55 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Does the planet really need saving? Honestly we aren't capable of running the world. How dare we think we can be so bold to think we can destroy the world by our actions.

Our short lifespan vs the lifespan of the world. How can we be so conceited to think we can possibly alter the worlds climate? Yes the world climate is changing, you actually fucking think we can alter it one way or the other by emissions? Don't insult my intelligence by claiming so.

I was born in the generation that was lead to believe we were heading into a new ice age. Now imagine how silly we look now claiming the reverse is true. I'm not saying the world isn't warming up but let history speak for itself. We aint't fucking doing it and stop giving us so much credit.

The climate changes because it chooses to. Not because we did anything. Don't insult my intelligence and tell me we are capable of changing the climate. You'd have to be young, stupid, and not up to date to think that. We don't need Chicken Little to be running around telling us the sky is falling.

Take one thing home with you tonight, mankind is not capable of changing the climate of the earth despite what your pre-programmed scientists/proffessors tell you. It simply isn't true.

If you want to see mother earths response to pesky humans, check out the news on the local natural "occurances" that wipe out lots of people. Don't sweat it, mother earth could do away with us with a few natural disasters.

So don't waste you're time. Embrace it, you know it's all your fault.

[Soul]

Once again Hostile you make a good point.

[Casen]

I'm gonna refrain from commenting on this for the time being while I process it.

Curious to know what Codecat has to say.

[MSpencer]

Is George Carlin a climatologist? I'll trust the climatologists.
Another thing, do you have any sources? At all?

[Thats me!]

^ no need for sources
this will happen if everybody still don't care

[CodeCat]

Last thing I heard, the ice age was a consequence of eventual global warming. So they're not changing the issue, just focusing on the cause rather than the effect.

[duke_Qa]

i think this argument is a good one

basically, x= we do something, or x0,we don't do something. while Y human industry is the cause of global warming/other bad things while Y0 is that its nature doing all on its own.

going for the safe x=x means that you might waste a bit of money on preventive actions, but it would be the lesser of two evils.



though i have to say that guy hostile links to has a point, though it might be hard for people to notice that he has a misantropic point of view which should not be interpreted as a good statement to live by.

wiki:
"I look at it this way... For centuries now, man has done everything he can to destroy, defile, and interfere with nature: clear-cutting forests, strip-mining mountains, poisoning the atmosphere, over-fishing the oceans, polluting the rivers and lakes, destroying wetlands and aquifers... so when nature strikes back, and smacks man in the head and kicks man in the nuts, I enjoy that. I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it's natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse."

[Hostile]

I just think it's an interesting point to ponder.

[duke_Qa]

yeah, i like his tendencies to say that he wishes the worst for humanity. i generally have that opinion on people as well. fear and hate is a core instinct in us all, might as well use it wisely and focus it on humanity's flaws.

[Casen]

Yeah, its true. At the beginning/first half-ish it seems like George Carlin is defending humanity over the earth but in reality hes supporting earth over humanity...

In fact, his implications tell me that he hates humanity more than a member of greenpeace (and greenpeace members arguably don't).

I can't say I agree we should do nothing to help the earth, he even seems to show it's not a problem, perhaps nothing the earth can't handle, but we should show respect for earth regardless.

I don't want to bring my own religion into this, but if anyone knows better they'd know I'd be biased on the matter...

No I'm not some anarcho-primitivist "OMG ALL TECHNOLOGY IS EVIL BLAH BLAH BLAH" type of person but I think we can use cleaner things when we advance. I'm not one of those types of people because personally I mean I think if we were to just sit there and do nothing and not advance it'd get boring eventually, and I think even nature meant for us to use tools and such, and to advance, since I mean, you'd think we'd have a failsafe in the first place to stop it 100%, like all other living things, but we don't.

In fact those anarcho-primitivist type people piss me off a lot since I met them all on the computer! Son of a fuck, and when questioned about the hypocrisy of such they just say something like "well I'm using it for now since I might as well just to exist in todays society blah blah blah". And at the same time they "hate" humanity and generalize.

Look I think it' safe to say a fairly significant chunk of humans on earth are not loggers/oil workers/etc...I have to say that a misanthropic look on life may come to some people but does that sort of mentality go anywhere good? Can it? The world exists as we perceive it to us, if we cease anything we no longer experience it.

I just think we need to learn to advance with more eco-friendly materials...

Also another thing people have to keep in mind is that comedians sometimes exaggerate their beliefs on the matter for humor reasons...I mean I can tell much of what he says is based on what he believes but the thing about plastic well I can't really see how plastic can be incorporated into nature, it was funny and interesting to think about, but plastic...

Plastic is...plastic is extremely strong, it's stronger in many ways than metal, it's less natural than metal. When we think of technology we tend to think of metal and such but plastic is the most artificial substance on the planet now, and now we're developing plastic that can automatically heal itself...its getting nearly invincible.

Plastic is molecularly bonded differently than any naturally occurring material, it's structure is utterly alien to the earth's natural ecology, at least if I remember reading correctly...

Edited by Kacen, 18 December 2007 - 04:58 PM.

[MSpencer]

Totally wrong. All plastics are polymers. Polymers are naturally occurring, and most new plastic research aims to emulate naturally occurring polymers. It's a danger to the earth's ecology because it doesn't easily break down, and thus will stay in the environment for over a thousand years.

Also, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about global warming with people who don't think they even need sources, and who cite a comedian as reputable. The fact of the matter is that most scientists are in disagreement about the cause of global warming, but the fact is; the polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than ever before, and it is a serious concern for the resident organisms of this planet.
I highly disagree with the idiotic conjecture that we are incapable of changing the conditions of the biosphere. It's happened numerous times from non-watershed events, so it doesn't seem too extreme that this would be possible. For example, algae and phytoplankton are responsible for about 70% of the atmospheric oxygen produced by photosynthesis. Algal blooms, which are due to high nutrient concentrations in water, and, except for a few, naturally occurring and well documented cases, are almost always human caused, can contribute to an extraordinarily high concentration of dissolved oxygen, thus resulting in... well... the death of anything not algae within the bloom. This small example of something on a micro-scale (When considering the biosphere) contributes substantially to the production of oxygen and causes massive damage to ecosystems, and is almost always caused by humans. Entire lakes are knocked out (The opposite is the Aral Sea effect, where there is NO oxygen because of the use of chemicals), millions of organisms die, and all because of high phosphate and nitrate (Fertilizer) concentrations.

It's important to realize that the earth really isn't that big. The biosphere is simply the sum of its parts, and when we're knocking out rain forests, causing massive algal blooms which have never been documented as that large in earth's history, and igniting fires and releasing CO2 and environmentally dangerous chemicals all over the planet, it's tough to say we can't have an effect. It's pretty well documented that freon caused a hole in the Earth's ozone layer, and freon was manmade. The simple fact is that evolution and natural processes do not happen at this rate. The Earth doesn't undergo sudden changes like this, it's unprecedented. In fact, if we found evidence of something of this drastic a change in worldwide conditions, we would consider it a massive extinction event, much like the Oxygen Disaster.

Another thing to keep in mind is that not all natural things are good. They're equally, if not more dangerous than manmade things, and perhaps this climate change could be "natural" (In other words, heavily facilitated by fluctuations in ecological stability caused by humans; so ultimately, it's the biosphere reacting to massive changes, but humans caused it anyways), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't develop technologies to counter it. This is an extinction event, and we have a choice; we can become extinct, and we will, if we keep denying that anything is happening, or we can do something about it, and it doesn't necessarily mean we have to go live in huts. In fact, some of the biggest CO2 producers are smaller, less industrialized countries which practice slash and burn farming.

Basically, it's irresponsible to say that organisms cannot have an effect on the biosphere. We've seen it before in the Oxygen Disaster and a whole host of biologically-catalyzed extinction events, where one type of organism has had a direct effect on their ecosystem, which has in turn caused a biosphere-wide extinction event and punctuated equilibrium. I may not be a climatologist, but I can tell you, things like this have happened before, and usually things have turned out poorly for 99% of species (Not even kidding, the P-Tr event was devastating). We can speculate about the causes all we want; in fact, I'll be the first to concede that most extinction events have been caused by geological events, but we have proof of small communities of individual organisms having an effect on larger environments, we have proof of colonies of organisms having massive effects on atmospheric oxygen levels and ecological stability, and we produce much more in the way of pollutants than either of those examples. Chances are that humans have a significant effect on things.

[Hostile]

That's why you haft to have a good world war every 2-3 generations to trim the masses of idiots and over population. It's like mankinds natural self cleaning solution. See the smart people figure out how to either not be in the war or figure out how to get out of the way of one. Dumb people either fight the war or end up as road kill.

When you look at if from my perspective, it's really not that bad is it? See the average intelligence is well below average and common sense is not that common.

Remember scientits and comedians make strange bed fellows. It's like mixing oil and water.

See you're the scientist and I'm the...[insert relevant noun here]

And always remember boys and girls, keep so we know what's humour and what isn't

[MSpencer]

But you're using humour as a valid critique of a legitimate scientific problem, a crisis even. That's not fair on so many levels.
Just don't make claims about science based on comedy...

[Sûlherokhh]

Gee.

Let me put it this way. If earth becomes inhospitable for (human) life to comfortably exist, well, life goes on. Earth still has a lot of good years coming. They are probably gonna be better without the human 'terraforming', or should i say 'homoforming' going on. Either way, it's life's way of doing stuff with stuff readily available, until it isn't readily available anymore. Whoever thinks this is sad is merely voicing a very anthropocentric point of view. And who says 'Earth' gives a shit about that?

That being said, i'd rather have my life not cut short or 'inconvenienced' by a catastrophe, nor my prospects of future 'success' (weather material, familial or whatever i fancy) being dimished by something outside of my control. And who would?

Do is sound like i don't care? Nah, i am sure i care about as much as anyone, meaning basically i care about myself and about those i couldn't bear to see suffer. And Carlin has a point. 'Sure i don't wanna see firemen get hurt. But don't put out my fire!'

[Cossack]

The basis of my thinking is that those who are smart and have knowledge of their subject generally are correct in there opinions. Im basing my opinion that global warming is caused by humans, on trust that when the majority of smart people say something is true, and provide sufficient proof that it is true, then I can assume it to be true.

I don't really care if it doesn't make sense to me. Im not as smart as them so ill believe what they tell me.

[Hostile]

But your logic means people who are lawyers should be trusted. They are experts in law. Right?

Doctors are experts in medicine and should be trusted? Right?

People in marketing and sales should be trusted as well as they're experts in thier field. Right?

Scientists tell us all kinds of things that happen and then contradict themselves later. But they're experts. Right?

And politics should be left to those who are experts, politicians right?

See where I'm going with this?

Let us not be so stupid to think that scientists have the monopoly of absolute correctness. Is this not the reason why we "lost faith" in religion?

But theologians have a degree in religion, are they experts on cleaning our soul? Oh yeah, RiiiiiiiGHT!.

[MSpencer]

So don't believe the scientists, they'll ultimately be proven wrong?
Go drink some bleach. You'll certainly live, because any scientist would say you'll die.
Science is the best method we have for evaluating evidence. If you're just a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic, there's something wrong with you.

[Hostile]

Funny, they used to say the same thing about religion. Don't get me wrong. I believe most of what scientists tell me.

I'm rather enlightened on the idea of science. I loved it since I was young. Difference IMO between science and "scientists"

The day science shook hands with politicians is the day I question EVERYTHING. Science promotes propaganda on many levels, they "support" ideas that are political.

Kinda of like the day Hollywood shook hands with politics.

Oddly, scientists and religion seems to take the same stance. They KNOW something I don't know. I'm always afraid of people who say "trust me, I know."

for proper notification of humor.

[Spectre]

this is a great topic but lets get to the point,we only live ONE life,we can't do everything at once,humans have pondered for all eternatity why we are here,why do people die?can one prevent themselves from death?to me,these are the questions we must find out,anyways,the earth has no point but to shelter us,if the world blew up today,there would be NO living or anything else,what about us!?if the dino's only lasted around a century then we are pretty much next!if it was 100% proven that we will all die in 2012 then i would live the last years of my life to the fullest,i wouldn't sit in the corner waiting to die today so you don't have to fear the trajic end to earth.i acknolege you wisely hostile,but lets get to the point,if that where true then everyone would work 2,000% faster so they can find a other earth to fall back on.but good point though.*im emo but don't cut,does that anwser your question if im emo?*
well,ROCK ON REVORA!!!!!!!!!!

[Casen]

The basis of my thinking is that those who are smart and have knowledge of their subject generally are correct in there opinions. Im basing my opinion that global warming is caused by humans, on trust that when the majority of smart people say something is true, and provide sufficient proof that it is true, then I can assume it to be true.

I don't really care if it doesn't make sense to me. Im not as smart as them so ill believe what they tell me.

The majority of people in the world are also religious.

I'm not pointing any fingers, so correct me if I'm wrong, but your an atheist, right? Or at least agnostic? I'm sorry for stereotyping, but I've never met a communist anywhere that wasn't at least an agnostic. I think I may have seen a pagan one before, not sure.

Regardless...as far as I know, what the majority believes is not always true. I've seen so many conflicting sources on global warming I'm not sure anymore.

What I do know is, the earth is heating up. Global warming is definitely true, but I've read evidence it has to do with the sun, etc.

Regardless if we are behind it or not, I think it's important to...well, if we're not the cause, then perhaps we need to just go a long with it. I think we can adapt, and survive. And if we're not the cause, then chances are at least at our current technological level, we probably can't do anything about it.

Especially if it has to do with the sun...