Debate Forum - Week 3 - Sponsored in part by @FullTimeGeek
Week 2 closed last night and our debate winner is @cheneats who got 8 votes for his post. Congratulations! The participants did great on this debate and so too did the curators. I estimate that there was approximately $34 distributed between all the participants including @cheneats taking home a prize worth about $13. Well done everyone. Let's see if we can beat those numbers for this debate! I have to wait for the system to pay out the post this afternoon and I'll then forward the SBD to @cheneats. If he converts it to seem right away it could be worth 85 steem. Nice haul! Hopefully the debate was a great boost for those who participated.
Here in Alberta, the sky has been sprayed since the 70's to 'seed' the clouds in an attempt to reduce the risk of hail which can cause considerable damage to property and crops. Despite this, people still have a difficult time to accept the idea that a global geoengineering effort is taking place under the guise to cool the planet to reverse the effects of global warming.
This weeks Debate Forum question: Does our government have the authority to engage in a program to engineer the weather on this planet despite the risks associated with such a program?
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST December 16, 2017. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final and I will keep any steem this post generates. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
The goal of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence.
I say No!
Our Mother Earth knows what she is doing because she is wonderfully and perfectly created by our all-knowing Almighty God. When the fallen human beings mess up something either out of greed or stupidity then try to fix it with even more stupidity or very limited knowledge without seeing potential side effects, our earth suffers even more and causes more disasters. Furthermore, it gives an illusion that we can fix whatever we mess up so it's no big deal to continue to do worse.
There are many examples in history that we could have learned from but we don't. Most of the time it was when governments got involved. Ancient Chinese governments tried to change how rivers flow, but they caused more flooding. (I still don't understand why governments would even try to fight gravity in large scales - most likely to benefit themselves at the cost of others.) A recent example is that governments are researching ways to fight global warming, including injecting sulfur dioxide high into the atmosphere. Even though it may help with global warming, it may break the balance of the natural order.
In conclusion, it's better if we stop damaging our environment and let the earth slowly heal itself. She knows what to do if we simply give her a chance.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - Albert Einstein.
The interactions on this planet are so complex and diverse, how could anybody know how a small change will impact the planet and all life here. Control is an illusion and the implications can be catastrophic as you suggested. People are getting sick with the spraying that is taking place.
I agree with you my friend. Mother Earth will heal, we just have to stop with our insanity and take a different approach. The current approach is to engineer our environment. I disagree with this approach. I believe we are here to learn how to have healthy relationships. So that means we are to learn how to live in harmony with what is here, not use force to make it live to our standards. The plants and animals are responding to that protocol. They are dying as a result. How arrogant are we to think that the life forms on this planet are going to bow to us?
Absolutely! I agree. Even though our Creator created us in his own image and made us the stewards of the other animals in Genesis 1:27-28:
He didn't give us the authority to exploit or even destroy them. Instead, man should take care of animals just like the way he was supposed to take care of plants in the garden in Genesis 2:15:
Therefore, we are by no means the arrogant masters, but only the stewards of the other creatures of our Creator until the day in Revelation 5:13:
But all of that was usurped by people swearing fealty to their earthly masters. As a result we rejected the Creator in exchange for the state. So unless an individual has fixed that, then how does what you quoted apply? You cannot have two masters? As such, this authority that you are quoting was turned over the the new master and we washed our hands of the responsibility or accountability for what happens.
Very true! Our Creator didn't set up a state over man. It was the fallen man, even God's chosen people who asked for it in 1 Samuel 8. Now the state has become the new god, the source of many problems we see.
Even though we are commanded to be subject unto the higher powers in Romans 13:1, it has to be under the condition that the higher power is the minister of God (Romans 13:4) to do His good will.
Looking at what has happened today - I don't think it's God's good will for the state to work with greedy corporations to destroy His creation.
You are absolutely right! As individuals, we need to take the responsibility back and be accountable for our own actions as individuals and stewards of His creation.
Technically the people of most countries in fact DO GRANT their governments the authority to make such decisions on their behalf, or in the case of dictatorial governments they usurp the authority. Therefore most governments DO HAVE the authority. We could certainly debate the wisdom of the populous granting such expansive power to their governments. I believe the spirit of the question is SHOULD governments be granted such authority. For many of us the first reaction is a resounding “HELL NO!” But, let’s look a bit deeper at the actual problem.
A superficial glance at our planet’s problems will reveal that ALL problems are caused by humans. Whales aren’t polluting our oceans with plastic. Bison aren’t causing our top soil to be lost at a rate of 30 soccer fields A MINUTE. (Natural disasters are only disastrous to humans.) It’s humans who are causing the above mentioned problems. Since man has been destroying the planet for as long as we have history it’s probably overly optimistic to expect a change any time soon. The specific issue embedded in the debate question is yet another example of man’s destruction of our planet.
We all probably agree that governments should NOT have authority to destroy our planet. But should they have the authority to PREVENT or REDUCE destruction? Should a government have authority to stop a multinational corporation from mining oil in pristine habitats or the deforestation of a rain forest? If not governments then who/what should have that authority since there is no evidence that man as a species will ever contain his destructive behavior himself? If the government PREVENTED the seeding of rain clouds would that be OK?
Sadly, governments are not the problem but rather the fact that man requires governing.
Because man requires governing there will always be governments. Will they be wise and selfless? Probably not. Will they solve more problems than they cause? Probably not. Do we have any alternative means to prevent 7 billion humans from destroying our planet? Probably not.
So I say, Let the governments govern the masses. It keeps them both occupied and frees some of us to pursue alternatives than can be implemented on a local scale. Will these local alternatives scale to a global solution before the masses self-destruct? Probably not, and I’m an optimist!
I do take some solace in Revelation 11:18. There it states that the Creator will “… destroy those that destroy the earth.”
Ironically, those very corporations that are being blamed for the damage that was actually caused by the people who hide behind those masks, are incorporated by the government. The corporations are the creations of the state and years back they got their existence and charter from the King. The state then passes legislation to give these people immunity or limit their liability considerably. Those that govern are children themselves and as such govern very poorly. Corruption, greed and other psychopathic behaviours exist there as well. Those that know how to govern themselves then have a duty to confront and rebuke the state.
I would also suggest that man did live in harmony with nature for a long time. It was not until the industrial revolution that our impact on the environment really took a leap for the worse. It is possible to protect the land IF we recognize our relationship with the land and return to the land. We can still use our technology, but it does require conscious thought and reflection on what our impact is going to be on all the other life forms we share this planet with.
But that does require a change in behaviour. Say good bye to greed, rape, pillage, consumerism and other behaviours that has negative impacts on our environment.
However, pollution is a much different topic than carbon emissions or the planet heating up, both being the justification for the pollution being sprayed in the air. I would suggest that the solution to spay the atmosphere is pollution to resolve a problem that Mother Earth can easily fix herself ... if we would stop killing the lungs of this planet.
I would also suggest that the state has encouraged dependency and consumerism. A conscious government would encourage independence, peace and balance instead. But in the end, I must agree. The problem is that man refuses to self-govern.
In my view, the spraying is a knee jerk reaction to a symptom and not even close to addressing the root causes. There is still a great debate as to what the root cause is! Some would suggest that the issue is changes within the solar system itself, the sun going through its ebbs and flows and it being up to us to go with that flow and adapt to the changes. While others are suggesting that it is man's activities that are causing the problems. Until we have an unbiased examination of the root causes, solutions are premature and could make matters worse rather than better.
Sorry for the pause. I was traveling.
What our corporations are doing, with the support and blessings of our governments, is reprehensible. The list of offenses is too long to even consider.
It is true that the destruction started increasing at exponential rates with the advent of the industrial revolution but prior destruction is evident, mostly in Europe and Asia. The Americas were a bit better. However man has always taken more from nature than he has returned. The only time it might appear different is when he is so small in number that nature can repair faster than it's destroyed.
But to me the important question is whether or not there is any hope for Earth, and humanity by extension? Certainly a few of us can escape to the woods and live in relative harmony but I don't see how that can scale to 7+ billion people. As individuals, and to some extent families, there are things we can do and SHOULD do if we are true to ourselves. But we are a minuscule minority. If one thinks being a minnow on Steemit is small consider those willing to say no to the fictional realm and expose The LIE. And exposing it is the easy part. What do we put forth as a viable alternative for 7 billion people?
I share the feelings but feel @cheneats is probably accomplishing more by pissing on the ground than many who are pissing into the wind!
;-)
I think that is an astute observation. While it may seem hopeless, I do feel that those people in the bush are making a lot of noise and confronting the 7 billion on their actions and life styles. While we cannot 'change' anybody but ourselves, we can influence people along the way. I do believe the momentum is picking up and things are shifting, but sadly I don't think that will happen before we lose billions of people in the process. I still think this is going to get ugly before we turn this train wreck around or stop it in its tracks.
I think that we should not allow anyone to pollute our skies and the air we breathe. I do not have much of an arguement on this one. However I do have a couple of topics I think would be interesting to discuss. Those are net neutrality and the idea of a basic income. Id like to see what others think about these issues.
Fantastic suggestions. Thank you. I used the net neutrality idea for this weeks debate.
awesome, I am excited to see what Steemit thinks of the issue. Facebook is entirely biased and chock full of misinformation.
Like any complicated topic, it depends. For example if the government of the US decides to do it (may already be, HAARP) and the people who the government is supposed to be representing are cool with it then they have the authority of the people they govern.
But since they are messing with the weather of the world they should in theory need the approval of the whole world, i.e. be given the authority by the people of the world.
The key word here is "authority" which is either given or taken. In the US the people give the government authority. In a dictatorship it is taken, usually by force, from the people. So who has authority over the earth? Do people have authority over the earth? If people do have authority over the earth, then in theory they could give it to some government and then said government would have the authority to do it.
With that said even if a government had or could get the authority I don't think they should mess with the weather and I think @cheneats has given some good examples of why they shouldn't.
The last I checked, the UN would be that global authority and some people would suggest that UN Agenda 21 is part of that program. Others would also suggest that Agenda 21 is also designed to get the people off the land and into super cities so that it is easier to farm/control them. When people vote, they grant that authority to their representative who then votes on their behalf. Those representatives have joined the world government granting them authority over the countries of the world. Some would argue that those that are doing the spraying do in fact have that authority while others suggest it is more of a military campaign. Do you have thoughts on this?
First and foremost I think the spirit of the question was more in line with "Should" and not "Does" the government have the authority. Should the government mess with things it doesn't understand? I agree with everyone else No Way! However like you pointed out technically I think that the people have given it to them (local governments and then the local governments giving it to the UN). Now I don't think the government has been honest with people and most people don't have a clue what it "the government" is really up to. Which as you point out with agenda 21 is basically evil. Though I'm not surprised.
1 John 5:19b ... the whole world is lying in the wicked one.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..." - John Dalberg-Acton
So in my opinion God the Creator and His only begotten Son have the authority over the earth! Now they have given us stewardship over it, however with that responsibility will come an accounting to our heavenly father (The only perfect parent). It is a said fact that we have given "authority" to such evil governments that are killing the planet with greed, lust, etc.
So technically I think the evil governments have done a good job of making sure they can blame the people by saying that we've given them authority to do all the evil things they are doing. Which is the issue, us giving them authority!
Yes, definitely. Bad weather kills people every day.
In 2015, 800 people in the US died from hypothermia. If the government could control the weather, those people would not have died. 800 not enough for you?
Worldwide, 144,000 people die from the cold each year.
Let's keep going.
More than 42 people have died in the CA wildfires. If the government could have made it rain in California, the drought wouldn't have been so bad, and people would not have died. 8,400 structures have burned, and there has been more than $1 Billion in damage -- all of this could have been spared. The total damage from this drought so far has been $20Billion. Droughts worldwide have affected more than 1 billion people between 1994 and 2013, or 25% of the globe. If the world's governments could magically make it sprinkle, all of this death, hardship, and damage could be avoided.
On top of all of this, weather-induced crop failures are a huge disaster, costing a lot of money and many lives. Some analysts predict that with less variable weather alone, the problem of world hunger could be solved.
In conclusion, let's look at the two worlds side by side. One has hunger, death from cold and drought. The other doesn't. Which would you prefer to live in?
Thank you for having the courage to speak up for the other side! Bravo. You provided a lot of statistics. Could you explain to the forum how hypothermia and cold related deaths can be addressed with geo-engineering efforts? If you want a warmer planet to prevent cold related deaths, then the strategy would be to let the planet warm up, not cooling it off further by trying to reflect more sunlight into space.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the work of Dr. Wilhelm Riech, but he created an orgone accumulator that made it rain in areas suffering from drought. The FDA shut him down, forced him to destroy all his work and threw him in jail. It may have helped the drought issue. Can you explain how geo-engineering can help deal with drought by making it rain? The cloud seeding program in Alberta is done during storms to prevent hail, but it may be possible to force the water out of the clouds at the same time. But if there is no moisture in the air, how can seeding make it rain?
As for world hunger, do you think it is a matter of being able to grow more food or is the issue that food is a commodity, requiring people to have money to purchase it, rather than having access to grow their own food? Perhaps the issue is associated with land being turned into a commodity and that the poor don't have access to land to provide for their own basic needs. They are then slaves to the land lords. Is it possible that we could solve world poverty and hunger by getting people back onto the land, providing them with the tools, knowledge and experience to provide for their own basic needs instead?
oh wow I missed this comment! I'm sorry I didn't reply in time. I look forward to next week's contest :)
Congrats to @cheneats for winning last week!
As to the question this week about whether or not our government has the authority to engage in programs to engineer the weather despite the risks, I would say.... hmm... I don't know. I'll explore my thoughts here. This may not make for a good debate speech, but oh well.
Do they have the authority... I don't know. Any action to influence the weather potentially affects everyone on the planet, so any authority to do such should come from a body that governs all the governments. I guess the UN is as close as we have to that. So by that logic, our government does not have that authority but needs to seek it from the UN.
But beyond that, I think question shouldn't be do they have the authority, rather is it a good thing to mess with nature? To that I'd say no.
Nature is extortionately complex. As the old idea goes, a butterfly flaps his winds and causes a typhoon on the other side of the world. If we seed a cloud to reduce hail, what unforeseen effects might this cause?
It's like the GMO thing. Forgetting for a moment that there is some evidence that GMOS are more about big companies patenting our food supply and increasing profits for their shareholders, just the idea of messing with nature when we have no real idea of what effects this may have seems like a very bad idea.
Science seems to have a way of making bold claims about solutions, but then having to later retract those claims when further research shows that they caused more problems than they solved. We can see many examples of this in health. How many things have we been told to stop eating due to them being bad for us only to be told years later that what we replaced those bad things with was even worse and that the bad things really weren't as bad as we thought.
I worry the same would happen here. Today's science may say doing such and such to influence the weather is good, but tomorrow's research may tell us that that original solution actually made everything worse.
Ok, I shall end there. My apologize for the ramble. I am trying to type this as my youngest runs around and jumps on me, so my mind is not as focused as I'd like. I hope you can understand me :)
The justification for such actions is to protect the crops and ecosystem from over heating. The governments of the world are signing treaties to curb these impacts as the results could cause the deaths of millions of people, cause billions of dollars in damage and untold other negative impacts. So is this the right approach or could we look at actually changing our behaviours, the way we live and how we interact with Mother Earth instead? Yes, that is an option. However, people don't want to change. Consumption continues unabated. So now the governments have the justification to do these programs. Would you say that due to the immense complexity of this natural world and even it's interaction with the sun and the other planets, that the root causes may be misinterpreted and that the actions they are taking could make matters worse?
Oh my goodness! I didn't even know this was a 'thing'! How naive of me I guess! My initial reaction is hell no! What on earth (pun intended) do we think we are doing altering the eco system with our human hands! but then I remember we have been doing this for many many years so far by polluting the planet etc, so i guess this is just another step in that direction. The main issue I see is the butterfly effect. What else have we changed by altering the weather in one area? Have we essentially caused all of the freak weather systems that have destroyed millions of lives and species' across the Earth? The planet alters itself accordingly to keep a healthy eco system and tweaks the climate to protect itself, it does so in perfect harmony across the whole planet, not just in one country. This is awful for us as a species at times, but ultimately it is how the earth has become so self sustainable and survived billions of species...until we came along. So I guess it comes down to do we want to control a particular area on the planet, sod the rest of the world? Or will we let mother nature decide what is best for her planet?
Do you think that perhaps our way of life and infrastructure is so rigid and inflexible, that we can no longer deal with change? Is it possible that we are attempting to control something that is not controllable so that we can try to protect all that we have built?
The insurance companies here in Alberta seed the clouds during storms to prevent hail damage so that they can reduce their risk in payments to insured farmers. I've also met with a scientist when he was at the University of Calgary to discuss geoengineering. His claim is that the harm people are speaking about is not proven or justified. What are your thoughts about these points?
I don't think we are inflexable, in fact quite the opposite. Technology changes so fast these days that we have to be flexible to keep up with it. I think it is more an issue of self entitlement and a 'how does this impact on me' mentality that we now seem to have. Decisions seem to based on selfish reasons, without thinking holistically.
Insurance companies making decisions about weather systems? That is all kinds of wrong imo. It doesn't sit right with me. Their main focus is financial damage limitation to their company, not the farmers or the crops or damage to the eco system. The focus is too narrow
I agree with you. However, farmers were looking for risk mitigation and went to the insurance companies to insure their crops. Now spraying and other geo-engineering activities end up being business decisions rather than ethical or moral decisions. Business makes decisions based on financial matters, not health, vitality, rights, duties, prosperity, etc. So now you are exploring the outcomes of farmer decisions. But that also extends to the choices we all make as you have hinted at. Most of our decisions are economically founded, not holistically as you suggested. So how do you propose that we make that transition so that the decision making process accounts for all the other intrinsic values of life that have yet to have a dollar value associated with it?
I think the other problem we face is that even the human body has a value now. It is not priceless or sacred as we may all believe. As such, insurance companies and even governments make decisions by calculating the dollar value of the human body. Now we are getting into the heart of the matter! What are your thoughts on this?
I think that only a massive change in the world dynamics or natural disaster would be able to change peoples perspectives on this. People are comfortable, or they think they are because they can add a specific value to their body, essentially classing themselves as a commodity rather than a spiritual being. For example, you fall over and hurt your knee? Claim $1000. You have a car accident? Claim $4000 etc etc. It is a habit that we have gotten into as a claim society, we have allowed insurance companies and the government to put these values upon us. But how valuable is a life? I am sure they have an answer in their ledgers somewhere...
No govt has been granted any authority to make the decision to geoengineer the weather that I can recall. At least not from a legal standpoint or rule of law. If i am wrong, please let me know.
Rather, it seems our right to object to what is sprayed into our skies above has been usurped.
We the people of Earth were not invited to vote or even debate what harm and potential danger spraying chemicals into the atmosphere might cause. Many dont even believe that this sort of thing is going on, and that is another subject to debate.
I say NO, govts do not have the authority to geoengineer the planet by spraying toxic chemicals into the skies above to rain down on Earths inhabitants.
Well, actually the governments have been granted that authority through people voting and participating with the state. A vote is a process to grant a power of attorney to a representative. The spirit of the debate question was more in line with the governments responsibility to protect the vulnerable. As such, a program such as this may protect the vulnerable in one regard but also impose great risks of harm in another way. As such, the state is now in a catch-22. So how do you propose that they resolve this dilemma that they find themselves in?
The govts of Earth have been using the "vulnerabilities" of the few as justification to govern the many! Do they have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable? Yes, in a perfect world , but I wont look to our current system to have my best interest in mind.
How would I propose they resolve this dilemma? They can't! Govts best hope is that they can suppress information on this subject to the point where not enough of the populace believes geoengineering is real at all.
So do the governments of the world have responsibility to protect the vulnerable or does that actually rest on our shoulders instead?
It rests on our shoulders, you and me brother. Govts have proven over and over again throughout time that they are all about control and keeping the populace subjects of the state. Now seems like a great opportunity for humankind to take control of our own path, as the house of cards begins to crumble on the so called "rich and powerful". Those that are the most vulnerable will only be exploited by government. It is up to us to spread information and show compassion to those that are vulnerable. There will be many who will not be prepared psychologically when the world around them crumbles and it will be people like us that will help them through it.
Week 2 just paid out and @cheneats just received 10.399 SBD. Congratulations. If he converts it to steem right away, he could convert it to almost 75 steem!!! Now that is a boost to help him out! Thank you curators for helping me help him!
Just awesome!
Lyndsay, he only had about 20 steem and with this contest win he converted the SBD to almost 73 steem and that gave him a huge boost! I must admit, it felt great to help him like that!
I am so grateful for loving caring people like you! Now I have a voting power of $0.01! It is an overwhelming feeling and the greatest moment of my journey in Steemit so far. :-) Thank you!
Nope.