it needs to be for those who come after us.

Posted: May 15th 2009

See all questions answered by George Ricker

I’m one of those people who thinks the Earth is going to be fine in the long run. It has done far worse things to itself, in the past, than we ever could today.

However, my cause for concern is the future of the human race, and I think overpopulation is at the root of most problems we face. Not only on a global scale, but also on a local scale, and I fail to understand why some of the highest population growth rates are found in countries that cannot adequately support their current populations. Children are being born only to die horribly or live in misery, and it is all avoidable. The role of religion in fostering overpopulation has already been noted e.g. Catholic opposition to contraception, the Islamic exhortations by e.g. Yasser Arafat to “demographic jihad”.

I mention this only to show how ideology is overriding realism. Anything that blinds us to our real predicament, and prevents us from acting appropriately, has to be a bad thing. I think “global warming” is less of a threat to us than other forms of environmental damage, such as pollution, but we don’t really know what will result from an ecosystem loaded with more energy. The classic example is the hurricane, which is related to sea temperatures, and mean sea temperatures are rising, so the predictions are for more and stronger hurricanes.

Posted: May 15th 2009

See all questions answered by brian thomson

My household does what it can to reduce our carbon footprint regardless of whether or not mankind is causing global warming.

Overpopulation is a huge stress on the environmental integrity of our planet. Religious beliefs (entwined with cultural/psychological influences) encourages such overpopulation.

Religious beliefs, especially via the politically oriented and centralized Catholic Church (The Vatican has a seat at the UN, though it is a non-voting one, they still have clout because their reach is a global one as their grasping fingers are everywhere, especially in developing countries), contain primitive views on family planning, sex education, and female choice in terms of their guiding/controlling their sexuality and reproduction.

Other animal species are part of the environment, therefore, we need to further improve how we interact with them.

Whether or not mankind is causing global warming is a moot issue. We know we damage the environment. We know that the environment plays an important role in our well being. Nature does not need humans at all, however, the reverse is not valid, we do need nature. However, I do not entertain an mystical sense regarding nature. I see science as the way to deepen our understanding and appreciation of nature. Of course, such appreciation and understanding can be expressed and stimulated by artistic and metaphorical means.

I also keep up with what reputable scientists are saying about the global warming issue. One ironic aspect of global warming is that some regions will benefit (at least at first) and others will not. Some small towns way up north are becoming prosperous because it is less difficult for tourists to go and see the wonderful landscape.

Posted: May 15th 2009

See all questions answered by logicel

As we only have one life and one planet to live on at the moment, it makes sense to look after it. The environment is also important because our actions could have a dramatic effect on other people and other life on Earth.

The religious people I’ve heard on this subject vary significantly. Some say that as “custodians of the Earth” we have to look after it, others say that “The damage we’re doing is nothing to what Jesus will do when he returns – any day now!”, or “God wouldn’t have put all that coal in the ground if He didn’t want me to burn it!”. This disparity is probably because most holy books were written long before environmentalism was an issue.

For atheists, if we want something fixed, we (as humans) have to fix it ourselves; there’s no one else.

Posted: May 15th 2009

See all questions answered by Eshu

I do think human industry has had and continues to have an adverse effect on the world’s climate, and that we need to be careful with the only world we currently have. Beyond thinking of our own survival, there are millions of plants and animals out there who only we can save from ourselves. Seems a good enough reason to do it.

There’s no standard atheist position or policy on global warming and the environment, so the answer may vary from atheist to atheist. What we all have in common is that we don’t think any god will come to save us if we screw up too badly.

This idea is why many in the Christian right pay no mind to environmental concerns: they utterly believe passages in the Bible which say that only God will decide when the world ends. Therefore, they reason, it’s not physically possible for humans to destroy the world by ourselves. It’s a reassuring thought, but the evidence says otherwise.

Posted: May 14th 2009

See all questions answered by SmartLX