Try the political quiz

434 Replies

 @9KLDYVGanswered…2mos2MO

Absolutely not. The Earth is all we have and I don't understand how people can stand aside while we destroy it.

 @9KT3PRQagreed…2mos2MO

There seems to be this societal notion that our resources are infinite. They're not. And yet there is incentive for companies to create products designed to break or be replaced as they will then make more money. It is then further reinforced by using cheap and enviromentally harmful resources to create these products while also utilising media to push the burden of environmental consciousness on the customers through recycling despite companies lying or misleading about what can or can't be recycled.

 @9KQPLBYagreed…2mos2MO

Though not prioritised, saving earth is important for many reasons. I would personally to my bit, however, not make my life devoted to it. I semi-agree with this statement because further generations should have freedom.

 @9KQMCG2agreed…2mos2MO

Absolutely not. The Earth is all we have and I don't understand how people can stand aside while we destroy it.

 @9LMQ8BCanswered…2wks2W

No this upsets me deeply nature is an essential part of humanity

 @9LP4FHCagreed…1wk1W

The nature we have around us allows for the climate to still hold itself together and has been around longer than us so we should respect it.

 @9LNV7DBagreed…1wk1W

The beauty of nature makes me feel the presence of something bigger than myself. I believe this is a critical aspect of the human experience and brings the best out of humanity.

 @9KTHWVFanswered…2mos2MO

I'd of course rather it not but i don't feel that strong on the issue, it isnt a big concern as much as other topics.

 @9KXVC58Liberal Democratdisagreed…1mo1MO

the natural beauty of this world is of vital importance to help as it isnt ours yet we can benefit from it hugely

 @9KXPXZ5disagreed…1mo1MO

What is referred to as natural beauty is vital environmental factors required for the continuation of the species.

 @9LHCYL5answered…3wks3W

No, I think it is our privilege and responsibility to enjoy and protect the natural world.

 @9LKZLWXLiberal Democratagreed…2wks2W

we have a duty and responsibility to care for generations to come. it is both selfish and inhumane to leave the world in a worse state than that which we arrived in

 @9LKYM6KLiberal Democratagreed…2wks2W

It is a selfish egotistical concept that people cannot see the importance of passing natural beauty onto the next generations

 @9LM7BY6answered…2wks2W

No natural beauty is so important and should be protected

 @9LNYHPLfrom California disagreed…1wk1W

Natural beauty isnt just visual, it reflects the health of our world and the resources it provides us.

 @9LKQDYCanswered…2wks2W

no, important environments and ecosystems such as he antarctic and the amazon should be protected in order to preserve the natural state of the planet

 @9LNL799Labouragreed…1wk1W

very important habitats and sources of oxygen are being demolished in favour of creating profit for already rich companies. Many animals cannot be rehomed, and are facing extinction due to rising sea levels and the burning of their homes. This is all done in secret, privately, meaning that it is difficult to stop and prevent, or even manage

 @9LKQ6MZanswered…2wks2W

I don't have children but I still have concern that future generations are being failed

 @9LP37T3agreed…1wk1W

The pursuit of humans to be better than the next person is driving a never ending circle of greed, which is leading to humans expanding their living space further and further across all lands.

 @9LKPHXJLiberal Democratanswered…2wks2W

Of course not, there isn't much of it left in Britain as it is

 @9LMVLK7disagreed…2wks2W

there is still much natural beauty to be found even now, and what we have is precious and should be protected

 @9LJT85Manswered…2wks2W

No I would not I think we should improve our environment not ruin it

 @9LLRZZGagreed…2wks2W

If we go out of our way to ruin what the environment, then the money that tourism brings in would plummet since all the love country sides, beaches, parks etc wouldn't be worth coming to see and we would lose money.

 @9LK9WD3answered…2wks2W

No, the Earth's natural beauty can't be easily replicated for future generations and shouldn't be at risk for economic incentive.

 @9LP53L6 disagreed…1wk1W

I do not believe that natural beauty can be easily replicated considering it is a delicate balance of the ecosystem that has formed over millions of years.

 @9K26PRZanswered…2mos2MO

I would hate to think that so much of the environment I loved as a child simply wouldn't be there for someone younger than me.

 @9K6DY7Zfrom Pennsylvania agreed…2mos2MO

The natural world contains so much beauty, rich life, and history. Not only would it be a shame for younger people not to experience this, but it would be simply wrong to rid the environment of its beauty.

 @9LKM9DYanswered…2wks2W

I do not see that this is a good question, It works on the premise that if we do not change it will be destroyed when all the doom and gloom is not happening as predicted and many of our current issues will be sorted by technology

 @9LLSSW2Greendisagreed…2wks2W

The evidence for the speeding up of detrimental climate change, habitat destruction and environmental pollution as a direct consequence of human activity is incontrovertible, evidenced by science.

 @9JYSKBKanswered…2mos2MO

No, as I believe there will be no turning back once we reach that posistion.

 @9K667TWagreed…2mos2MO

Once the ecosystems that harbour natural beauty are gone, biodiversity will consequently decline, which will have repercussions on the human race, with a quarter of a million deaths per year in the next two decades projected from under-nutrition and global warming-related diseases.

 @9LLS9J9answered…2wks2W

I’m sad to hear this and we should do something about this

 @9LNKBBGagreed…1wk1W

Nature is one of the most beneficial elements to both the human mental state and the environment as a whole.

 @9LLC93KLabour answered…2wks2W

Our country is small and over populated and having laws in place to have green space, I think is good! Kids need more space and safer parks to go to.

 @9LR65WRagreed…6 days6D

Natural beauty and green spaces feed into the early development of science at primary level. A reduction in these spaces could result in a reduction of scientists in the future.

 @9LL7Q46answered…2wks2W

Definitely no, global warming and climate change is a massive problem, and children deserve to see the world at its best.

 @9LR4P2Nagreed…6 days6D

I wouldn't say children "deserve" it, but for the longevity and sustainability of our planet it would be lovely if these things could be encouraged to remain (apart from disappearance through natural causes, and some unavoidable circumstances)

 @9LKCPZ5 answered…2wks2W

No of course not, this is such an ignorant question to ask, like we are not going to do anything about our current environmental crisis. We can’t just give in and let the world burn because of our stupidity and ignorance as a race. We have the power to change our doing, we must reverse this for the sake of our future.

 @9LKYT8Ffrom Hyogo disagreed…2wks2W

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation, then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

 @9LJRNGPanswered…2wks2W

Protecting the natural beauty of the environment is necessary to combat climate breakdown by protecting eco systems and through the natural carbon reducing effects of trees. In addition, nature has been proven to improve people's mental health and wellbeing so more needs to be done to increase the size of the green belt and number of national parks in Britain overall.

 @9LK2W4Bagreed…2wks2W

By making some green spaces national parks and bringing them into the public domain, we ensure that private interests do not usurp the right we have to our commons

 @9LJNKRCGreenanswered…2wks2W

It goes beyond ice caps melting or bush fires. Imagine no drinking water, no fresh food or a wave of new plagues and diseases.

 @9LKDMCRagreed…2wks2W

The scientific consensus suggests that we have already caused irreversible changes to our climate; changes which will only become more severe as sequestered carbon is released from melting glacial ice, burning forests, and warming oceans. Lowering our emissions is good - necessary, even - but this is only a tactic to stall the chain reaction that has begun. If we want to combat climate change in any real way, we should be directing resources towards researching and developing active carbon capture and storage, as well as abundant sources of energy to make these technologies viable at scale. The time for tweaking lifestyles and legislation has passed.

 @79YPPCS answered…2mos2MO

There is enough natural beauty but it should be protected for future generations

 @9K7TTBZdisagreed…2mos2MO

The world is created naturally, parts of this should be accessible and not overrun with buildings etc

 @9JTYX3KGreenanswered…3mos3MO

No. This is a completely avoidable outcome. Ditch fossil fuels immediately.

 @9JX2RFDagreed…3mos3MO

No but it is avoidable if the government and nation stops focusing on money and profit and starts prioritizing the environment instead

 @9JPRTQ6answered…3mos3MO

Not at all, more action should be taken to save the environment

 @9JQZVXBagreed…3mos3MO

When everyone should be equal, why are the older generation allowed to make life significantly worse for the younger generation.

 @9JG4NT5answered…3mos3MO

I'm terrified for the future of the climate. Anyone who doesn't care for the environment is either ignorant or selfish.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...