AAO25.com
Community => The Lounge => Topic started by: Spanky on Monday, December 14, 2009, 03:13:51 AM
-
The below is a friendly conversation between me and Delta. It's not meant to start an argument over who knows more or what thoughts/opinions/facts are real or not. It simply is here to make you think and get involved and to voice your opinion. No bashing or hate please, otherwise I'll have to start a bash thread for something you are passionate about.
[23:51] delta: I can't believe Google is taking part in this stuff
[23:51] delta: http://www.google.com/landing/cop15/
[23:51] Spanky: cuz it's all bs
[23:52] delta: yeah, and it's going to be really bad for all of use if these guys get what they want
[23:52] Spanky: we've been through this and im not gonna discuss it again unless you want to be enlightened
[23:52] delta: us*
[23:52] delta: Did you say you support it?
[23:53] Spanky: you're going to have to be a little more clear about what it is
[23:53] delta: I guess in this case it's global warming
[23:53] Spanky: do you really want to discuss it with me?
[23:54] delta: I just want to know if you support it
[23:55] Spanky: im not a scientist nor do i have the time, knowledge nor money to research it for myself to determine if i believe in it or not
[23:55] Spanky: im on the fence with "global warming"
[23:56] Spanky: i do know for a fact that we manufacture, use, eat, and waste un-necessary amounts of various pollutants that are harmful to the environment
[23:56] Spanky: i really don't care about global warming, i may not be alive to see it happen if it does. i just simply don't want to eat or breathe pollutants
[23:57] delta: Right, I agree with you there. but to go as far as to say it's heating the world up, and if we keep it up we'll all die is a little wrong
[23:59] Spanky: is it? a lot of scientists believe that they have real evidence. who's to say they do or dont? you don't have evidence in god and our whole country is surrounded by religous beliefs yet i don't think that's wrong
[23:59] Spanky: well... i kinda fubar'd that last statement
[00:00] Spanky: i do think it's wrong but here's the thing: i don't tell people they're wrong and try to bash it or publically attempt to prove that it's wrong
[00:01] Spanky: think of global warming as an excuse deadline. lets get rid of the pollutants asap regaurdless if global warming is going to happen or not. our habits need to change asap
[00:02] delta: right, but at what cost? we just can't change everything over night
[00:03] delta: what would we change to?
[00:03] delta: if there was something better out there we would be using it
[00:04] Spanky: at what cost is a valid point except i'm going to twist it. we don't have a choice in the air we breathe or really the food we eat, for most of us it's out of our hands. we need to put money aside, granted things can cost a lot but the reasons we're using oil so much is that we're used to it and it's cheap. does that make it valid for us to poison ourselves in various ways?
What do you think?
-
What else can we use to power our cars besides oil, electricity? If we use electricity it has to be made by some coal or nuclear plant somewhere that causes just as much damage as driving a car using oil. Don't get me wrong, I think we need an alternative to oil, I just don't think we should be affected in the process of getting that alternative.
-
In a perfect world, people would give up some "luxuries" in order to help this situation. Fact is Americans are a lot of the problem. Other developing nations see what we have and will go to any length to have it themselves, no matter the cost and I'm not talking money. We need to lead by example. I don't know what the answer is to vehicles. Ethanol is a time waster and we'll have fuel for our cars but no food on the table. Hydrogen is easily made by natural gas and still too expensive to readily implement. Hybrids may be a start but they have a hell of a long way to go before they'll do anything. I saw a hybrid Suburban (full-size SUV for those who don't know) that the electric motor only went up to 17mph. I can imagine it cutting down on emissions since it takes a lot of energy to change the state of any object but 17mph? That's ridiculous. Couldn't the engineers gotten it to maybe 20 or 25 for people driving in residential areas? I mean... come on. Ill-purposed residential/commute vehicles aside (SUV's, Trucks), there have been several fully electric cars that were produced both by companies and individual parties. If they can make them happen then what's the problem? Vehicles that run further than the average suburban (not car) work commute that have 0 emissions (from the car, electricity production will be covered later) that you can charge at home? Maybe the government could offer a tax break for businesses to install charging stations in the parking lot.
Electricity production (told you I'd get to it :D) is another hard subject. We all over-use electricity when we don't have to and I believe that problem should be solved before trying to get an alternative source of electricity because I believe we can reduce oil/coal/nuclear usage more by reducing our usage than researching or implementing an alternative form of electricity.
I'm kinda spent as far as providing an argument on this subject right now and would like to see others getting involved so I'll sit back a few posts.
-
Well, it may be America's fault, I guess we do kinda lead the way in some stuff. But to say that I should be responsible for the research of alternative sources of fuel is wrong. I mean, maybe if I had a million dollars I could invest into it. Then I could be held somewhat responsible, but I don't. I guess you could say the greedy oil companies are to blame, but the only way to set them right is with more government regulations, which aren't so good when it comes down to the whole free market thing.
Maybe the whole "Global Warming" thing is just a scare tactic to get people to see that we need change. Maybe these people really believe the world is gonna become a burning ball of fire if we don't act now, I don't know. I just know I don't want the government to tell me how much power I'm allowed a day, or how many miles I'm allowed to drive a day. I don't know if it would ever come down to that, but if people get scared enough, I know they're probably going drop freedoms for security.
-
I just know I don't want the government to tell me how much power I'm allowed a day, or how many miles I'm allowed to drive a day. I don't know if it would ever come down to that, but if people get scared enough, I know they're probably going drop freedoms for security.
See there's a hazy part in the whole freedom thing. I would be ok with you using as much power/oil as you wanted if the consequences ONLY affected you. It's the same thing with smokers, I would be perfectly happy if absolutely no "used" (2nd hand) smoke was emitted into the air I breathe. Totally fine if they want to kill themselves, hell I might even light it for them but when it infringes on MY life when it's absolutely un-necessary for THEIR life, is that right? Is that what freedom means? Shit if that's what it means, I gotta find a new country without freedom to call home :) I can imagine someone bringing up the argument that 2nd hand smoke and using excessive amounts of electricity aren't equal. Well, in the current world, they are. They both emit pollutants. What does global warming matter when some people have to breathe this:
(https://aao25.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la.cityzine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F05%2Fpollution08-05-26.jpg&hash=036de975dc10dae3e9dbff222b26f122) (http://www.la.cityzine.com/2008/05/26/how-to-protect-yourself-from-pollution-in-la/)
I tried to find an image from a non-tree-hugging/green group. I think I did alright. Click on the picture to read the article that was posted in.
-
I don't know a lot about the climate out there in LA. But there are some days here in Missouri where the humidity will make it look almost exactly like that picture. I'm not saying that there isn't some pollution there, I mean you put that many people in one small spot on the earth and you're bound to get something going wrong. People have a choice in all of this, though, they don't have to live in a city that has really bad air pollution. America is a big place you know. :)
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, I believe when you burn gasoline you put off emissions that are bad for humans. And I think it would be awesome to have a fuel that's not only powerful but actually good for you too. I just really don't think the government is the answer to our problems. But you know, maybe some regulation on the oil companies to do some research into alternative fuel sources wouldn't be all that bad. I mean why should they take home millions while all we get is dirty oil?
-
I know, especially with digital cameras and todays photo editing software, it's easy to change colors but there is a color difference between steam/fog and smoke/pollutants. Granted, a lot of plain old dust is probably floating around but on the other hand we're meant to breathe oxygen, not dust, not car exhaust, not smoke. Actually (from logical thinking) I think that's one of the sad things about the green movement in that a lot of the videos and images they show of tall towers pumping out "pollution" when the majority of it is probably steam or water vapor.
But you know, maybe some regulation on the oil companies to do some research into alternative fuel sources wouldn't be all that bad. I mean why should they take home millions while all we get is dirty oil?
It would be in the governments best interest to do something along those lines. Give em a tax break and in return make them put 2% of their profits or so into alternative energy. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being done already though. I would like to see government control on electricity and oil usage per person but on the other hand that would strike up some protests and riots and it would eventually get counter-productive. Maybe instead an incentive for individual people to do more environmentally good things. We see some of this already, I think there were tax breaks or rebates for those that bought Energy Star appliances. I'm sure that could be taken further.
Just like everything in the world, oil is a limited resource, there's no arguing that. The question is how limited and we don't know. Oil doesn't just make gas for your car. It makes many other useful products that you don't even think of. If we run out, it's gonna mean more than not being able to start our cars. This is a great argument to recycle. Recycling isn't necessarily about being easier on the environment than to use raw materials (a lot of people argue this point and I'm on the fence about it) it's about re-using the materials we have instead of packing them away in landfills that nobody is going to want to dig through when we're all out of plastic. Now I don't want to sound frantic but hell, I'm sure it's possible in some amount of years to have a shortage if we keep this wasteful practice up.
Ok, I'm really gonna lay off for a while and let other people voice out.
-
The words "Government Control" just give me a bad feeling. For one the government rarely does anything right. So to give them control would be bad.
I believe government regulations on things like power usage and gasoline usage would be bad for everybody. Especially if they taxed you on how many miles you drive or something. Which would throw more of our privacy rights out the window when they try an keep track of everything you do. Which just fuels the big government movement even more. When pretty soon you realize you have no control over anything anymore. Because you gave it all away to the government, just so they could protect you against excessive drivers, or people who might burn more power than the regular guy. That's not the way to go.
If anything we need more common sense and less government in this country.
This country is already 13 TRILLION dollars in debt (or soon to be) if that doesn't worry you, then you need to get your head checked. Some of that debt is held by counties like Russia and China, now I don't have anything against these countries. I'm a little worried what they'll do when our debt has risen to 50 trillion, and they stop receiving their paychecks because our interest payments have become more than we can afford. For example, since Obama has taken office we have accumulated 2 trillion dollars in debt. Now for us being so rich and all, how is it we have the biggest debt of any country out there? And what do you think more government regulation is going to cost us?
I think, unless pollution becomes a dire threat to this country, the US Government should just stay out of it. Maybe save a few bucks in the process, and pay off a little debt.
-
This thread is -supposedly- about Global Warming and yet you've converted into a semi-governmental applicative discussion about The United States of America? Self-centered ignorant pricks. I was going to write just a few lines about the consequences of this traditional behavior that lies within most Americans, but I don't think going over that would be helpful or constructive to this post subject's, so I've decided to drop out. You guys already did a great job off-coursing this thread's subject by the miles, along with turning it into a US-exclusive likewise.
When discussing Global Warming, we need to understand that science is trustworthy. It might not make much sense -be irrelevant, excruciate our minds with mathematically well-put new fearsome "software" onto our society's consensus- but it is something that attests to human's most finest logical thinking. For the most part, the problem lies within how new theories are purged and accepted -through ignorance- onto our society's minds, which seem to have been proved as the easiest of the ways to naturally change the course of society terms, actions, delusions, demands, needs and likewise.
We are divided into two big groups; "The Wise and the Ignorant", which in nowadays's words would be far more accurately named as "The Informed and The Uninformed". Information is everywhere, at the cost of nothing. Much of it is nonsense, or built on a lot unnecessary theory-crap people are ignorant about, nor care to become otherwise. The whole point behind this brief slander on Human Thinking and Society Mindset served to reveal that ignorance is strongly acclaimed in and by our society. It's a favorite. Metaphorically speaking, a-made guest of honor on the houses we no longer own or have control of. Ignorance is the key-word.
So, what exactly is Global Warming? It certainly is not as much of a science as we make it out to be. I don't quite have the time to expand on my views at the moment, but I will give you a link to a video I wholeheartedly respect and admire -if anything- for the way they break down the arguments long being used by Global Warming parties and Green Projects likewise.
In a small note, I can vouch for some of the stated in the video I am about to show, as I have had Chemistry classes and had the opportunity to test Air properties, it's consequence reactions to changes made on its core, and many other I'll gladly proceed to talk about as I get home afterwork. Meanwhile, if you truly are interested in discussing about Global Warming without going over who's got more power over it (Yes, a hint for both my friends Nate and Dan!), then I strongly suggest you watch the following video, entirely.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1391917
Dann
-
The subject unfortunately does take a turn to involve the Government because this is really something that everybody should be involved in. The uninformed and lazy (typical american) isn't and that becomes a problem. There are many times when people don't do what is ethically or morally best and we have laws because of that. I'm not all for full government but we need something to give us a little push in the right direction. Then comes up the area that who defines what is ethically or morally right, I think in this situation it's pretty clear that we shouldn't have to live with pollution just because people like to drive an hour to work in stop and go traffic.
As for what Dann has posted, I got 3 seconds into the video and see 2 negative points:
The guy's avatar
The video looks like a shock video meant to scare people
With that said, I will finish the video and post back if it enlightens me.
-
People are like inertia, they arn't going anywhere so they won't move.
-
Who is driving the whole global warming movement? Where did it begin? I know Al Gore and Co. are big on it. But who actually started the whole thing? And what did they base their theories on?
Like in that video Dann posted you have scientists tell you plan and simple that global warming is fake. It's something the media invented, for who knows what reason. But the fact remains that this isn't a good thing. If global warming truly is real, then I guess we have nothing to worry about. But if it's fake, then we just destroyed our economy for no reason trying to throw things like oil out the window.
I don't know numbers here so I can't conform or deny this. But if pollution is a threat to peoples lives, then we should try our bests to try an clean up the air. Our history is too short to really tell much, like if increased pollution causes an increase in cancer related deaths and all. I for one would like to die from old age, rather than some cancer I picked up while I was inhaling the air in California. But you don't see pollution being the issue here, you see global warming. Don't ask me why, I guess a global temperature increase of 1°C is too much for most people to handle.
-
This is pointless.
-
This is pointless.
Yeah, that's the attitude Spanky!
-
I want to flame you so much, but I'm really above that. I'll just say that you have no idea what I meant by that and you never will.
Let the conversation continue between those that wish to be part of it.
-
Fine, Spanky, if you want to take offence to something I said. But I don't know what I said that warranted that "Pointless" remark. Unless that was directed more at something Dann or BlueBlaster said, of course. Oh and talking about an issue in society isn't pointless, either.
-
This problem is unsolvable due to excessive world population. About 7 Billion now. With cannot support this population with sustanable or green methods. This world can only really support 1.5 Billion people in a sustainable fashion.
Moreso the earth population continues to rise at an explosive rate with nobody even thinking about tackling the issue. Mark my worlds, the popultion problem will bring the downfall and governments and collapse of human civlization as we know it, and it will happen in our lifetimes, Out generation are going to see some very dramatic changes.
-
This problem is unsolvable due to excessive world population. About 7 Billion now. With cannot support this population with sustanable or green methods. This world can only really support 1.5 Billion people in a sustainable fashion.
Moreso the earth population continues to rise at an explosive rate with nobody even thinking about tackling the issue. Mark my worlds, the popultion problem will bring the downfall and governments and collapse of human civlization as we know it, and it will happen in our lifetimes, Out generation are going to see some very dramatic changes.
Very good point and one I happen to agree with. Those Americans that want oodles of kids should be taken out back and shot... or perhaps a one-child-per-couple kinda thing. Didn't China or Japan do this?
-
China does, in a very inhumane way.
They recite death on a unborn child; if one's coming as the second.
Only the first -and exclusively unique- will live to live.
As inhuman as this might be, they did install control over it.
Conclusion: It works. Human society under rules work.
Also one of the reasons Dictatorship always works.
Whereas Anarchy, against all odds; -due to being supportive of freedom in itself (debatable) -does not.
-
They recite death on a unborn child; if one's coming as the second.
I honestly would say that that is just as inhumane as raising a child in a world with inadequate resources for it to live. It was the parent's choice to get preggers in the first place after already having one.
Living by rules created by the majority is better as a whole than everybody living by their own rules.
-
They recite death on a unborn child; if one's coming as the second.
I honestly would say that that is just as inhumane as raising a child in a world with inadequate resources for it to live. It was the parent's choice to get preggers in the first place after already having one.
Living by rules created by the majority is better as a whole than everybody living by their own rules.
but you know that would never pass in modern democratic society. Especially in America where they can't even decide on health care reform without fucking everything up. For dictatorships it would be easy but for democracies and any other kind of government run by the people, it would be a nightmare trying to pass that.
If there was population control, which there should be, I think 2 kids should be the limit. There is no point to have anymore than that.
-
If there was population control, which there should be, I think 2 kids should be the limit. There is no point to have anymore than that.
Amen to your whole argument however I wanted to comment on the 2 kid limit. Eventually if everybody chose to have 2 kids, the population would still increase. You would have 4 grandkids from the original 2 parents. 1 kid limit would cut the population down over a few generations and have the population become more diverse if I'm thinking about genetics in the right way.
-
If there was population control, which there should be, I think 2 kids should be the limit. There is no point to have anymore than that.
Amen to your whole argument however I wanted to comment on the 2 kid limit. Eventually if everybody chose to have 2 kids, the population would still increase. You would have 4 grandkids from the original 2 parents. 1 kid limit would cut the population down over a few generations and have the population become more diverse if I'm thinking about genetics in the right way.
True, but you would also have to account for all of the deaths in the world. car accidents, homicides, diseases, war, and all that stuff that kills human beings. So the death toll might balance out for the extra kid or maybe even exceed the number of kids born. And plus, the limit doesn't mean you have to have 2 kids, parents might only have one. It just means you can't have any more than 2.
-
Yea, I can see that. It might also cut down on the familys that sneak in an extra kid over the 1-kid (my scenario) limit because they wanted 2.
-
There is almost no point to instigate a regime driven by population control hypothesis when the scenario is already this big and uncontrolled. When we talk about something as relative as human population, we need to look to numbers and statistics so a fundamental judgement can be passed on real evidence. Not only that; we also need to understand wether such a regime would be beneficial to each as an individual, as a country, as a certain civilization or even a whole continent for that matter.
To implement such thing in Europe would most likely provoke a revolution down the road; as it was unnecessary and uncalled for. Why? Because Europe/Europeans already automatically establish a control over it, simply by existing in dangerous places and whatnot. Same goes for America; even with couples having three kids, America --if we don't count on the immigrants-- is still fairly consistent on its population growth/death.
China used to be a massacre. Things are getting better now, but are still completely off the charts in comparison to the rest of the world. A tad less controlled, or none controlled for that matter; are Africa and India -both on the biggest population increase charts- Africa tends to remain amended due to the huge impact of Malaria and the many other diseases that lie within. India is fruited down with terrorism acts and the likes.
But; with the gigantic rate of immigration coming from this countries/continents, things become hardly controllable.
The wankers just love to make sex and have never heard of it provoking pregnancy, somehow.
-
So there's nothing wrong with this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png
There will be no shortage of those who want large families no matter any cost. They need to be stopped.
-
In times like these, we would better off being robots.
Anyone agrees with Ice Age Era IV ?
That would put us, wild beast animals, down.
-
yep. human kind is fucked. :-[
-
Now if we can only determine WHEN the end is going to be exactly then we can figure out when we can get a couple dozen credit cards and max em out :D
-
what i think about global warming is that there is no way to stop it. its nature. and quit whining about it since we are still going to die somehow somewhere. global warming can suck it.
-
So we should keep new life from coming into this world so we can live longer? I think that is the most selfish and disgusting thing I have ever heard. If you guys want population control, then I suggest you kill yourselves first. To enforce laws on people that tell them how many kids they can have is pure evil, and nothing less. I really don't think you realize what you're saying.
And just by chance there is something wrong with the current population level, then I suppose nature will take care of it.
-
So we should keep new life from coming into this world so we can live longer? I think that is the most selfish and disgusting thing I have ever heard. If you guys want population control, then I suggest you kill yourselves first. To enforce laws on people that tell them how many kids they can have is pure evil, and nothing less. I really don't think you realize what you're saying.
And just by chance there is something wrong with the current population level, then I suppose nature will take care of it.
I really don't get what you mean by your first statement... Is it your goal to have as many kids as possible as fast as possible before you die? We're talking about moderation, just because you can doesn't mean you should. We're not talking about killing kids off so that parents only have 1 or 2 kids, we're talking about prevention... condoms and other do-dads. How is it selfish to ask a couple to have maybe less than 10 kids so we as a population can maybe survive and grow enough food for ourselves? If we, and by we I mean those of us who think rationally about this subject, kill ourselves then that would drive the, for lack of better term, intelligence of the population down.
Your "god" or "nature" won't and can't take care of all your problems or our problems. We have to step in and intervene to the same degree if not more, in the opposite direction, that we would be by doing nothing at all. You and me have talked about this over MSN before and I don't really get it... how many people is too many in your mind? Are we supposed to walk on other people's heads before doing something?
-
So we should keep new life from coming into this world so we can live longer? I think that is the most selfish and disgusting thing I have ever heard. If you guys want population control, then I suggest you kill yourselves first. To enforce laws on people that tell them how many kids they can have is pure evil, and nothing less. I really don't think you realize what you're saying.
And just by chance there is something wrong with the current population level, then I suppose nature will take care of it.
how is it evil to tell parents to not have too many kids? It's not like we are going to start killing kids randomly. And population control would NOT be to make us live longer, it would be to make Human Kind live longer. Our generation will probably not even see the full effects of global warming. Telling parents to not have too many kids is a small task if it makes human kind last longer.
-
We're not talking about killing kids off so that parents only have 1 or 2 kids.
You said something like "Those Americans that want oodles of kids should be taken out back and shot... or perhaps a one-child-per-couple kinda thing". Both are good ways to curb the population, but both aren't exactly humane. What happens if one couple has 2 kids? People have kids all the time that they didn't want, some of those people simply have the kid put to death, or "cancel" it. So I guess we would be talking about either killing the parents or the kid. I'm sure people would lobby to put the kid to death because the parents are more important, though. Or, I suppose, we could tolerate it, but what kind of example would that set?
Are we supposed to walk on other people's heads before doing something?
If it gets that bad, which I doubt. Then the world would either end, or we would just start killing one another. Since I'm the type that thinks God gives you kids, thus God decides how many kids you will have. I'm more inclined towards it not happening.
how is it evil to tell parents to not have too many kids? It's not like we are going to start killing kids randomly. And population control would NOT be to make us live longer, it would be to make Human Kind live longer. Our generation will probably not even see the full effects of global warming. Telling parents to not have too many kids is a small task if it makes human kind last longer.
I don't see global warming happening. The evidence isn't good at all. Sure you see those people on the TV saying "It's going to kill us all" and "Oh my! if we don't do something we will all die". Maybe even your teachers screamed it at you in school. But it's not going to happen, and if anything is happening, then it's probably a natural event. We've only been observing these things for a short time. And since the earth is "billions of years old", well in that case we really have no clue what is natural.
What you guys are proposing is what China is doing now, or similar. I don't know much about the laws China has on the matter, but given what China is known for, I'm sure they're not good. I guess we see differently, though.
-
Both are good ways to curb the population, but both aren't exactly humane. What happens if one couple has 2 kids? People have kids all the time that they didn't want, some of those people simply have the kid put to death, or "cancel" it. So I guess we would be talking about either killing the parents or the kid. I'm sure people would lobby to put the kid to death because the parents are more important, though. Or, I suppose, we could tolerate it, but what kind of example would that set?
Obvious joke on the first one. I don't see how the 2nd one is inhumane though... It's like saying that the speed limit in your area is inhumane because it takes you longer to get to work but yet saves lives. I can tell you're starting to bend this towards abortion and that's not really the argument here. If a couple has an extra kid above whatever limit is set, the kid can be put up for adoption. However again, that's not really the argument. The argument is prevention. It's not "kill the kid when it's born cuz you already have 2", it's "don't get knocked up, you're at the limit".
Since I'm the type that thinks God gives you kids, thus God decides how many kids you will have.
Wait, so eventually if I keep having sex and getting women pregnant, I'll hit "god's limit" that he's put on me? Someone missed biology/sex-ed.
I don't see global warming happening. The evidence isn't good at all. Sure you see those people on the TV saying "It's going to kill us all" and "Oh my! if we don't do something we will all die". Maybe even your teachers screamed it at you in school. But it's not going to happen, and if anything is happening, then it's probably a natural event. We've only been observing these things for a short time. And since the earth is "billions of years old", well in that case we really have no clue what is natural.
When it wasn't forced upon me, it wasn't "taught" in school because just like religion, it can't be proven. Also, just like religion, it can only be proven when it's too late. It's not really true that we're observing things for a short time but for the sake of my argument, I'll let that one slide and say that the scale can tip both ways. You may see the arguments/evidence of global warming and say "nah... not gonna happen" yet it may go the other way and be 100x worse than what we can imagine. Why take the chance?
but given what China is known for, I'm sure they're not good
If that's not racist... I dunno what is. What IS China known for?
-
The standard of life in China is sub-par, and their form of socialism (just because it's the Communist Party doesn't mean that they have Communism) may be to blame. But Communism is NOT what is in China, and Communism in a utopia sense will never be achieved. The limit set in China was necessary for their country, and is becoming near-necessary elsewhere. I don't see any direct ties to global warming, but the subject could have drifted (I forget what was said in previous pages of this thread).
My opinion on what I've read:
Global Warming: Natural, intensified by human activity. Government intervention and carbon emission restrictions shouldn't conflict with Constitutional rights given to businesses.
Overpopulation: Again, government intervention shouldn't conflict with Constitutional rights. The population will always be rising and cities will always be growing. To cite my Sociology teacher: when cars were invented, people could get to work from farther away. Cities should get smaller, right? But, of course, they got bigger. If there was an invention that allowed you to teleport ANYWHERE to work, so you can live across the globe and go to work here, cities would STILL get larger. Overpopulation and metropolitan expansion cannot be stopped and there's no reason to restrict citizens' rights to attempt to do so.
I wanted to touch on abortion but really, this isn't the thread for that.
-
Obvious joke on the first one. I don't see how the 2nd one is inhumane though... It's like saying that the speed limit in your area is inhumane because it takes you longer to get to work but yet saves lives. I can tell you're starting to bend this towards abortion and that's not really the argument here. If a couple has an extra kid above whatever limit is set, the kid can be put up for adoption. However again, that's not really the argument. The argument is prevention. It's not "kill the kid when it's born cuz you already have 2", it's "don't get knocked up, you're at the limit".
Accidents happen, what if normal birth control methods fail in some way? And say the parents already had 2 kids. From what you're suggesting we would either cancel the pregnancy or just take the kid from its parents and give it to some other family. Based on the parents that might be easy, but some people wouldn't go along with it, and I guess we would have to arrest them for that. And then there's still the poor kid who was taken from his real family. It just doesn't sound like an ideal world.
Wait, so eventually if I keep having sex and getting women pregnant, I'll hit "god's limit" that he's put on me? Someone missed biology/sex-ed.
Well if that is the case, who knows in what way God would stop you. Maybe some how in an accident you would lose the ability to have kids. Or maybe you would be born without the ability in the first place. Or maybe some disease would kill you. I don't know, there are many ways.
The worlds population is still far from unsustainable, There are miles and miles of land that could be converted into farm land. How about a big useless city? They take up tons of room, and would produce tons of food if converted into a farm. How about all the room used up by highways, or national parks. There's still enough air for everybody, and food. I guess you could say food is lacking in some places, but that's more the fault of the location.
When it wasn't forced upon me, it wasn't "taught" in school because just like religion, it can't be proven. Also, just like religion, it can only be proven when it's too late. It's not really true that we're observing things for a short time but for the sake of my argument, I'll let that one slide and say that the scale can tip both ways. You may see the arguments/evidence of global warming and say "nah... not gonna happen" yet it may go the other way and be 100x worse than what we can imagine. Why take the chance?
The same scientist would say the world has been around for millions of years. Now I don't remember how long they say humans have been on this earth, but I'm sure it's nothing compared. We don't know if this is just a normal cycle of natural events or not. So I don't think we can say with any certainty that this is man made. I mean if we wanted to be sure, I guess we would have to stop producing carbon emissions. But, since almost everything is composed of carbon, and almost everything you burn emits carbon, it might be kinda hard.
If that's not racist... I dunno what is. What IS China known for?
It would be racist if I were talking about the people, but I wasn't. I was talking about their government. Unless that's considered racist too?
China's government is known for all kinds of things. Like at one point they were communists--if they still aren't. They control almost every aspect of their peoples lives. Like for instance "The Great Firewall of China" which blocks and takes down anything opposing the government. The government just isn't very nice there.
-
*Lots of text, will quote when spoilers are added*
I agree with your main point but not with all of the ways you are going about defending them. I disagree with what Spanky and Killaman are suggesting not because of religious beliefs, but rather political beliefs and, to a lesser degree, morals. I definitely agree that it is not right to force adoption or abortion on a family whose third child was a result of failed birth control. However, I do not believe in a God or a karma for crossing "His" limits. Back to global warming, I agree that for now, believing it is man-made is just an assumption. Again, government intervention must be in a Constitutional manner and I just don't see that being possible, and if it is it will not do much to help the cause.
Back to overpopulation :P, China's implementation of the one-child policy has helped them, but has caused problems just as major. Couples who can only have one child always prefer a son; a son continues the family name, and - so I've heard - some Chinese believe that only by being buried by a son may you get into Heaven.
-
Global Warming is not man-made. It is more like man-helped. It was going to happen eventually, humans are just speeding up the process.
and about population control. I do think that taking kids away from their families or killing them in unmoral and just not right. That would be the wrong way to go about it. The trick is to get the population to only want 2 kids. Maybe a tax incentive or something?
The problem with overpopulation is not that there is not enough room for all of the people, it is that the earth can't provide enough resources for all of the people on earth. The way I see it is either we implement population control, or further down the line the human population suffers from mass hunger and there isn't enough food and water to give to all human beings. Which will it be?
-
I do not believe in a God or a karma for crossing "His" limits.
I don't know exactly what you meant by that. But lets try not to make that sound bad. I don't know if God has set a limit. I just don't believe God will let us destroy ourselves. Whether a government imposed limit is what God intended, I don't know. But I can't see that being Gods plan. God does let bad things happen, though.
Sorry for turning this into a religious post, but it's kinda the whole influence behind my argument.
-
Man... where to start... I'm not sure but I'm feeling a little Emeril-ish tonight.
AJ have you lived in China? I haven't and thus can't comment on the quality of life they live. BOOM.
Opinions vary but I believe the BBC to be one of the finest and less-biased broadcasters there is. Their journalism and documentaries are superb. With that said, I suggest that those who would like learn a little about the sustainability of food and the inability to feed everyone on the planet currently to check out a mini-series they did called Future of Food. It opens your eyes and makes you think. BOOM.
Another fine BBC mini-series would be Earth The Climate Wars. It shows both sides of the argument and definitely showed/taught me several things that I had not thought of or heard of previously. With all this BBC praise you might think this is where I get all my information and this is the only source I trust. It isn't. I watch/listen/read many articles biased and unbiased from both sides and then form my own opinion on the matter with the information I have at hand. BOOM.
Constitutional rights is a tough issue. It's really like a new bible that is taken too far and has a lot of ideas that weren't necessarily made for nor suit our current society. I'm not a freedom hater, I think it's alright but I haven't lived in any other country so I don't really have much of an idea on how much I might appreciate it. I guess that aspect of me is a bit of my dwindling "spoiled american"? One could argue that a lot of laws take away some form of freedom that the constitution gives. If laws and government intervention helps people, it's country and humanity, is it unconstitutional? Sure. But we can't live a worry free life, some (or all, depending on the situation) have to give a little to get freedom, the finest example I can think of is our armed forces. Another thing that maybe Mr. Unconstitutional didn't think of is that your right to do what you want can affect everybody else's right to do what they want. I could give plenty of examples but I don't want to derail the thread further. Bottom line, pull your head out of your ass and think about the future. BOOM.
I guess I'm here coming up with progressive and easy ways to solve future problems and the problem I have is you're not contributing anything. It's either "unconstitutional" or "god will take care of it" or "i don't know". I would be scared as hell if I thought like that, nothing could get done.
KiLLaMaN, I love you :) You say things I forget or can't articulate but it's like you're in my head.
-
Nate, maybe you could create thread per subject instead?
- God and Religion Morals
- Global Warming Issue
- Pollution and its Effects
- Population & Population Control
- Constitutional & Politics
-
I'm gonna step out of this conversation. I don't believe like you guys at all, nor is arguing with you going to help. I guess I'll go along with whatever comes about. If any of you have read the bible you know my stand on these matters.
-
im with u delta >:(
-
lol, the Bible.
-
lol, the Bible.
Why do you even bother posting, if you're only going to post an insult? Get a life.
-
just dont say anything blueblaster he gonna get mad and never gonna post on this forums ever again so STOP it now! >:(
-
I would not have guessed that this would have turned into a bible fight :D
-
I dont think that was an Insult lol.
-
Nobody should bother doing anything, We should all just sit back, relax and let GOD take care of everything.
-
People just wanna be the ones who are right solely. By me saying "lol the Bible" in any context doesn't matter. It means absolutely nothing since its just saying a noun. Mostly, thats something thats ignored by most people.
Spanky is also itching for a bible fight.
BTW, anyone play Bible Blaster?
-
Actually in all seriousness 'GOD' will solve all the problems for us eventually, He/She/It will solve the overpopulation crisis with Mass Starvation, and will solve the Global Warming problem with extreme climate change and again Mass Starvation.
So unless mass starvations sounds like a perfectly aceptable solution to you the human population needs to take responability for its own actions and come up with a better solution!
-
Spanky is also itching for a bible fight.
That's what I've been waiting for, too. I always try to start them on DRAAT; I said "may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage" in their X-mas thread but it just died after that.
-
Spanky is also itching for a bible fight.
Nah, I'm not really. I'm not here to bash other people's opinions or beliefs. Who knows, in the end, Delta may be right. There may be freedoms that I don't agree with but I support the freedom for people to think and believe for themselves and ultimately form their own opinion. This thread is to share ideas and perhaps add a little information so people can make more informed opinions whichever way they decide to go.
-
Actually, mass starvation sound like a good idea. Maybe people will stop being stupid . . . well maybe not.
-
Actually, mass starvation sound like a good idea. Maybe people will stop being stupid . . . well maybe not.
but by then it's too late. Nothing can be done. The whole goal is to not have that happen. It looks almost impossible at this point. Human kind has doomed itself and there is no way to reverse it short of finding a new planet to live on.
-
Don't even start with new planets cuz theres always that one motherfucker that will fuck something up and then everyone is screwed.
-
I dont think that was an Insult lol.
Oh my goodness! Think you so much for telling me how I should think! I'm sure you're the most qualified Doctor on these forums. Seriously, you're attempting to tell me what I should view as an insult?
Nobody should bother doing anything, We should all just sit back, relax and let GOD take care of everything.
I'm not even going to bother with this.
People just wanna be the ones who are right solely. By me saying "lol the Bible" in any context doesn't matter. It means absolutely nothing since its just saying a noun. Mostly, thats something thats ignored by most people.
Seriously, you're attempting to diminish what you said by telling me it doesn't matter? Of course it doesn't matter to you! Now usually when someones offended, you don't tell them it doesn't matter. It tends to offend them further.
Don't even start with new planets cuz theres always that one motherfucker that will fuck something up and then everyone is screwed.
Thank you for that. I really appreciate it.
-
Dan, I think you're taking it too personal.
I won't try to stop you, though.
If it's happening, it's because God wants it to happen.
Better not stick my nose on God's business.
-
I'm not even going to bother with this.
Delta, maybe you know how I felt when I said:
This is pointless.
-
Dan, I think you're taking it too personal.
I won't try to stop you, though.
If it's happening, it's because God wants it to happen.
Better not stick my nose on God's business.
Dann, since this is kinda a personal thing for me, I don't see how I could take it any less seriously. You're right about one thing though, this is happening because God wants it to. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do things to protect ourselves. Bad things still happen, we might end up hurting ourselves with all the oil we're burning. Who knows, it might be Gods plan that we bring the full extent of the effects of global warming upon ourselves. I can't possibly know what's going to happen though. I just wish there was a better way to save this planet, other than the whole "stop using oil right now" argument. We need to find a better source of energy, I can clearly see that. Oil isn't unlimited, and we will run out one day. And if we have nothing to use by that time, then I can see a real problem.
But I'm not convinced that there is a global warming problem. There are people saying there is, mainly the main stream media. But there are also people that say there isn't. Now, who you put your trust in is up to you. Right now, though, it's like 0 degrees Fahrenheit outside, and that's pretty cold. If there is global warming, we sure could use it here. :)
I'm not even going to bother with this.
Delta, maybe you know how I felt when I said:
This is pointless.
Well, yeah I guess, but his reply was complete sarcasm.
-
im not sure where i stand on global warming, i havent done enough research really.
What else can we use to power our cars besides oil, electricity? If we use electricity it has to be made by some coal or nuclear plant somewhere that causes just as much damage as driving a car using oil. Don't get me wrong, I think we need an alternative to oil, I just don't think we should be affected in the process of getting that alternative.
this however, i have researched and the solutions been here for thousands of years, only 1 problem, its illegal... hemp.
http://www.hempowered.com/hemp-fuel.html
http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm
http://www.globalhemp.com/2005/09/hemp-seen-as-fuel-substitute.html
(you can call me a dirty hippy all you want, but truth be told, hemp isnt marijuana. Hemp has all kinds of benefits, such as fuel, energy and no more wasting trees for paper. and it regenerates)
-
(you can call me a dirty hippy all you want, but truth be told, hemp isnt marijuana. Hemp has all kinds of benefits, such as fuel, energy and no more wasting trees for paper. and it regenerates)
DIRTY HIPPY! :D
This is fine but it has the same problems as ethanol IMO. You have to grow it which would cause huge areas of farming land to be dedicated to hemp so there would be less food crop space available. Then you're talking about added pesticides and herbicides which are derived from petroleum anyway. Not to mention there's the disputed claim that ethanol production burns more fossil fuel to create than it offsets. I don't know if this is fact or not but it's something to think about.
-
I see where your coming from spanky, but I had one question, would it really take up more space than all the land we frac to place oil rigs on? not to mention the roads that the rigs have to build to get to these sites. And one major benefit that I thought, is being hemp is just a plant, you wouldnt need 'hemp rights' or anything... any 1 person could start growing and producing it for financial gain.. Unlike the oil business where you need permissions to set up a site....
but yeah, im not entirely sure how much land of hemp it would take, to produce equal to what we are in oil.
-
I see where your coming from spanky, but I had one question, would it really take up more space than all the land we frac to place oil rigs on? not to mention the roads that the rigs have to build to get to these sites.
Aren't a lot of those roads up north in Alaska and Canada? i.e. land that couldn't be farmed anyway?
but yeah, im not entirely sure how much land of hemp it would take, to produce equal to what we are in oil.
Approximately: a fuck ton. :D
-
Aren't a lot of those roads up north in Alaska and Canada? i.e. land that couldn't be farmed anyway?
Lol, the oil rigs are spread out throughout the USA, I do know that montana and north dakota there is a huge oil boom happening there.... but the downfall is, rent and housing is increased. they are renting trailers for 3 grand a month...cuz they can...food, gas everything went up... which is fine if your part of the oil boom...but if your not, heh, well might wanna get a tent or somethin.
a little research, i found this: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-08/markets/30003319_1_rigs-drilling-basins
kinda shows where the rigs are and such...