PDA

View Full Version : Are People Parasites?



darth lefty
22-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Brendan O'Neill - Beware the greenies that think people are parasites. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25667725-5015664,00.html)

This is a bit of an oddly aimed column from O'Neill, he picks apart two extremist green groups - fair play - but then moves on to say that rather than taking a step back and approaching sustainable lifestyles, we should continue to "humanise" the planet, as well as others. The insinuation is that our planet is somewhat more valuable for us having the ability to affect it, rather than it being "another pointless planet orbiting the sun".

Normally I'm all for slandering eco groups for their militant stance on many people's lifestyles and political rhetoric, but O'Neill's rhetoric is just as uncomfortable at times as well...

Randomman
22-06-2009, 12:12 PM
We'll always be just another pointless planet orbiting the sun anyway. At least if we become sustainable the carbon footprint will be lower and we can all live healthier.

Title is misleading, I was expecting a rant about selfish human beings.

g0zer
22-06-2009, 12:42 PM
http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/45596/Are-People-Parasites-/12glow.gif

Griff
22-06-2009, 02:06 PM
For all its worthy content this is a pretty unbalanced piece. All it really does is announce the arrival of a new cringe from the fringe - with terrorist blood a-pumping in their veins.

I do find it satisfying that the piece highlights the grossly inappropriate credo of man's dominion on the planet/in the creation. Subjugation of nature is unspeakably ignorant and this lesson has never been more apparent, but the proposition that this should be dealt with by revolutionary processes to accomlish the destruction of man is similarly ignorant (IMHO).

Equilibrium is a natural end-point in any disturbed natural system and awaits the realisation/conclusion of any process, man's advantage in the creation, lies in the capacity of the species to appreciate and use this in a systemically restorative way.

I enjoyed the doco on Fox looking at Chernobyl (amongst other derelict sites) 20 years on, and the way that nature was just sucking it all back up.... totally encouraging and illustrative.

darth lefty
22-06-2009, 02:17 PM
I didn't really find it all that unbalanced though, O'Neill shifts from rubbishing extreme green groups in it's first half to then continue on with a line of argument akin to, because we can we should keep shaping the world. Albeit he used slightly more sophisticated language, but at the heart of his argument was a petition for us to alleviate a cultural guilt over our collective treatment of the environment.

You mention equilibrium as an end point, and in a systems approach - you're right - a natural equilibrium will be reached, but I don't think it's really going to happen before there is an equilibrium reached on the rhetoric being used by policy makers, criticisers, environmentalists and scientists.

To draw a comparison, I found this article a bit like reading the antifeminist articles written by borderline apologetic women born during the 70s.

Desmo
22-06-2009, 10:55 PM
We'll always be just another pointless planet orbiting the sun anyway. At least if we become sustainable the carbon footprint will be lower and we can all live healthier.

"Carbon footprint", nice to see you buying into mass media hype. If you were actually as intelligent as you like to think, and were able to think for yourself, you would have read up and realised that carbon and other "greenhouse gas" (to coin a term of your mass hysteria lexicon that you'll understand) emissions have no discernible effect or relation on climate warming.
Seriously, some of the shit you type and the conclusions you jump to makes you look like an utter fool.

Randomman
22-06-2009, 11:22 PM
Fuck you're a cry baby. If you can't cope with being dealt shit maybe you should stop dealing shit.


you would have read up and realised that carbon and other "greenhouse gas" (to coin a term of your mass hysteria lexicon that you'll understand) emissions have no discernible effect or relation on climate warming
Thanks Princess. If you read up, you'll realise I never said carbon and GHG had anything to do with global warming.

On a more related note, do you care to prove that being around combustion engines that run on fossil fuels on a daily basis is not bad for your health?

polonY
22-06-2009, 11:36 PM
Fuck you're a cry baby. If you can't cope with being dealt shit maybe you should stop dealing shit.


Thanks Princess. If you read up, you'll realise I never said carbon and GHG had anything to do with global warming.

On a more related note, do you care to prove that being around combustion engines that run on fossil fuels on a daily basis is not bad for your health?

Human health has been improving at an ever increasing rate over the period of time that it has been recorded. Just take a look at our expected life and height increases over 100 years. Whatever we are burning is being more than cancelled out by improvements in many other areas. Global warming is a theory, and a fucking pathetic one at that. Note that is has now been changed to 'Climate Change' as records across Europe and other places have shown a solid decline in temperatures. Please don't get me into this shit.

Maxo
22-06-2009, 11:49 PM
Fuck you're a cry baby.
Thanks Princess.

On a more related note, do you care to prove that being around combustion engines that run on fossil fuels on a daily basis is not bad for your health?

hehehe

Dear cry baby princess hippie,
Being around a combustion engine has a positive impact on my life on a daily basis and is therefore good for my health.
^_^

Eaglehorn
23-06-2009, 12:13 AM
...Global warming is a theory, and a fucking pathetic one at that. Note that is has now been changed to 'Climate Change' as records across Europe and other places have shown a solid decline in temperatures...

'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. Arguing semantics is not arguing the issue.

As for it being a pathetic theory, I thought it was proven fact. But hey, I think the rhetoric has become a more consuming argument rather than the issue itself. Nothing like procrastination.

Randomman
23-06-2009, 12:45 AM
Human health has been improving

I don't think that's actually true, I do believe that technology is actually improving that allows us to stay alive for longer, doesn't make us healthier though.


Being around a combustion engine has a positive impact on my life on a daily basis and is therefore good for my health.

Shhh electric motors have torque from 1rpm so they're good for insta-burnouts.

Bendito
23-06-2009, 01:06 AM
My fossil fueled vehicle is like my nasal delivery technology.
Get me excited.

thro
23-06-2009, 08:02 AM
earth first! we'll strip mine the other planets later.

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 08:51 AM
Global warming is a theory, and a fucking pathetic one at that.

You're wrong.

We've been living in a temperate ice age for several millenia now. The Earth's mean temperature, and the one that it will slowly return to, is warmer than it presently is now.

Global warming will, and frequently does - over a geologic timescale - happen.

As to whether or not out presence on the planet is causing global warming to occur faster or not is what the debate should be more centered on.

polonY
23-06-2009, 09:59 AM
'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. Arguing semantics is not arguing the issue.

As for it being a pathetic theory, I thought it was proven fact. But hey, I think the rhetoric has become a more consuming argument rather than the issue itself. Nothing like procrastination.

If you think 'global warming' is a proven fact then you have bought into the bullshit and do not have the necessary background knowledge to comment on the issue.

And lefty, I know the global cycles in weather do occur over a long period of time, but the term global warming refers to human impressions that affect that weather cycle.

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 10:01 AM
If you think 'global warming' is a proven fact then you have bought into the bullshit and do not have the necessary background knowledge to comment on the issue.

And lefty, I know the global cycles in weather do occur over a long period of time, but the term global warming refers to human impressions that affect that weather cycle.


No it doesn't.

It refers to the globe;

Getting warmer.

polonY
23-06-2009, 10:05 AM
No it doesn't.

It refers to the globe;

Getting warmer.

ok, well in terms of 99% of the population that have bought into the media bullshit, it refers to the human impact. When people think of global warming they think of the 'greenhouse effect' and pollution and shit. Unless you're a person of higher intelligence like yourself.

Professor Redfern
23-06-2009, 10:08 AM
I like how people on this thread are smarter than the scientists who cant even agree.

Well done for working out the global warming issue guys, maybe you could inform the scientists so they can put their pens down and go outside and play on the grass.

CT90
23-06-2009, 10:10 AM
On a more related note, do you care to prove that being around combustion engines that run on fossil fuels on a daily basis is not bad for your health?

Can't be good for you, see below.

Henry "Smokey" Yunick (May 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_25), 1923 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923), Neshaminy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neshaminy), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania) – Died May 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_9), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) of leukemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukemia)) was a mechanic and car designer associated with motorsports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_racing) in the United States.

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 10:11 AM
Not at all redfern... I'm staying well away from making assumptions about what's causing global warming, only that in the past it has been a completely normal thing for the planet to experience.

CT90
23-06-2009, 10:15 AM
If they get rid of all the greenhouse gases the temperature will rise because they are shielding us from the heat, it's called Global Dimming.

CT90
23-06-2009, 10:27 AM
We've been living in a temperate ice age for several millenia now. The Earth's mean temperature, and the one that it will slowly return to, is warmer than it presently is now.



Got any proof, like ice cores from Antarctica for example?

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 10:33 AM
Got any proof, like ice cores from Antarctica for example?

I can go home and dig up a report I wrote at uni a few years ago if you really want... (which coincidentally was on exactly that)

chew
23-06-2009, 10:37 AM
If they get rid of all the greenhouse gases the temperature will rise because they are shielding us from the heat, it's called Global Dimming.

The only thing dimming is human intelligence. I find it difficult to comprehend that the expanding human race (5 Billion +) is having no adverse impact on the planet. I think the biggest problem with societies attitude is the concept that we are here for a reason and the reason is to suck up the earth's resources and when we are in strife a omnipotent being will save us.

Any buzz words etc that may spark more people into positive action as opposed to arguing a point has got to be a good thing.

As for a parasite I think Mr Smith had it right, more like a virus.

CT90
23-06-2009, 10:57 AM
I can go home and dig up a report I wrote at uni a few years ago if you really want... (which coincidentally was on exactly that)

You should get it peer reviewed and published.

Desmo
23-06-2009, 11:12 AM
I like how people on this thread are smarter than the scientists who cant even agree.

Well done for working out the global warming issue guys, maybe you could inform the scientists so they can put their pens down and go outside and play on the grass.

Not at all mate, human kind is well known for jumping to conclusions and having knee jerk reactions to things they aren't familiar with.
During the 80's, scientists noted that the mean temperature was rising, ice caps were melting etc, and this was the first time we had ever seen this.
The logical(?) conclusion to this is that it was man kinds fault.
More recently, people have been taking a more wider view of these facts and have noted that these temperature shifts aren't in direct relation to greenhouse gas emissions; More greenhouse gasses have been released in the past due to volcanoes, seismic activity, dinosaur farts etc, and people got to wondering why the temperature of our planet was being raised.
If you look at the history of the Earth pre-mankind, you'll note that we swing between periods of relatively high mean temperatures, and extremely low, i.e. ice ages, about every 100,000 years or so.
I am not a climatologist nor do I work in the field, yet I do have a scientific mind, and it is my opinion from what I have read that what we are seeing at the moment is just natural temperature fluctuations that occur in the earths cycle, humankind is having a negligible effect on this.
It's also true that scientists have been known to make very wrong postulations about the data that they have, and that more and more scientists nowadays are refining their opinions to lean towards the notion that "Global warming" is a natural phenomena, not a man made one.

polonY
23-06-2009, 11:16 AM
Not at all mate, human kind is well known for jumping to conclusions and having knee jerk reactions to things they aren't familiar with.
During the 80's, scientists noted that the mean temperature was rising, ice caps were melting etc, and this was the first time we had ever seen this.
The logical(?) conclusion to this is that it was man kinds fault.
More recently, people have been taking a more wider view of these facts and have noted that these temperature shifts aren't in direct relation to greenhouse gas emissions; More greenhouse gasses have been released in the past due to volcanoes, seismic activity, dinosaur farts etc, and people got to wondering why the temperature of our planet was being raised.
If you look at the history of the Earth pre-mankind, you'll note that we swing between periods of relatively high mean temperatures, and extremely low, i.e. ice ages, about every 100,000 years or so.
I am not a climatologist nor do I work in the field, yet I do have a scientific mind, and it is my opinion from what I have read that what we are seeing at the moment is just natural temperature fluctuations that occur in the earths cycle, humankind is having a negligible effect on this.
It's also true that scientists have been known to make very wrong postulations about the data that they have, and that more and more scientists nowadays are refining their opinions to lean towards the notion that "Global warming" is a natural phenomena, not a man made one.

Spot on. As desmo said, the cycle is roughly 100 000 years? I thought it was a bit longer but that's not the point. We have accurate temp/weather data for the last what, 100 years(being generous)? You cannot make an accurate forecast of a 100 000 year cycle using a 100 year sample of data.

Professor Redfern
23-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Either way mate I think anything, real or not, that may stir humans into being something other than Selfish, Arrogant and downright retarded is a good thing.


By that I mean I dont give a shit if its real or not, if it makes humans take responsibility for just how wasteful and polluting we are, then I will back the concept of global warming 100%.

Argon
23-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Any buzz words etc that may spark more people into positive action as opposed to arguing a point has got to be a good thing.



Problem; Buzz words also spark people into negative action, you Hoon.

chew
23-06-2009, 11:22 AM
Problem; Buzz words also spark people into negative action, you Hoon.

I'm proud of my badge:cool:

Argon
23-06-2009, 11:25 AM
By that I mean I dont give a shit if its real or not, if it makes humans take responsibility for just how wasteful and polluting we are, then I will back the concept of global warming 100%.

"for just how wasteful and polluting we are" - Compared to what?

You can compare apples to oranges. But you can't compare apples to some bullshit written by some douchebag Sustainable Development Professor that keyed buzzwords like "Carbon Footprint".

jules_1972
23-06-2009, 11:28 AM
"for just how wasteful and polluting we are" - Compared to what?

You can compare apples to oranges. But you can't compare apples to some bullshit written by some douchebag Sustainable Development Professor that keyed buzzwords like "Carbon Footprint".


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

My oh my...

Kytty
23-06-2009, 11:32 AM
I was gonna say what Desmo said in his nicely worded post. The planet is a living thing. it goes in cycles. Iceages come and go. And I think I remember reading somewhere .. we are actually due for an ice age soon (correct me if I am wrong I am currently suffering from boredom at work brain and have been known to forget things)

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 11:35 AM
Nope, we had a glacial maximum about 10 000 years ago.

We're due for warmth.

Professor Redfern
23-06-2009, 11:35 AM
"for just how wasteful and polluting we are" - Compared to what?

You can compare apples to oranges. But you can't compare apples to some bullshit written by some douchebag Sustainable Development Professor that keyed buzzwords like "Carbon Footprint".

Compared to common sense.

Do we need to drink a can of something everytime we are thirsty?

Do we need to chop down millions of trees to throw out millions of pairs of chopsticks a year?

Do we need to drive everywhere because we cant be bothered walking 1km or riding 5 km?

Do we need to spew waste into rivers and the air because its easier than cleaning it up or storing it safely?

You may not personally pollute too much but as a race, we probably produce at least 25% of our waste due to pure laziness.

jules_1972
23-06-2009, 11:36 AM
We all going to die from Global Warming!!!

TV said so.

Desmo
23-06-2009, 11:36 AM
We are still a fair way off an ice age, the last one only finished around 10,000BC.
Still doesn't mean that what is happening at the moment isn't part of the cycle.
I'm not saying that mankind isn't a polluting, wasteful race, just that if we think we are responsible for what is happening, then we are giving ourselves far too much credit.

Argon
23-06-2009, 11:44 AM
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

My oh my...

Heh, sorry. I was forced to do a unit of Sustainable Development at uni. The fundamentals of sustainable development are a good thing. It can be good for business, good for the environment and good for making you feel warm and fuzzy.

But when the principles are manipulated or skewed to overly justify an unproven cause, it pisses me off. Like Polonyman said, we have 100 years of data on global warming. That is SFA. In any other field of science, you would get laughed out of the room if you based theory on data extrapolated 1,000,000 times greater then the size of the original data set.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the research done on ice cores extracted from the poles. My opinion is based purely on facts that I know. :lol:

Argon
23-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Compared to common sense.

Do we need to drink a can of something everytime we are thirsty?

Do we need to chop down millions of trees to throw out millions of pairs of chopsticks a year?

Do we need to drive everywhere because we cant be bothered walking 1km or riding 5 km?

Do we need to spew waste into rivers and the air because its easier than cleaning it up or storing it safely?

You may not personally pollute too much but as a race, we probably produce at least 25% of our waste due to pure laziness.

Meh, we could be worse. :lol:

But agree that we could/should be better.

Edit again: If we were to cut 25% of our waste... what will be do with all the people that will lose jobs? The guy that works in the Indonesian recycling factory that is melting down that can you drink from? That Mechanical Supervisor that is working at the hydrocarbon plant that makes your fuel? The guys that cut down a million trees?

darth lefty
23-06-2009, 11:48 AM
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the research done on ice cores extracted from the poles. My opinion is based purely on facts that I know. :lol:

IIRC, extrapolating atmospheric and temperature data from ice cores is accurate to about 200k back, and then to 225k it's okish, but basically after that it's no good due to the weight of ice compressing trapped gases to a point beyond use.

Taylor
23-06-2009, 12:06 PM
The guys that cut down a million trees?

He'll do what he's going to do when there's no trees left for him to cut down, there'd just be some trees still around.

I don't believe in sacrificing unsustainable natural resources so people can keep their jobs. To me it is selling out the future of their children, because the responsibility is handballed over to them to figure out a better way when they don't get to benefit from the use of the resources in the first place.

I'd change my mind on that if we were cramming the entire world, putting every child through education and pumping out bulk intellectuals to solve our problems later, but that's not what is happening. So, oh well.

I can only hope for the aliens to land so we have something to hate as a planet and move on from issues we've fabricated to being some significance to our lives.

Drenelin
23-06-2009, 12:07 PM
Here's how I see all this.

1. We really do have no idea how much out activities impact on the global climate. It could be next to nothing, it may have a massive impact.
2. Our long term climate and weather prediction capacity is not that great.
3. We are stuck here on this planet, with most of us living in coastal areas.

Given this, I think it would be prudent to limit our contribution to climate change (whether it is massive or insignificant) until we know definitively that we are not putting ourselves in jeopardy.

Reducing energy consumption can be a massive cost saver in industry anyway.

Professor Redfern
23-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I couldnt give a flying fuck about the guy loosing his job, who cares we are talking about the future of the planet.

If he has any brains he will find a new job.

Maybe we could increase our technology if people werent wasting their time melting cans and instead worked towards things that benefit the human race.

CT90
23-06-2009, 01:01 PM
I am not a climatologist nor do I work in the field, yet I do have a scientific mind, and it is my opinion from what I have read that what we are seeing at the moment is just natural temperature fluctuations that occur in the earths cycle, humankind is having a negligible effect on this.


The temperature is as you say following a natural cycle, the problem with that is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not following that same natural cycle (it used to rise and fall with the temperature). CO2 is now much higher than it "naturally" is. Seems to me that man has now affected this natural cycle, making it unnatural. What this means, I wouldn't know.

Argon
23-06-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm not trying to get anyone revved up or anything, just exploring the topic. And if any of my opinions have changed from previous posts, it's because I am taking stuff you guys are saying on board.


If he has any brains he will find a new job.

Are you going to provide training and new jobs to the countless people that are logging in South America?

Should we have ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Is there not a better way?

Would you support the use of Nuclear Power over coal stations in Australia? Safety in this technology is impeccable, but still has such a bad stigma about it.

Would you support capacity limitations on your car/bikes?

Would you drink recycled water, as opposed to the inefficient desalination plants?

I totally agree that society as a whole can/should manage there waste more effectively. But I think our approach to addressing it is slightly flawed. For instance, we process bio-diesel in Adelaide at a higher cost then processing petroleum. No problem, when the process plants were built, the government provided a subsidy that made processing bio-diesel feasible. Great, until the government was leant on by the likes of Shell, Chevron, etc. and decided that subsidy was no longer an economically viable. All that bio-diesel is now sold offshore to countries that provide a subsidy (my last update on this was in 2006, may have changed).

So we use scare tactics, knee-jerk legislation and buzz words to scare/guilt trip people into using less cans (good for changing societies perspective of things, but in my opinion, it does zilch in the scheme of things); while at the same time our hypocritical government gives stuff all support to genuine industry that can make real difference. They’re more interested in bitchin about some ghey email about a some dude and a ute.

All said and done, there are a billion people in a China that are getting a taste of the westerner lifestyle. I wonder how they will address their waste? It should be interesting couple years.

Argon
23-06-2009, 01:08 PM
What this means, I wouldn't know.

Who does?

Professor Redfern
23-06-2009, 01:18 PM
For the record Yes I support Nuclear, I would shut down coal tomorrow if I could magically make a nuke station. Of course I would do a lot more research before I actually did.

For every industry that has been shut down in the last few decades more jobs have been invented so I dont think shutting down in effecient or harmful industries is an issue long term.

I do think its pointless that the average aussie car can go over 150kms and hour when most people cruise to work in them at 50km/h. So yes I would limit a lot of cars.

And yes I would drink recycled water.

I agree there is issues all over the shop and any Fix will cause different problems as side effects, but there has to be a point where we start heading in the right direction instead of making excuses why we have to stay on the same stupid path.

CT90
23-06-2009, 01:26 PM
[quote=Argon;1475526]
I totally agree that society as a whole can/should manage there waste more effectively. [quote]

It's not all doom and gloom. There was a good show on the ABC about how much plastic is dumped in the world, how it transfers PCB's and other chemicals into the food chain and some of the people working at recycling the crap. Very interesting to know how many people are working on cleaning up the crap.

Argon
23-06-2009, 01:39 PM
I agree there is issues all over the shop and any Fix will cause different problems as side effects, but there has to be a point where we start heading in the right direction instead of making excuses why we have to stay on the same stupid path.

Is any change a good change, as long as we change?

Are we giving people a false sense of well being, that they are doing their part, when they recycle their cans instead of throwing them in the garbage? I don't know, but would the money Australia spends on recycling be better spent in subsidising industry to operate more efficiently, real money spent in renewable energies, etc. I only make this because I seem to remember that it costs Australia more to send waste paper to Indonesia to be recycled then producing new paper in Australia. Why not make more new paper in Aus, more jobs, and spend the difference in money on planting more trees and R&D?

Argon
24-06-2009, 04:31 PM
hurr hurr

Emissions trading blow: Fielding rejects climate change | Green Awards 2009 | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683682-5019059,00.html)

dr00
14-07-2009, 10:50 AM
just a couple of bits of info for people who say the whole climate change issue is, scientifically, up in the air.

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org)

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick | The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml)

Captain Starfish
14-07-2009, 11:05 AM
I have a penis. Sometimes it gets warm, sometimes it gets cool. Sometimes this has something to do with gas emissions nearby.

What does this have to do with the topic? Not much. Which is about the same as about every other post in this thread.

Carry on. :good:

dr00
14-07-2009, 11:12 AM
no youre right, mods should delete all posts in every topic that dont strictly answer the initial post. that will make the forums super awesome! i know my conversations in real life NEVER go off on tangents that interest the parties involved because that would just be stupid.

Maxo
14-07-2009, 11:15 AM
no youre right, mods should delete all posts in every topic that dont strictly answer the initial post. that will make the forums super awesome! i know my conversations in real life NEVER go off on tangents that interest the parties involved because that would just be stupid.

Dr00 I think he was trying to be humorous or snide or something...
(trying being the operative word).

Captain Starfish
14-07-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm always trying.

:huh:

BTW people r parasites, and we're farking good at it. be proud. The only reason we'd be scared of emission control, sustainability bullshit bullshit bullshit is our own long term comfort and viability.

ie

making sure we can keep being parasites for longer.

Tom. A. Hawk
14-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Fuck you're a cry baby. If you can't cope with being dealt shit maybe you should stop dealing shit.


Thanks Princess. If you read up, you'll realise I never said carbon and GHG had anything to do with global warming.

On a more related note, do you care to prove that being around combustion engines that run on fossil fuels on a daily basis is not bad for your health?

It certainly is bad for your health. Breathing in anything that is solid and tiny and does not disolve in water is bad for your health.

But then having sex with people (other than your spouse who comes with her/his own unique set of dangers but hopefully disease is not one of them) is also bad for your health and i don't hear anyone saying that the government should ban sex!!

Why is it that we only argue about ways of saving the world that don't involve us making significant personal sacrifices? Like say, banning promiscuous sex and fixing world health AND over population at the same time. Don't get me wrong, i think banning sex is a crap idea. Which actually makes my point.

Now to tie it all back to green stuff. If we banned sex then greenie's would get bored and find something useful to do like buy land somewhere remote and start to live in an environmentally sound community utopia where they could get married so they can root AND save the environment and give the world a working example (yeah right) of a green society that produces no more than it needs and therefore makes no waste and incidentally no profit either, and everything they make is built to last so that there is less waste and therefore they have to remove the idea of fashion because that is what makes us throw out perfectly decent items to buy new ones and therefore use energy and make rubbish that wasn't necessary. Also since fashion and profitability are gone there would be no incentive to explore new ways of doing or making anything so science and innovation go out the window and the greenies will have to accept that the best effort that they can achieve with today's technology will be the best they will ever be able to achieve and they have to be ok with life and society stagnating to the point where population escalates and the commune grows and so on and so on until they are forced to encroach more and more on the environment around them at which point they will eventially reach a point where they either have to control population which is ethically wrong for millions of reasons or look to alternative means of production that are not as environmentally friendly as they are used to in order to provide for their society. if you follow this along for fun i am betting you will eventually end up with senario we have now or the one that was in that movie the Matrix. except the greenies would volunteer to place their physical bodies into the mast confined space possible and live out their existance online so they don't have to cut down trees. or eat or poo or buy shiny things or go places or enjoy any variety at all.

Man i was bored but that was hugely fun. thnks for the waky thread :)

Now i should do something useful...

g0zer
14-07-2009, 12:10 PM
we have 100 years of data on global warming. That is SFA.

historical precedent is irrelevant to performing an energy balance on the atmosphere


just a couple of bits of info for people who say the whole climate change issue is, scientifically, up in the air.

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)



It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life;

the earths climate hasnt been suitable for human life to exist for 100% of geological time ie: the entire point of the argument is to avoid extinction for as long as possible

Tom. A. Hawk
14-07-2009, 12:14 PM
no youre right, mods should delete all posts in every topic that dont strictly answer the initial post. that will make the forums super awesome! i know my conversations in real life NEVER go off on tangents that interest the parties involved because that would just be stupid.

lol and the winner of that bout is. . . . .^^:lol: :lol: :lol::cool:

Tom. A. Hawk
14-07-2009, 12:47 PM
I'm always trying.

:huh:

BTW people r parasites, and we're farking good at it. be proud. The only reason we'd be scared of emission control, sustainability bullshit bullshit bullshit is our own long term comfort and viability.

ie

making sure we can keep being parasites for longer.

C'mon down we have a NEW winner ^^

The Human race is obliged to act in it's own interest. The argument is how do we get the Human race to agree on what is in its own interest?? Is being green the answer, is it as simple as that?
eg
Is it more environmentally friendly to move carbon from the ground to the air (combustion) where it was originally absorbed by organic things like trees which were buried at some point in time and turned into coal and oil which naturally burns if given the chance so that it can get back into the air and be recycled into more trees?

Or refine a slightly toxic element into a super super toxic element which would wipe out all life in a given radius if allowed to escape because it has been used to provide energy for us?

Is it ethically wrong to combust solid carbon into air carbon? Is it morally wrong to create super anti-life poisons if it is convienient and probably mostly safe most of the time as long as everything goes according to plan.

On the balance of probability which of the above two are the most feasible, the most convenient, the most efficient the most cost effective, the most fashionable, the most popular, the most tested, the most reliable?

Which has the capacity for the greatest harm if managed responsibly?
Which has the capacity for the greatest harm if managed irresponsibly?
Why did i type that sentance twice when i could have cut and pasted it?
Which method has the longest projected life of productivity?
ie will we run out of combustible carbon or natural uranium first?
Do we anticipate using the power source until it is exhausted or until we achieve the means to exploit are a better source of energy?
How far away in time is it likely we can utilise a better source and how does this change our original calculation of cost benefit?
Can we rely on our information?
What level of risk is socially acceptible?
economically acceptible.
worst case senario acceptible.
in what way will we allocate the resources required for energy production?
are the poeple who make a mess obliged to clean it up?
Do they actually clean it up?
Can you force them to if you have to? Do you have the right to force them to if you think you have to?........

If a termite infestation kills a tree, did the tree die of natural or unatural causes? If poeple build a city, is that a natural thing or an un-natural thing?

Are people part of the environment or are we above it, ie should we be managing it?

If we are not just animals in the environment (in which case everything we do IS natural) but have a responsibility to manage it, have we put ourselves above the natural or were we appointed as guardians by an alian race or God?

Should we do what is best for the earth or what is best for us as a species or what is best for us as a nation or what is best for us as individuals?

If yes then why? If no then why?

is the earth our garden or is it someone elses garden?

or a we just a snail in a vege patch that doesn't belong to anyone so there is no reason why we can't just eat what we want since there is no gardener and no one to get angry if we eat all the vegies?? :D :D

Do we care because we are programed to care or because it is sensible for the species or because it's fashionable to care?

seriously, i want to know!

Captain Starfish
14-07-2009, 01:01 PM
Too hard, just find a way to spread out and find new planets BEFORE we completely fuck this one up.

Tom. A. Hawk
15-07-2009, 12:46 AM
science fiction, for when reality fails!