[ridhi (OP)]

We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places.  Let’s stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment.

[dentstudent]

By "harmful", do you mean "unnatural"? Do you mean therefore that all natural things are not harmful?

Please could you put some meat onto your post? It needs feeding.

But only with bio-eco-organic food, of course.

Oh, and make your post into a question eg: "Should we all encourage the use of ....?" if only to appease the wrath of the mods.

[Karsten]

By "harmful", do you mean "unnatural"? Do you mean therefore that all natural things are not harmful?

Please could you put some meat onto your post? It needs feeding.

But only with bio-eco-organic food, of course.

Oh, and make your post into a question eg: "Should we all encourage the use of ....?" if only to appease the wrath of the mods.

Is there something wrong with not using products that are harmful? Should we not encourage the use of "natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places"?

[dentstudent]

First part - it depends. Second part - it depends.

I'm just trying to find out what the point of the thread is, and what is meant. I want to understand the poster's association between natural and environmentally friendly. When it is read, it appears to be mutally inclusive, whereas I don't see it that way. In the second part, I've no idea of what is meant by harmful. Harmful to whom or what?

All I'm doing is asking questions in an effort to understand what is supposed to be discussed (if anything). At the moment it's just a statement that to me appears unclear because it is too broad.

[Karsten]

First part - it depends. Second part - it depends.

I'm just trying to find out what the point of the thread is, and what is meant. I want to understand the poster's association between natural and environmentally friendly. When it is read, it appears to be mutally inclusive, whereas I don't see it that way. In the second part, I've no idea of what is meant by harmful. Harmful to whom or what?

All I'm doing is asking questions in an effort to understand what is supposed to be discussed (if anything). At the moment it's just a statement that to me appears unclear because it is too broad.

Maybe we will have to wait for clarification and also maybe for an actual question. I hope there will be further discussion. I know you have a bone to pick with those who favor organic and natural methods. I tried to counter your arguments you posted in a long comment regarding "organic eggs" but you never responded.  Too bad. It took a long time to write my post. []

[Karsten]

In the meantime:

When is a good time to use harmful products? (Assuming harmful means: Damaging to people and the environment in the long and short term.)

and

When should we discourage the use of "natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places" ?(Assuming natural means: made by and can be processed by living organisms without long-lasting damaging effects; Assuming environmentally friendly means: Does not damage the environment humans require to live well and for several generations)

Yes, I am trying to drag you into a discussion.  [] I am still on vacation an have a bit of extra time.

[dentstudent]

Karsten - I'm sorry if I didn't respond to your post - I assure you that it wasn't through any conscious effort. I tend to look in at work, and so miss some of the answers. My apologies - I will look for your answer and respond accordingly. (Probably with a big fat raspbery []).


I'm at work now, and have a presentation to give tomorrow, so I'm afraid that my response will be a little slow.

[dentstudent]

"When is it time to use harmful products? (assuming harmful means: Damaging to people and the environment in the long and short term)"

And at home and other places...

One that instantly springs to mind are various cancer treatments which are harmful to people. They are very aggressive and not at all pleasant to the "user". And it's probably time to rush people to the hospital in order to treat them, in some sort of vehicle. And also to use expensive electronic equipment to monitor these people and to keep them alive, that through the development and building of the machines created a great deal of CO2 and uses a lot of plastic that probably won't be recycled, etc etc.

But maybe these aren't the kind of products that the poster had in mind. I don't know. It seems to me though, that if you look at the complete cycle of virtually any product from its cradle to grave, they will illicit some sort of "harm" to someone somewhere, and therefore, I don't think that you can just say "Let's stop using harmful products".

What's a non-harmful product? (Semi-rhetorical)

[Bored chemist]

"We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places. "
What does "natural" have to do with it?
People are natural and they are about the biggest environmental disaster the world has ever known.
Coal and Oil are natural- using them as fuel has not, at least in many people's opinion (including mine), been particularly environmentally friendly.

[Phil1907]

biggest environmental disaster?  quite emotional - and silly.

Suggest you think as a scientist and not allow yourself to be manipulated be the enviro lobby.  If there were such a scientific concept - the development/evolution  of photosynthesis and it's subsequent oxygen "pollution" would probably be the "biggest."

[Karsten]

Phil, I don't understand you comment. What is wrong with oxygen for the survival of humans?

[Karsten]

What does "natural" have to do with it?

That is a good question. It was originally connected with an "and" to environmentally friendly, but does it have to be natural (whatever that means) to be environmentally friendly? Can it be natural if it is made by human beings? Or are human beings and what they create "unnatural"?

I guess, "unnatural" COULD be something that has been created by a species that no living organism can digest or break down without technology and is therefor destined to stay in the environment for a really long time until it is taken care of with technology. Is "unnatural" a linear process rather than a cycle?

By that definition, can something UNNATURAL be released into the environment in any amount that is at the same time no problem for a balanced environment which still supports human life? Examples?

[Karsten]

"When is it time to use harmful products? (assuming harmful means: Damaging to people and the environment in the long and short term)"

And at home and other places...

One that instantly springs to mind are various cancer treatments which are harmful to people. They are very aggressive and not at all pleasant to the "user". And it's probably time to rush people to the hospital in order to treat them, in some sort of vehicle. And also to use expensive electronic equipment to monitor these people and to keep them alive, that through the development and building of the machines created a great deal of CO2 and uses a lot of plastic that probably won't be recycled, etc etc.

But maybe these aren't the kind of products that the poster had in mind. I don't know. It seems to me though, that if you look at the complete cycle of virtually any product from its cradle to grave, they will illicit some sort of "harm" to someone somewhere, and therefore, I don't think that you can just say "Let's stop using harmful products".

What's a non-harmful product? (Semi-rhetorical)

Another very good question. What is harmless? Many romantic environmentalists seem to think that something is harmful when it does harm cute, furry animals or obviously does damage to humans. Or it is harmless if native people did it. Or if it is natural. Of course this does not work for the bugs you kill to eat your vegetarian diet. Or for the bison you chased down a cliff. Or the naturally growing mold you are inhaling. Or the trip by plane to visit a eco-tourist center. Or for the many activities that result in slow damage or damage in areas that we don't look at very thoroughly.

I guess, I would equal harmless with sustainable. If the product/material/action can be applied by all equally and for an unlimited time than it is harmless. Example? Hmmm... Breathing? Maybe locally creating a basket from willow branches and using it for several decades is sustainable/harmless. Use rainwater to flush your toilet rather than drinking water. Maybe growing vegetables in your own garden fertilized with your own compost or manure is harmless. Live like some people live in some places in Africa? (Note: I have never been to Africa and don't know which culture on this planet actually lives a life that is sustainable. I am afraid it is not even close to the North American/Australian/European life style)

We have a dilemma right now. There are a lot of human beings on this planet and the way some live (and most others want to) is just not sustainable. Any example I could give would result in much fewer humans on this planet even though it may be sustainable and harmless to do. It is maybe not as much a question of what we could do that is harmless but rather a question of what we could stop doing and still live. Maybe it cannot be harmless to waste as much as we do in USA/Europe

For instance, ending agriculture based on fossil fuels and switching back to agriculture based on cyclical methods and renewable resources would result in huge population losses but would be sustainable. Of course choosing a method that result in widespread death and famine is difficult to see as "harmless", but the current method of food production is not sustainable and will result in population loss as well. Later. Unless we find something we have not found yet.

How can you not create harm to individuals if you offer opportunities for individuals to come to existence based on methods that function only for a while? How can the promotion of a life-style based on limited resources be considered harmless if it results in population growth, dependency on the same limited resource and the destruction of renewable resources?

Any person will do what is in their power to survive. Of course they may choose aggressive cancer treatment without regard of the environment or their long-term health. They just want to survive the next few years for now. Same with the trip to the hospital with the ambulance or the equipment. That is just self-defense. You have to talk to the people who are not struggling to survive. What could/would they give up? Is it possible for 6.7 billion people on the planet to not struggle for survival and have living a sustainable life at the same time?

[Bored chemist]

biggest environmental disaster?  quite emotional - and silly.

Suggest you think as a scientist and not allow yourself to be manipulated be the enviro lobby.  If there were such a scientific concept - the development/evolution  of photosynthesis and it's subsequent oxygen "pollution" would probably be the "biggest."

For a start, I am a scientist and therefore think like one by definition.
For an encore, is life the biggest environmental disaster ever? This was a perfectly good ball of wet rock until life came and invaded just about every bit of it.

The point I was making is that we are natural so everything we do is, arguably, natural.
Describing us as the biggest disaster might not be technically correct, but it's reasonable hyperbole and I'm not often acused of being influenced by the enviromentalist lobby.

[Phil1907]

You'd fool me mr "scientist".   

Nice dancing on the point .  Grow up little guy.

[lyner]

ridhi
I think you have been jumped on here by a lot of bullies!!! That's telling you chaps.

There have been a lot of  complacent comments which seem to dismiss possible 'harmful' products which we could find ourselves using. I guess they have forgotten the fact that flour used to have plaster of Paris put into it and that wine has often had antifreeze added in order to make it taste better. Not to mention asbestos being used in houses and lead in petrol. All this in the interests of someone making money!
We should continue to be very wary.

[lyner]

BC:
You have rendered the word 'natural' totally useless by your definition. I think it has to be allowed its place in the language and we 'all' know, basically, what it means.

It is not just fancy which causes people to worry about environmental hazards. Any significant changes which humans introduce could tip the balance of many environmental factors and produce conditions which we would not like to have to put up with. That would constitute 'bad for us'.

[Karsten]

Phil, I still don't understand your first comment.

[Bored chemist]

Among the things that scientists do is very carefully define what they mean by the terms they use in any question they ask.
If those definitions are left so loose as to be potentially meaningless then the question doesn't have a well defined answer.

Unless you define what is "environment friendly" and what is "natural" then  you are not going to get far trying to answer my first question which was "what does natural have to do with it?"


Incidentally, I think Phil is referring to the fact that when photosynthesis first got successful it generated lots of oxygen. Oxygen is toxic to a lot of bacteria (and animals, including humans, at high concentrations).
That massive rise in oxygen levels that accompanied the widespread use of photosynthesis probaly wiped out a lot of life forms.

[Karsten]

(...)
Unless you define what is "environment friendly" and what is "natural" then  you are not going to get far trying to answer my first question which was "what does natural have to do with it?"
(...)

I suggested a definition for "unnatural" since I cannot find a good one for "natural" or "unnatural" anywhere else:

I guess, "unnatural" COULD be something that has been created by a species that no living organism can digest or break down without technology and is therefor destined to stay in the environment for a really long time until it is taken care of with technology. Is "unnatural" a linear process rather than a cycle?

How about it? Is this something we can work with? Natural =  proven to be cyclical without human help? Unnatural = Human-made and not proven to be cyclical without human help?

Of course we can continue to discuss the validity of a definition forever and not get anywhere. It is a matter of wanting to solve a problem. Work with me here!