pollution self correcting in the long run ?? 3

[2dye4]

Sorry
I know the forum title is engineering in the next 5 years but i have noticed a lot of enviromental concern posted here that definately exceeds 5 year timeline so I ask this question.

The earth has evolved from interstellar chaos and its components have settled down into their natural high entropy state. This makes life here possible. Poisons are dispersed and weak, radioactivity is spread thinly.

Now mans principle crime on the enviroment is the concentration of compounds, or the tranformation of molecules into more unstable, but usefull and dangerous forms.
This is the essence of polution. We are making dangerous things from thing that are not dangerous.
Question

In the long run do mans activities eventually revert to the simpler forms that were present on earth before industrial activity??

Do the toxic chemicals eventually break down to the simple ones we pulled from the ground in the first place??

Radio active materials eventually spread out and loose their
potency??

If so, I feel much better about the enviromental thing because if we cause our own extinction, but the life possibilities of this planet continue it not really all that important how much we polute. Lets just let the party rage on and know that one day balence will return without us.

 

[bvanhiel]

Population growth is such that at this time there are said to be more people alive than have ever lived. That is, in the history of mankind, fewer people have died than are alive today. Hence, when looked at in this light we have, statistically, turned the corner.

Every petri dish of bacteria have turned the exact same corner... usually right before consuming the remains of their resources and expiring. Our only hope for salvation is that we either find a much bigger petri dish, or that we are able to control our population to live in equilibrium with our environment. Historically we've relied on the former rather than the latter, but we seem to be running out of unoccupied planet to colonize.

I would suggest reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse", both by Jared Diamond. The first explains how primitive man continually grew to the limits of his environment, and how technology (agriculture, political/trade organizations, weapons) incremetally expanded those limits. The second gives a series of examples of past societies that exceeded the limits of their environment, leading to collape, and questions whether we can keep our own global society from collapsing.

-b

P.S. I fear the future where the rich never have to die. It sounds like the start of a bad sci-fi book.

 

[0707]

Pollution is the price to pay for development; unfortunately I don’t think pollution will self-correcting in the long run. Sustainable development, will be it really sustainable?

Luis

 

[GregLocock]

That is precisely the opposite of Lomberg's argument. As people get richer they are willing to pay for a nicer environment.

Would you rather work in a city in the 1850s or 2007? the reason we don't all have coughs all the time is because we can afford to put expensive pollution controls in place, rather than breathing smog all the time.

The Thames has salmon in it - that is only recent, after 400 years of being used as a sewer and industrial drain.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[bvanhiel]

Greg,

I agree that the wealthy don't want to breath car exhaust, but most of the world isn't rich. We in the first world have improved our environments by pushing polluting industries to third world countries. Congrats on getting the Thames to run clean. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the Ganges will be doing so any time soon.

We've raised our standard of living by standing on their backs. Whose back will they stand on when they want to raise theirs?

-b

 

[LCruiser]

No, we did not stand on their backs. The third world would be no better off without us. They are, however, beginning to stand on ours - and if we don't equalize ... Well, let me say it differently - *when* it equalizes and the global economy comes to equilibrium, they will be as good off as we will be.

How good that will be for all is the question...

 

[GregLocock]

We have the technology, when they have the money they can buy clean technology from us. They'll get the money by building dirty industries first.

I realise that sounds a bit harsh. Oh well. Their other option is not to play the game at all. Oddly enough, no one seems to take that path, with the exception of Bhutan.

The problem with the world's poor is not that they are /so/ exploited, the problem is that they are outside the economic system, thus are unable to be exploited. To paraphrase an economist.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[0707]

Last week I saw a film in TV, which I don’t know the name. The story took place in a strange flooded world, where the money was small cans of water…

luis

 

[GregLocock]

Last week I saw a film in which Tokyo was destroyed by a giant radioactive dinosaur. I'm not basing my future life decisions on that film.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[0707]

GregLocock

Nippon was already strongly hit by really giant radioactive "dinosaurs". Even nowadays, they are suffering the effects of those hits. I also don’t base my future decisions on films viewing. The film I saw just makes me think that maybe we are not far from a world where the money would be small cans of water. Actually in some points of the world you can feed your car oil tank for the price of a bottle of water.

Cheers

Luis

 

[Grubbyky]

If pollution will self correct its self, then I've been wasting my time studying environmental engineering and working on environmental projects. We can kind of correct pollution with remediation and reclamation. (In other words, sweep this stuff under the carpet and hope no one finds it.)

Pollution= Job Security