Can we Really destroy the earth?

[Gunmonk]

I've been doing somethinking, Can we really destroy our planet? I mean, its really big and yeah our emissions that we are putting out are big but no where close to the size of our planet. Is there really any unrefuteable evidence that actually points towards the fact that we are trying to kill ourselves with global warming? Anyways just a few thoughts

[Protogod]

Global warming is generally debatable, and although I personally believe that there is evidence pointing towards us, the anonymity of your topic reassures my "yes" answer.

The argument that "its so big we cant possibly destroy it" reminds me of the american frontier (United States' West) where we slaughtered buffalo under the assumption that there were too many for us to wipe out an entire species.

With an exponentially increasing population, and nations industrializing every day, we can expect emissions to continue to increase, even as previously industrialized nations cut back. We just don't have the resources to last forever, and there is clear evidence that emissions do have some kind of negative effect (regardless of whether or not that effect is global warming)

Long story short; uncontrolled emissions -can- destroy life as we know it. The better question is "how likely is it?" or "what specifically is the greatest problem?"

[Kawagata]

Bad wording..
Destroy is to general.
We cannot "destroy" the Earth but we can change its ecosystem.

You cannot destroy anything really according to the law of conservation of matter.

[uberfoop]

In answer, to question 1, yes we certainly can destroy our planet. Between the USA's 10,000 nuclear warheads and Russia's 16,000 (including 1 or 2 100 megaton Tsar bombs), it really wouldn't be too difficult to kill all life and earth and turn the planet into a glassy wreck.

In answer to the actual question, that's debatable. On the one hand, global warming seems quite brutal. On the other, recent dubunking shows that global warming is less than half as bad as we have said it is.

Meh.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Destroying the earth? No.
Changing the climate through the unrestricted use of pollutants? More likely a determining factor.

While some people maintain that tree huggers are going too far and Al Gore is a lying sack of potatoes, the fact remains that in the past century+ since the inception of the industrial revolution, the environment has changed. How much? I don't know, but it's obvious that it is not for the better.

After watching "Who Killed The Electric Car" (a must watch, by the way) I'd say it is important that we begin to lean more on renewable electricity sources and at least begin to supplement our usage with solar, wind and hydroelectric (if possible) - The easiest to manufacture is solar and anyone can pop a few solar panels on their roof and reap the cost benefits of only having to buy energy at night or when weather conditions don't allow for much sunlight to be collected

Even just this bit of effort by everyone could drastically reduce the amount of energy manufactured through industrial efforts (often coal plants)

Although some people slam it, nuclear energy might even be of some help if harnessed properly and disposed of properly as well

[Toucan]

We do not have the the ability to destroy the earth, we could wipe out all life on it, but it would be back, it may take millions of years but it would be back.

[AzVortez]

not if you destroyed all bio-organisms, then nothing would be alive unless soemthing entered earth that didnt originate from earth.

[singo]

Not really, give it another 5 billion years and life could arise once more. It started up pretty much spontaneously first time around and it could do so again. Although since in 5 billion years the sun will be a red giant there probably wouldnt be much point.

But we can certainly wipe ourselves out and, given that earlier this year the UN got a few thousand scientists together and the consensus was pretty much, "yeah, its bad and its our fault" I am inclined to go with the something does need to be done about it. Especially given how rare it is for the UN to actually make its sodding mind up about anything.

And yeah, the main obstacle to doing something is the enviromentalists, who really do give nature a bad name.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

I think people just pick bad words when talking about environmental issues.

Let's start fresh, I say, and stop talking about Global Warming and instead refer to it as selective temperature patches. It just has less of an impact.

I'm a bit on the fence whether or not making a bigger deal out of these environmental issues is good or not, because on one hand it makes people want to do something but at the same time it's falsifying information - it's the classic situation of Catch 22. If we don't exaggerate it it a bit then no one will care, and maybe in retrospect it will be good that we brought these concerns to public light even though it's under slightly false pretenses...

But that's the moral problem I have. I'm against lying for gain and would only serve to further my agenda as a quasi-environmentalist, but it would also inform people of the dangers that, given enough time if not begun to be treated now, could pose serious harm to Earth.

I just don't know.

[Nostradamus]

Can we destroy the planet? Well yes and no, we can destroy what we perceive to be the planet but we cannot destroy what makes the planet i.e. the atoms and electrons and molecules etc.

Can we alter the planets climate through carbon emissions and excessive consumption of natural resources? Well that is the question. I can certainly be seen that carbon emissions are causing the polar ice caps to melt therefore raising sea levels, and without these polar ice caps to reflects the suns heat the earth will warm up. But whether this change can actually lead to the cataclysmic end of the world that the media portrays is still very debateable.

But I still don't understand your question entirely. By we are trying to kill ourselves with climate change, do you mean deliberately or unintentionally via carbon emissions?

[Morkeliph]

I don't think that most scientists argue that we are destroying the planet or even threatening to wipe out humanity in its entirety with global warming. What is predicted is global climate change that will cause the permanent loss of some biosystems upon which we depend, drastically changing our way of life. It is very likely that Earth will not be able to maintain as high of a human population as it currently does, and that such things as malaria and other tropical diseases will become more widespread. Global warming makes our planet a much more hostile environment than it currently is. Now, on a very, very grand scale, carbon emissions could make Earth uninhabitable, but that possibility is much further down the road. What we are more likely to see in the next 50 years or so is drastic climate change, and the beginnings of mass extinction of species due to habitat loss. I would be willing to bet that humans wont be one of those species we lose because were are incredibly adaptable.

What will likely be the most devastating consequences of global warming will arise from the detriments to global agriculture. It is predicted that current agricultural "hot-spots" will be lost, and maybe new ones will arise. However, this will have a heavy blow to the global economy and food supplies, which will be even more devastating for places where hunger is already a widespread problem, like Africa.

Global warming will also change ocean currents, in unpredictable ways. As such, such places like Norway and Sweden, than have been historically hospitable partly because of the warm ocean currents than reach their shores, may not be as hospitable in the future. Really, I think no scientist worth his salt disbelieves that likelihood of global climate change, but I really believe that none of them can accurately predict what exactly the effects/changes will be for particular areas. General trends, definitely, but specifics, I doubt it. Will Nordic regions become more or less favorable for agriculture? Who the hell knows. But for certain, drastic changes will occur that will be difficult to adjust to and will severely damage the global economy and way of life.

[Thedutchjelle]

I still don't know if the topic started meant destroying as in 'rip the earth apart' or 'make it not habitable for humans'

The first is probably not really doable. The last one, as many people have explained so far, is. But i thought everyone knew that by now.

Between the USA's 10,000 nuclear warheads and Russia's 16,000 (including 1 or 2 100 megaton Tsar bombs)

Although i'm not sure if those massive numbers are correct, i DO know that Russia never made more than one 50 Megaton Tsar Bomb.

[smasher25]

I don't know about destroying the entire planet but destroying all life forms on the planet is possible.

[3dshocker]

let's not get philosophical here people,

Yes we can change the environment quite easily. Blasting the earth into space debris is not quite so easy....

[AzVortez]

not easy, but possible.

as for the topic of each countries amount of bombs..
do you HONESTLY think that each country advertises the amount of bombs they hold? duh, no. these number amounts are just figures which we estimate, but we're not sure exactly how many there r. for all we know, there could be 3x more hiding somewhere in a desert.

[SilverCrusader]

Very possible to erase life from Earth and then totally demolish the Earth as well. It would turn into lots of asteroids, given enough nuclear weapons.

[ecyor0]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html

Take your pick :D

My favourite is number 3

[AzVortez]

3 & 6
3's funny

Pulverized by impact with blunt instrument
You will need: a big heavy rock, something with a bit of a swing to it... perhaps Mars

lol

6 is just crazy

not possible to destroy earth with a light bulb

[SilverCrusader]

It is according to them, but I <3 them.

[Ktan]

Guys, this is the IR, it's not a playground. It requires a much higher standard of posting past one liners and links to things joking about blowing up the planet.

Please, let's have a bit more quality on the posts please.

[ecyor0]

Guys, this is the IR, it's not a playground. It requires a much higher standard of posting past one liners and links to things joking about blowing up the planet.

Please, let's have a bit more quality on the posts please.

Joking? That link was perfectly relevant - it was presented in a humorous format, but the methods themselves are all serious possibilities (well, except for the stranglets and the total existence failure)

[GenocideAlive]

OK, and that will end the spamfest.