Have humans lost their desire for self-preservation?

[SteveS]

Short answer: no, I don't think human beings are intentionally damaging the environment because at some subconscious evolutionary level we are trying to reduce our population.  I think it would take some serious evidence to convince me of this concept.  I'm a skeptic at heart.

Which brings me to my next point:

It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable.

Yikes, this one is really rubbing me wrong.  Since I'm a skeptic at heart, I find it very very hard to believe that "most forms of life" on planet earth will be gone in 100 years.  Do you know who predicted that, and what the basis of their argument was?

I also think it's really weird to blame SUVs in particular for environmental damage.  Actually, I think that borders on ridiculous.  For instance, swap every SUV with what?  Simply an average vehicle?  What happens to the environment then?  Bah.  I view the enviromentalist culture's hatred of SUVs as moral superiority propaganda.  Some of the people pushing it are flaming hypocrites (Babs).

Not trying to be a jerk, just my 2 cents.  The whole environmental debate is fascinating to me --- the science is really interesting, and the policy decisions are hard.  It's a topic I'd like to know more about - there's a lot of stuff available over at the National Academy of the Sciences website that I've been sort of picking through. (shrugs).

[donkeyhoty]

I don't think its the SUVs themselves that are the problem, but the idea that they sort of represent.  That idea is twofold: 1) There is no problem(global warming). 2) And by the odd chance there is a problem, someone else'll fix it.

So, yes replacing all SUVs with an average vehicle would lessen environmental damage, but it wouldn't help that much. - All the oil is going to be used up anyway, better gas mileage will just make it last longer.

A more important shift in policy and attitude is needed in the areas of sustainable development and population control.  
I don't know how many people the earth can hold - sustainably with an acceptable quality of life, whatever that may mean  - but it certainly isn't much higher than 7 billion, and in my, eminently worthwhile, opinion it's less than that.

[SteveS]

I don't think its the SUVs themselves that are the problem, but the idea that they sort of represent. That idea is twofold: 1) There is no problem(global warming). 2) And by the odd chance there is a problem, someone else'll fix it.

It's not that I don't hear this argument, it's that I don't understand how SUVs in particular came to represent this idea.  It just seems silly to me.  What about people with very long commutes?  Nobody decries them as being particular ravishers of the environment.  Or heated swimming pools?  Or large families?  We all tread with due respect to people's liberties --- but when it comes to SUVs we feel they are making a choice of "convenience".  Why judge the SUV owners so harshly?  What about panel trucks, or cargo vans, or 18-wheelers?  How about all the ones transporting entertainment electronics or designer clothes?  Does anyone really need these things - aren't these choices of "convenience"?  The Chicago winters can get nasty, and my trusty Jeep has gotten me through a lot of snow storms.  I have a practical desire for a functional, utilitarian vehicle - specifically a 4x4.  I hardly feel my choice is mere "convenience".  It's not like I watched a rap video and then bought an Escalade 'cause I thought it was cool.

So, yes replacing all SUVs with an average vehicle would lessen environmental damage, but it wouldn't help that much. - All the oil is going to be used up anyway, better gas mileage will just make it last longer.

Agreed - I'm all for better gas mileage.  It hurts le$$ at the pump.  Honestly, moving away from fossil fuels seems to make sense on a number of levels, and I think we'll probably see things go that way, hopefully before the oil runs out  :wink:  

A more important shift in policy and attitude is needed in the areas of sustainable development and population control.
I don't know how many people the earth can hold - sustainably with an acceptable quality of life, whatever that may mean - but it certainly isn't much higher than 7 billion, and in my, eminently worthwhile, opinion it's less than that.

Ah!  Indeed - population is probably my chief gripe.  We wanted two children so that they could grow up with a sibling.  I think it helps you socially (personal pet theory).  I enjoyed growing up with brothers, and my daughters play together all the time (learn to share, have a friend who's always there, etc.).  But, we stopped at two.  While my wife and I had different reasons, I liked the thought of not growing the population in my own small way.  Two parents leave behind two children - break even.  The last thing the world seems to need is more people living in it.  But, I stop short of shaking a righteous fist at people with 3 (or more) kids.

I guess I'm just somewhat defensive about personal liberties.  Seems to me people are more than happy to require others to limit their liberties if it aligns with a cause with which they agree.  I don't want to trade priests, pastors, ministers and popes telling me how to live for politicians telling me how to live.  What's the difference?  It's getting even harder to tell what with the number of politicians openly embracing religion lately (in the US anyhow)....

[Tom62]

Ah, population stop.... Now that is real big horror scenario for the good old european welfare and healthcare systems. In Germany the population is actually shrinking (1.3 babies per woman of childbearing age). The average population get older, which means that more and more people need to be supported in the near future by less and less people.

Basically what I see is a big conflict between the economical and environmental needs of a country.  Some of the things we do makes me really wonder, whether it makes sense. Many articles are shipped from one place to another, based on the location of cheapest productioncycle.
Fo example: shrimps are caught the Netherlands, shipped to Marokko for pealing and then shipped back to the Netherlands were it is partially sold and exported elsewhere. Billions of dollars are pumped into agricultural subsidies, sothat famers in the western-world keep overproducing.

[Kona]

Actually, what all this really comes down to is a faulty feedback mechanism that has been over-ridden by the instant-gratification society in which we live. Think about it....we want what we want and we want it right now.  Usually, we get this want satisfied.  That is to say that in the absence of a clear and immediate sanction of behavior (over-consumption of long-term resources or latent environmental damage), we will continue to behave in the same way.  A body in motion tends to stay in motion......and haven't we taught the rest of the world how great it is to be consumers?  Thus they consume. Thus our environment will continue to degrade until such time as we no longer have trash pickup twice a week.  Such is the fate of a parasite that unwantingly kills its host.

[pwnagepanda]

i dont really think so. even if people hear about the large scale repercussions of their actions, it doesnt affect them at present. it is a lot easier for most people to jsut ignore it, because the effects can be so abstract. the only solution is to just try to educate people.

[SteveS]

Forgive me, mrwynd, but this is exactly the weird sort of prejudice I see surrounding this "SUV" argument:

The purchase of an SUV can give the feeling of security to the owner and the thought of perpetuating the destruction of the planet is not taken into account.

Remarkable that one could gain such insight from a person just because they bought an SUV.  I'm sure cargo capacity and inclement weather have nothing to do with people buying SUVs, right?

Look - just flip this around.  Suppose we see somebody driving a small hybrid car with their whole family packed in there.  Do we say, "What a terrible parent!  They're totally preoccupied with climate change, and the safety of transporting their children wasn't even taken into account!".  Of course not, but by this SUV reasoning, why on earth shouldn't we?

[mrwynd]

Remarkable that one could gain such insight from a person just because they bought an SUV. I'm sure cargo capacity and inclement weather have nothing to do with people buying SUVs, right?

Look - just flip this around. Suppose we see somebody driving a small hybrid car with their whole family packed in there. Do we say, "What a terrible parent! They're totally preoccupied with climate change, and the safety of transporting their children wasn't even taken into account!". Of course not, but by this SUV reasoning, why on earth shouldn't we?

I'm not saying their decision is necessarily the best one or the correct one. I am simply saying people can rationalize it and in their perception it's a good thing to them.