so the earth is F***ed aparently..
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Um... yeah, that's been obvious for like 20 years now. And we still haven't done anything about it. So it's just gotten worse. Why are we suprised?
Actually, there's a LOT stopping people from doing this. One of the reasons being a complete lack of a social support for this lifestyle, another being lots of environmental protection laws against this sort of thing, and yet another being a lack of wilderness because all the people.Blaster395 said:
1970: hippie tells you to return to the way life used to be
2012: hippie with computer tells you to return to the way life used to be
2012: hippie with computer tells you to return to the way life used to be
I said it before, I'll sat it again, dark age living standards wont help the environment, not will they allow us to live sustainably. There are too many of us for that too work. The remaining forests would quickly be destroyed (as in extinctified) to heat our homes and to build stuff. We'd probably hunt the fuck out of everything pretty quickly too. And burning wood isn't that great anyway. Its better than coal, and it grows back faster (still not fast enough if its all we're using) but it's worse than most other fuels.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I note that you say 'there will be sustainably sized populations'. I assume this is after the mass famines claim everyone else (and return periodically when population exceeds certain bounds). There is no such thing as a sustainable population for a species with no natural predators. They grow until they use up the resources, and then they crash. Rinse and repeat.
Our success has always been to find ways of increasing resources before that happened. If we arbitrarily stop development at some point, you condemn people to a cycle of famines at that population level.
Personally I favour a combination of solar and nuclear power as the solution.
Basically, what this guy said.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Now, I'm not one of these hippies myself, I'd just like to clarify that, and I'm not saying we should go back to living in stone age conditions, but as Jeffers states, the main problem is that our entire global economy is built upon a finite, non-sustainable resource, that is most likely going to run out in our lifetimes. And there is fuck all any of us can do to change that. Why? Because the people who control the oil, have all the power.
It was about ten years ago now I seem to recall reading an article about the infamous water engine (In case you don't know, this is an engine for a car that runs on water) and how someone actually designed the prototype but the motor companies quashed any chance of it ever being put into production because it would put them out of business.
Thing is - as a society - we need to start making these changes now. And I'm not talking about hybrids or electric cars, because the production of the batteries for those is actually more harmful to the environment than driving a gas guzzler. But like I say, this is never going to happen as long as the rich have all the power.
There was a news report I saw just the other day that here in the UK, over the next few yearsd (because of the poor weather conditions we've had over the past few years) we are going to be faced with a steep increase in food prices because farmers don't have enough stockpiled grain.
But hey, I guess that doesn't matter, right? As long as we have the fucking X Factor every year and kids keep cranking out babies because they're too dumb to keep it in their pants, we'll be fine, right?
Ravinoff said:
Alright first off "and nature in fact hates us", it does not hate us, it created us and we destroy it with pollution. So, please explain to me how nature hates us if it gives us almost everything that we need
2nd "science isn't your enemy" he is not saying science is his enemy, in fact he using it to prove his theory.
And of course "We should be proud of our superiority over all other life on the planet, not ashamed of it." Jesus Christ man, so your saying we should be proud how industrial and civil runoff contaminate water and destroy ecosystems, we should be proud that are extremly close to annihilating the ozone layer, we should be proud that we are destroying the very thing that made you me and everyone else on this planet just for the sake of our own pleasure and gain. Well then sir, I guess there is much to be proud of when our own race is exploiting without thinking of the reprucusions.
Okay, but did you even read the artical before saying "Oh this guys old, and wears funny things, I'm gonna tottally ignore his argument and consider his points, just cause of his appearence."corneth said:
So would you beleive some random white guy who's 21, got naturally brown hair, and i'sent wearing a hat and says that a cheaseburger is a vegetable?.
What, this guy [http://www.wiizelda.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/alttp-link1.png]?Vault101 said:
In all seriousness, I agree something needs to be done about the direction we're headed. But, as awesome as it would be initially, turing the entire world into Hobbitton just isn't practical. I would suggest we stop spending money fighting each other for a while, and instead invest that money in clean energy. Governments, start offering incentives to clean energy companies, because it seems that "the right thing to do", "benefit of all life" and "assuring the world is still here for the future" aren't reason enough to stop killing the earth.
So he wants to go back to times when the average lifespan was 40 or under? Where many women and children died in child birth? Or where a bad winter ensured thousands of deaths due to starvation.
It's like he wants to fight the reactionary principles of capitalism he rallies against with more reactionary methods.
Yeah we need to figure out a way to control carbon emissions and hopefully find a way to reduce carbon emissions which will come eventually but I'm more confident in the power of science solving this problem than deciding to start wearing a loin cloth and hunting and gathering for my food.
It's like he wants to fight the reactionary principles of capitalism he rallies against with more reactionary methods.
Yeah we need to figure out a way to control carbon emissions and hopefully find a way to reduce carbon emissions which will come eventually but I'm more confident in the power of science solving this problem than deciding to start wearing a loin cloth and hunting and gathering for my food.
I think the plan here is to go back a bit further, pre-farming. Humans were tall, strong, and at the peak of our evolutionary adaptation to our environment. We could take what we needed from the land, and the hugely varied diet that resulted from hunting and foraging was probably superior to the mass factory produced crap that fills the majority of the shelves in our supermarkets.Not G. Ivingname said:
Of course, this life style doesn't support very high population densities and without the economic and societal shifts that have come about from the development of farming we probably wouldn't have achieved the amazing technological accomplishments that we have today. However, just because we've been doing things one way for a heck of along time doesn't mean it's the only way, or even the best way. The guy in the OP is probably a nutter, but there are still things worth bearing in mind and considering out there.
Completely ignoring the fact that on average people didn't live past 30.5ilver said:
Plus the further back you go, the chances of you dying from dysentary and cholera increase exponentially.
Oh, and kinda hard to live a carefree life when you run the risk of being eaten alive by wild animals constantly.
EVERYTHING CAN AND WILL KILL US GIVEN HALF A CHANCE.Yabba said:
Gravity will crush you, wild animals will maim you, gore you, eat you, or poison you. Water will drown you, lightning will strike you down, the sun will give you CANCER, and don't forget the constant threat of disease.
Science and technology allow us to defend ourselves AGAINST nature, or control nature so it benefits us. Nature is a brutal system that we arose from, but acting as if it "cares" as if it's some sort of sapient God figure is naive and erroneous in the extreme.
No, I wouldn't "beleive" some random white guy, I'll take an expert, thanks. If I knew what an "i'sent" was I probably wouldn't like it. I wouldn't believe anyone who said that "chease" burger was a vegetable either, considering that a cheeseburger is roughly 80% beef and bread.Yabba said:
Okay, but just cause a scientist who looks weird you say he is invalid, so you would believe some "normal" looking guy who says some ludacris fact. Oh and "i'sent" meant to be isn't, and because of its place in the sentence "i'sent" would not be an object because it does not act as a noun, so don't correct me on my english while you do not understand it.corneth said: