Economy v. environment - an animation

Animated TV commercial depicts the effect on the natural world and its resources of our money obsession. Spoof of 'Money Makes the World Go Round'. From WWF Brasil.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• WWF
• environment
• economy
• TV commercial
• activism
• animation
• nature
• money
• advocacy
• Brazil
• ad
• the economy
• world
• resources
• business

[NBVvideos]

penis

[zygary95]

:)

[6390721]

@shoelessjohn You will not see any data on the increase of water if the earth warms,as there is none,The whole thing on global warming is at best a myth,It has been influanced by mutinational corperations,and banks with goverment (ie our taxes)money & colusion,For 300 years (14th -17th) century the earth underwent a mini ice age,Since then the earth has warmed,It is at present cooling down again,the higher temp we witness today in the cities are due to what we make them from metal&glass,

[shoelessjohn]

@newguy33X

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't clean up our industrial garbage and take care of things, It's just that we are losing our sense of perspective about this stuff.

The expansion of deserts is not a given. If the Earth is warmer the water cycle would include more water than it does presently, making rain more frequent. I have even heard some opinions that this effect would actually increase the ice caps, but I haven't seen any data on that.

[newguy33X]

@shoelessjohn We may only live on 4% of the earth, but we use a lot more than that for resources.

Some places are too warm already - deserts, which will expand.

I can't speak to the volcanic activity, I'll admit.

I think my biggest concern is biodiversity. Most environmental arguments come down to this, whether or not the debators realize it or not. Quick changes are tough on organisms, background extinction, etc.

[newguy33X]

@shoelessjohn Fair enough, I didn't stick to any framework. Anyway, it just bugs me when people think that "better for the environment" means "good for the environment"..like when something becomes more energy-efficient.

If we consider ourselves part of the natural environment, we can take that in several directions. We can say "Hey, we're a part of nature too, so anything we do is natural..." or we can want to take care of the rest of the environment because we depend on it.

[shoelessjohn]

@newguy33X

I think these problems are inflated in your mind, with the help of TV propaganda.

-Humans currently inhabit less than 4% of earth's land area.

-Carbon Dioxide is good for plant life

-The planet would sustain more life if it was warmer

-Fossil fuel emissions are completely negligible when compared to worldwide volcanic activity, and negative health effects are questionable.

There is a false "high and mighty" attitude today regarding this stuff. We just aren't that significant.

[shoelessjohn]

@newguy33X

This is exactly the answer I predicted. There is nothing you can do, you cant even just stand still and exist without "impacting the environment".

The trick you pulled was to frame the question as an "economic venture" instead of just "anything" to make the answer be about economics. You framed the question in an intellectually dishonest way.

[newguy33X]

@newguy33X It's as much a value judgement as a "maybe we'll need other species in order to survive" question though. Do we want it to be just us and the species we eat and use for fuel, or don't we? Are our houses, buildings, golf courses and other sporting areas, etc. all worth taking up so much habitat for? It seems to be. People put their work and money towards them, so we've voted with our activities.

[newguy33X]

@newguy33X We build huge, non-living entities where forests used to be, we've reduced the fish in the ocean to 10% of their numbers of just 100 years ago. We quickly create large changes in the contents of the atmosphere, and on land and at sea. The background extinction of other speciesrate since the age of dinosaurs went up 1000X since man became prevalent thousands of years ago.