so the earth is F***ed aparently..

Zeke63

New member
Jul 10, 2012
133
0
0
Sorry but that article is beyond vague he just lists off generic problems that environmentalists have been stating for years with no real projection!
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Devoneaux said:
I would argue that Nature acts on a system of equilibrium. When a specific species does well, the population soars, until eventually it exhausts it's food either from overhunting or what have you and the species suffers starvation, putting it back where it was and giving other species a chance to recover.
If the trend is toward equilibrium why do mass-turnovers happen?

Or how about sea otters? They eat the urchins, the urchins stop eating the kelp (because they're all dead), and the rise in kelp populations wreaks havoc on the local ecology.

Or algae blooms? They can kill everything in their ecosystem. Even if something comes along later and kills the algae, the ecosystem that existed before is gone.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
Vault101 said:
5ilver said:
People were happier, less stressed and better fed a few thousand years ago. I see nothing wrong with wanting to go back.
HAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* hahaha ha

what?

what evidence do you have of this? ESPECIALLY the better fed part...
Well when was the last time you had a mammoth burger, 101? ;p

Really though, all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly.

However, I do like going with one "doomsday date" (for poops and giggles).

The one by Sir Isaac Newton. 2060!

Though it may not be the year he thought the world would end, but instead when he thought that the "New" world would replace the "old" one.

:/ I guess I'll find out when I'm 68.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Doclector said:
Simply put, we have got to the point where money, something entirely of our own invention, can end the world. Where it can cause hunger that lasts generations even where there is plenty of fertile land and livestock. Where debts are so huge, they can start wars. Where countries can sink into anarchy because one group of people has more little pieces of metal and paper then another.
Ive said this before but I belive the systm "works" more or less because at out hearts we are selfish....it takes that selfish drive and turns it into somthing productive
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
Vault101 said:
Therumancer said:
90%?...a good thing?

its not just about me or my loved ones...its the fact I find killing inocent people a rather awful concept..anyway, HOW would you make people regress tehcnologically and to what extent?

anyway...I think capitalism "works" (in that it gives us all thease amazing advancments) because fundamentlaly we are selfish, it harnesses that selfishness and chanels it into somthing productive

EDIT: [quote/]Of course a lot of people don't really want to look at things that rationally,
genocide is not rational...its barberic[/quote]

Ignore what Therumancer said. It's idiotic and on the level of talking about the Illuminati. He also read too much of the population bomb.

We do have proof that Anthropogenic pollution does have an effect on global climate change. You have to remember to climate change is also the acceleration of the earth's processes. When Larson-B, (an iceshelf) collapsed, there was general panic because it wasn't supposed to happen. There have been experiments to test the amount carbon dioxide since 1958. I focus on Carbon dioxide because it's the most prevalent greenhouse gas. The climate is a complex system and we're trying to figure out what's going to happen.

Did you know that one theory is that when the Arctic melts, some of the ocean currents which are responsible for a lot of heat will disappear? North America and Europe may be in the gripes of a new ice age.

Not that I like the article, because it's stupid as hell, but climate change is pretty accepted. We are still capable of using tactics for mitigation. Chemists proved in the 19th century that gases like carbon dioxide create a greenhouse effect, trapping heat in the atmosphere. In the mid-20th century, as it became clear how fast carbon dioxide levels were rising and some scientists began to predict a warming of the planet.

Goddammit there's so much misinformation in this topic. One key to the successful solution of any environmental problem is the careful evaluation of conditions, causes and effects. Science-a system for managing and producing information- is the most effect way to do this evaluation.

Has anyone here heard of Rachel Carson and "Silent Spring"? What about Barry Commoner and "The Tragedy of the Commons"?
BrassButtons said:
Devoneaux said:
I would argue that Nature acts on a system of equilibrium. When a specific species does well, the population soars, until eventually it exhausts it's food either from overhunting or what have you and the species suffers starvation, putting it back where it was and giving other species a chance to recover.
If the trend is toward equilibrium why do mass-turnovers happen?

Or how about sea otters? They eat the urchins, the urchins stop eating the kelp (because they're all dead), and the rise in kelp populations wreaks havoc on the local ecology.

Or algae blooms? They can kill everything in their ecosystem. Even if something comes along later and kills the algae, the ecosystem that existed before is gone.
Eutrophication of an ecosystem can be responsible for a large algae boom. It's due to nitrates normally from agricultural waste changing the BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/27/brittany-beaches-toxic-algae-boars

Devoneaux, the talk about equilibrium is analogous to the argument that decreased taxes will stimulate the economy so much that net revenue will increase, or that if I eat more and fatten, carrying the extra weight will burn so many calories that I will end up slimmer.

I heard an argument form a certain Dr.Lindzen that "clouds will save us". Clouds are a feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism, yet Lindzen is claiming that reactive mechanism will somehow save us. Nature won't compensate for everything.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
5ilver said:
People were happier, less stressed and better fed a few thousand years ago. I see nothing wrong with wanting to go back.
I don't know what's worse. The corporate shills who say that climate change is a hoax, or the new age hippie who has an addled brain from too much pot.

Sustainability has scientific backing! The Greens shouldn't be some just some burnout college kids! Stop making us look bad!

True our food may have contained less heavy metals and GMO's, but living in the woods is not a solution!
 

Zef Otter

New member
Nov 28, 2007
186
0
0
He got a small point, back then people was happier because people are easier to be satisfied. Today we are driven to own new things since childhood. You see it in advertisements where the happy family owns the newest car, computer, or gadgets and that If we don't own them then we are not "successful". So we work long hours at jobs we might not like and get depressed (most likely with a dead end job). The only way to cope with such feelings we are most likely to do is take drugs or buy things we might not need but buy it anyway because it makes us feel good.

The only way we can fix it is to change the culture but that wont happen. People hate to change unless they really have to.


But thats my silly views on things. ^^
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Zef Otter said:
He got a small point, back then people was happier because people are easier to be satisfied. Today we are driven to own new things since childhood. You see it in advertisements where the happy family owns the newest car, computer, or gadgets and that If we don't own them then we are not "successful". So we work long hours at jobs we might not like and get depressed (most likely with a dead end job). The only way to cope with such feelings we are most likely to do is take drugs or buy things we might not need but buy it anyway because it makes us feel good.

The only way we can fix it is to change the culture but that wont happen. People hate to change unless they really have to.
but I like my things...

seriosuly though if the scenario you described above is the extent of somones life/problems then THEY need to sort their shit out...not force the rest of us into some kind of comunist hippie comune
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
Frission said:
Imp Emissary said:
Vault101 said:
5ilver said:
People were happier, less stressed and better fed a few thousand years ago. I see nothing wrong with wanting to go back.
HAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* hahaha ha

what?

what evidence do you have of this? ESPECIALLY the better fed part...
Well when was the last time you had a mammoth burger, 101? ;p

Really though, all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly.

However, I do like going with one "doomsday date" (for poops and giggles).

The one by Sir Isaac Newton. 2060!

Though it may not be the year he thought the world would end, but instead when he thought that the "New" world would replace the "old" one.

:/ I guess I'll find out when I'm 68.
I don't know what's worse. The corporate shills who say that climate change is a hoax, or the new age hippie who has an addled brain from too much pot.

Sustainability has scientific backing! The Greens shouldn't be some just some burnout college kids! Stop making us look bad!

True our food may have contained less heavy metals and GMO's, but living in the woods is not a solution!
:/ Ummmm....Frission, what are you talking about?

I don't think I said anything in my post about going back to "living in the woods". In fact the whole "all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly" part of my post was ment to poke a bit of fun at it.

As for "sustainability", I don't think I talked about that at all. Just made a little joke about how I "like to go with THIS date for doomsday".

I think you may have quoted the wrong person. :/ Unless of course, I am missing some other way to interpret my post.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
Zef Otter said:
He got a small point, back then people was happier because people are easier to be satisfied. Today we are driven to own new things since childhood. You see it in advertisements where the happy family owns the newest car, computer, or gadgets and that If we don't own them then we are not "successful". So we work long hours at jobs we might not like and get depressed (most likely with a dead end job). The only way to cope with such feelings we are most likely to do is take drugs or buy things we might not need but buy it anyway because it makes us feel good.

The only way we can fix it is to change the culture but that wont happen. People hate to change unless they really have to.


But thats my silly views on things. ^^
Yes, but that's actually a product of the "fabricated" American dream produced after world war II. Consumerism and a home in the suburbs. America actually spent most of it's wealth for creating these suburbs. Strangely, suburbs relied solely on cheap oil to function and it's predicted that they'll be the slums of the 21rst century. One part of sustainability is that we'll need more systems of mass transit.

This is more on social aspects and mismanagement than environmental problems, although it does tie in.

I think people will change or they'll be stuck in their mockery of living in the country. It's a problem really analogous to the United States.

The movie "The End of Suburbia" is interesting.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
Imp Emissary said:
Frission said:
Imp Emissary said:
Vault101 said:
5ilver said:
People were happier, less stressed and better fed a few thousand years ago. I see nothing wrong with wanting to go back.
HAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* hahaha ha

what?

what evidence do you have of this? ESPECIALLY the better fed part...
Well when was the last time you had a mammoth burger, 101? ;p

Really though, all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly.

However, I do like going with one "doomsday date" (for poops and giggles).

The one by Sir Isaac Newton. 2060!

Though it may not be the year he thought the world would end, but instead when he thought that the "New" world would replace the "old" one.

:/ I guess I'll find out when I'm 68.
I don't know what's worse. The corporate shills who say that climate change is a hoax, or the new age hippie who has an addled brain from too much pot.

Sustainability has scientific backing! The Greens shouldn't be some just some burnout college kids! Stop making us look bad!

True our food may have contained less heavy metals and GMO's, but living in the woods is not a solution!
:/ Ummmm....Frission, what are you talking about?

I don't think I said anything in my post about going back to "living in the woods". In fact the whole "all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly" part of my post was ment to poke a bit of fun at it.

As for "sustainability", I don't think I talked about that at all. Just made a little joke about how I "like to go with THIS date for doomsday".

I think you may have quoted the wrong person. :/ Unless of course, I am missing some other way to interpret my post.
Damn sorry. I meant the person Vault was quoting. My mistake I'll rectify that. I'm sorry.
 

Guilherme Zoldan

New member
Jun 20, 2011
214
0
0
Therumancer said:
Vault101 said:
[
its not fucking rational..YES it would solve all our problems but don't for a second think that because you can justify in your head that its rational..thats what people like Hitler are made of....nobody calls the marauding raiders in post apocolyptic scenarios rational...yes your advocating killing on a much larger scale

you know what they call people who don;t have empathy? sociopaths..but yeah I really do apologise for being all silly and emotional, and I'm sure your proud of yourself for resisting the emotional aspect but theres not point to causeing 90% of the world to die/suffer

the fuck do YOU get to decide who deserves to live and die?

honestly I don't think I can continue this argument without getting myself banned

Just calm down, I debate things all the time that get me upset, remember this is just the internet. :)

At any rate, it's perfectly rational as several people have explained, and you kind of concede the point that it would solve our problems, so there is no point in further debating that. I'm going to address a couple of other things though.

First off, I AM someone with sociopathic tendencies, and as such I have done a lot of research into them. A sociopath is someone who is guided entirely by self interest. A lack of empathy has little to do with whether someone is a sociopath or not. It's possible for sociopaths to become "monsters" if they also have things like sadistic tendencies (as in deriving pleasure from the suffering of others), with them placing their own needs before those of others. You might want to actually read up on it, as someone with brain damage, I've probably done more reading and research on certain aspects of psychology (beyond what I've learned in college) than many professionals as a way of monitoring my own problems.

At any rate, what I'm suggesting isn't even remotely sociopathic, after all I would personally not derive any real benefit from this happening. The payoffs are going to occur long after my own demise (even if from natural causes), and my very arguements likely lead to my own death. As such this is exactly the opposite of "sociopathic", unless it was combined with a number of other disorders which I can assure you I don't suffer from, and would amount to things very differant from simply what I suggest here.

To be honest plenty of people have come to the same conclusions, it's just a rather dark, and depressing realization. It's more a matter of rational deep thinking and an actual understanding of the problems. It shouldn't surprise you that in such a borked world, any way of making things better is going to be borked to the extreme. Or to state it without 80s lingo "Things need to get worse before they can get better" we've ignored the problems so long and let them compound where the price of fixing them is not absolutly terrifying, and it's just going to get steeper as more time goes on. Ignoring these problems though amounts to the deaths of everyone, and not even hope for the species in the future, a slow, but complete eradication being even worse than the elimination of 90% of the population through warfare.

As far as who gets to make this desician, I'm hardly leader material, but the bottom line is someone has to make it, and the question of "who gave you that right" can be leveled at absolutly anyone who makes the hard choice. In the end though it comes down more to a consensus of a lot of people (which we do not yet have, tghe point of posts like this is to get people to think in the right directions) rather than one person acting as a dictator.

To be honest as time goes on the odds of some group of people getting enough control to pull that trigger on their terms increase. To be honest I think American principles (though not nessicarly the current American goverment) represent the best chance for the future of humanity to become something better. Other philsophies could hold things together, but if say China or the USSR eventually winds up pulling that trigger and then creating the new world order under their philsophy I think it will be pretty bad. Thinking in the long term, I honestly think it would have the most long term benefit if the USA started the apocolypse, and guided it's course, and the reconstruction afterwards. Then again I *AM* an American, I'm sure people in other countries feel the same way about their own people when they come to the same conclusions. In the end though I suppose it's better for anyone to pull the trigger than nobody to do it, since survival outweights resource depletion without the hope of getting more, and the inevitable death of the species.
So youre a self-diagnosed sociopath who thinks he knows more then specialists? Thanks, you spared us having to take your opinion in any way seriously.
I admit that eliminating a huge chunk of the population would be rational(Though still a massive moral conundrum) -if- there was no other option. Theres no evidence that we are in such situation.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
Luftwaffles said:
earth will do fine. Its us humans that are fucked.

Absolutely. I honestly can't wait. Pack your shit folks.

Actually, neither the planet nor the people are going away because of the environmental damage. What's more likely is a serious civilization setback and a significant reduction in population. Then after some rebuilding it'll be time for that supervolcano in Yellowstone to blow, so that'll be another setback. Then a few thousand years later, just when "modern" civilization seems to be re-emerging we'll have a nearly extinction level collision with an asteroid, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Thus the answer to the fermi-paradox: no planetary civilization ever reaches a point where it is advanced enough to make itself known to other planetary civilizations, because reasons.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
Frission said:
Imp Emissary said:
Frission said:
Imp Emissary said:
Vault101 said:
5ilver said:
People were happier, less stressed and better fed a few thousand years ago. I see nothing wrong with wanting to go back.
HAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* hahaha ha

what?

what evidence do you have of this? ESPECIALLY the better fed part...
Well when was the last time you had a mammoth burger, 101? ;p

Really though, all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly.

However, I do like going with one "doomsday date" (for poops and giggles).

The one by Sir Isaac Newton. 2060!

Though it may not be the year he thought the world would end, but instead when he thought that the "New" world would replace the "old" one.

:/ I guess I'll find out when I'm 68.
I don't know what's worse. The corporate shills who say that climate change is a hoax, or the new age hippie who has an addled brain from too much pot.

Sustainability has scientific backing! The Greens shouldn't be some just some burnout college kids! Stop making us look bad!

True our food may have contained less heavy metals and GMO's, but living in the woods is not a solution!
:/ Ummmm....Frission, what are you talking about?

I don't think I said anything in my post about going back to "living in the woods". In fact the whole "all this end of the world, and ":( Things were better before" stuff is all a bit silly" part of my post was ment to poke a bit of fun at it.

As for "sustainability", I don't think I talked about that at all. Just made a little joke about how I "like to go with THIS date for doomsday".

I think you may have quoted the wrong person. :/ Unless of course, I am missing some other way to interpret my post.
Damn sorry. I meant the person Vault was quoting. My mistake I'll rectify that. I'm sorry.
No problem. I got a bit mixed up myself when the place for the quote button got changed. But I always do the preview check before I post.

Don't worry. It happens to us all.

Also, don't quote me on this (hehe get it?), but we may actually be getting mammoth bugers in the future.
IF we can clone one/genetically modify ourselfs one.
:D Fingers crossed.
 

vasiD

New member
Oct 28, 2012
185
0
0
Ryotknife said:
vasiD said:
Angie7F said:
I dont have kids, my dog will only live for another ten years.
SO, as long as the earth is not ending in the next 30 year, I am not concerned with what happens to it.
Ryotknife said:
time to speed up our space program so we can colonize other worlds. The sooner we get off this rock, the sooner we dont have to worry about some random event wiping all mankind out.
These two thought processes are HORRIFYING. Either A) Whatever, not my problem man! or B) Whatever, we'll just move on and strip mine other worlds, no biggie.


Both thoughts are absurdly selfish, the first being "Why should I change my life because future humans will suffer? I mean it's not me!", which seems to miss the concept of humans being part of a whole rather than just individuals. And the second is not only short-sighted (as it's not that likely we'll even make it off earth, given that would require terraforming technology, which we're not even sure is possible. Example: the word isn't even in this sites dictionary.), it's terribly selfish because then the concept is that we destroy this planet and move on to destroy other planets (in other words missing the concept that all of reality is part of a whole which humans are included in) Again: Horrifying.

"Angie7F", you could use some more compassion, and "Ryotknife", you could use some more logic. No offense intended, just trying to show you guys how both of these 'don't care' attitudes are both toxic and come from a place of seperation from our reality rather than being in sync with it. Because we perceive, at the moment, only our own lives doesn't mean that only our own lives matter to us or that they are the only lives we'll live.

Angie, imagine if rebirth is a very real thing. This means that when you die you'll move on to live the life of one of those suffering humans who is unfortunate enough to live in the age of desolation that we're creating with our current age of greed.

Ryo, what if we find out there is no way to terraform other planets and as such the nearest inhabitable (as in we can grow food on it and it has natural oxygen and water) is so far away we could never hope to reach it before earths end? Or worse yet, we do forge such a space-station but it takes ages to get to that new world, ages of inbreeding and suffering on a cold ship floating through space, and if we even make it is a harsh impossible world... I think we'd be much better off putting all our effort in to the planet under our feet that has nurtured us from the very beginning.


Sadly, most people agree with one of you two, which is why we're in this current state. Mind you, I'm not talking about just everyday people. Everyday people are able to think what they want without it affecting the world, the people I'm talking about who would agree with your views are our leaders and politicians sadly.


OT: Not sure about this guy's science but a lot of what he is saying is just common sense. What I'm saying is I agree with him, but I doubt he has hard evidence.
my solution is the logical AND PRACTICAL solution to the problem (in the long term) for many reasons:

1. The reducing our strain on the planet to a significant enough degree will probably require murdering billions of poeple if relocation is off the table. Even if you somehow found a way now, it wont work when the population doubles and doubles again in a few short generations.

2. by colonizing other planets, we can spread out of population, significantly reducing the strain the earth in terms of polultants AND resources.

3. we can actually ADD resources to earth from outer space

4. Even if some fairy godmother granted your wish and humanity no longer puts a strain on the earth (that will scale with our growing population) and reverse the irreversible damage, still doesnt prevent some random non-environment related event from wiping out mankind. And we are kinda overdue for an extinction level event.

to top it off, there are huge monotary incentives for colonization, so governments and corporations can get behind it. Until mankind is staring down the barrel of its own imminent extinction, dont expect the government or corporations to lift a finger. At best all you can hope for is some brilliant scientist who wants to save the world, but this is probably beyond what one person can do.
Again though, my problem with your concept is that it requires technology that we currently don't have... We cannot at this moment terraform other worlds, we have theories, but all of them are well beyond our means.

My main point, and the only reason I'm not agreeing with you (because I used to) is that while looking up to the stars and imagining is nice, we have to work with what we currently have, and currently all we have are the means to live on this planet. Terraforming AND the technology it would require to transport a whole 'space colony' just doesn't exist right now and probably won't for some time. However the technology to reduce our carbon footprint here on Earth has been around for nearly two decades (some of it is newer obviously, and some of it has been around even longer and is just being held back by dick corporations that want to make more money off of things like fossil fuels).

I'm not saying I don't want to become a space-faring species, and it will be an eventuality if we can live long enough to get our tech that far, but I don't think it's wise to worry about our whiskers when our head is about to be chopped off. Especially when we don't actually have any whiskers...
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Pretty much hit all the key points on the nose. I was a boy scout too (even got eagle rank). What I took away from the high adventure trips was not how pure and great nature was, but just how good we have it in our modern epoch. I personally think anyone who complains about modern technology should be stripped of their factory made clothing, deprived of medicine and prepared food, dumped in a forest with a pointy stick and left to rot far away from the rest of us who appreciate what we have.
 

xDarc

New member
Feb 19, 2009
1,333
0
0
In your lifetime, possibly in my life time, there will be an event that will kill Billions of people.

There has to be such an event, or civilization will not continue.

People will starve, they will rebel, and those in control will push that button rather then risk losing that control.

It is simple. Too many god damn people in this world. Kill half, and everyone feels twice as wealthy, happy, docile, productive, easy to control.

It will happen.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Kafloobop said:
Wouldn't all of these problems be solved if we
1) Went 100% renewable fuels
and
2) Mandatory recycling

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why recycling isn't a huge thing by now?
Isn't recycling standard where you live? Here in Australia (Sydney specifically) we have 3 bins. Normal, Recycling and garden waste. Normal is the smallest of the 3 as recycling removes a large part of the waste and because the other 2 are picked up on alternating weeks.
Next your going to tell me you don't have grants to help pay for solar pannels, water tanks and help wind mill farms be established.....

EDIT:

The green lid bin is garden waste, yellow recycling and red standard waste.