EVE Search - This is the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

This is the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
NightmareX Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2011.02.07 18:02:00 - [1] As the subject are saying, this movie is the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen. Over the course of 15 years, award-winning photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand crafted the most beautiful view of the Earth I've ever seen on the silver screen: Home is an exquisite vision of our world, full of pure blissùand terrifying scenes. Produced by Luc Besson, the movie's one hour and 33 minutes will give you goose bumps, taking you to 120 locations over 54 countries, showing the majestic nature of our planet in stark contrast with the effect of human industries and technology. You can watch the whole 1 hour and 33 mins long video right from YouTube here. Even when the article i found about it here says it's the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen, i still agree on the subject on the article there after watching the whole movie. And i hope everyone that goes into my topic here can watch this whole movie, because it really tells us on what we humans are doing with our planet. And everyone needs to know what the movie is telling us. I know the movie is a bit old (from 2009), but not everyone have seen it with English subtitle. I haven't watched it my self before today before i found it on the Gizmodo link i linked over. Greetings from NightmareX
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.07 19:31:00 - [2] It is a beautiful and stunningly photographed film. However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. And oh yes, every prediction of worldwide disaster (ice age, global warming, overpopulation, running out of oil/gas/coal/blah blah etc etc ad nauseam) has been wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but Chicken-Little spectacularly wrong in a way that makes you wonder how we ever developed the science to invent something as simple as the wheel. Now I am going afk for a while to pave my back yard just because . ________________________________________ Always choose the lesser of two weevils!
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2011.02.07 20:05:00 - [3] Originally by: Jno Aubrey it will be here long after we are gone. Of course. But will we be able to get into space first? Or kill ourself. What we are doing is not really that good. I am not talking about ice ages or such, but other things we do. Suddenly nuclear war fir instance (tho its more far fetched then it once used to be now a days). Not hear of this movie, gonna give it a spin now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Rawr Cristina Caldari Sleeping Fury	Posted - 2011.02.07 21:02:00 - [4] Don't know if I agree with it or not, but I watched the whole hour and a bit of it because the visuals were simply stunning
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2011.02.07 21:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Jno Aubrey However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. The planet will still be there probably for billions of years after we are gone but how much damage will we have done? how much rain forest will be left? how long will it take for the seas to recover or for global biodiversity to reach the same levels it had before we started our rampage in the 18th century? It could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for Earth to recover.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.07 21:46:00 - [6] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 07/02/2011 21:48:41 Originally by: Lady Skank Originally by: Jno Aubrey However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. The planet will still be there probably for billions of years after we are gone but how much damage will we have done? how much rain forest will be left? how long will it take for the seas to recover or for global biodiversity to reach the same levels it had before we started our rampage in the 18th century? It could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for Earth to recover. I could not have pointed out the error of the above quote better. When I hear neo-cons say stuff like that it makes me think how much of a parasite we really are. EDIT: spelling and thanking NightmareX for the links. I have something to occupy me during laundry time. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.07 21:59:00 - [7] Originally by: Lady Skank Originally by: Jno Aubrey However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. The planet will still be there probably for billions of years after we are gone but how much damage will we have done? how much rain forest will be left? how long will it take for the seas to recover or for global biodiversity to reach the same levels it had before we started our rampage in the 18th century? It could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for Earth to recover. To recover from what? For what? To what end? The idea that (for example) the cute little beaver and his dam are a part of nature but man and his works are somehow outside of nature is perverse and just wrong. Y'alls go hug a tree now. See if it hugs you back! ________________________________________ Always choose the lesser of two weevils!
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.07 22:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Jno Aubrey To recover from what? For what? To what end? The idea that (for example) the cute little beaver and his dam are a part of nature but man and his works are somehow outside of nature is perverse and just wrong. Y'alls go hug a tree now. See if it hugs you back! To think that man, in his massively over populated state, has no negative effect on its ecosystem shows that you do not understand science. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2011.02.07 22:49:00 - [9] What a piece of crap ... Full of computer-generated imagery and dumb american-centric narrative ("New York, the world's first megalopolis" ... haha). How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
NightmareX Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2011.02.07 22:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Pan Crastus What a piece of crap ... Full of computer-generated imagery and dumb american-centric narrative ("New York, the world's first megalopolis" ... haha). Nice troll. Maybe you should watch the movie before you make you're conclusions?

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.02.07 23:31:00 - [11] Originally by: Slade Trillgon To think that man, in his massively over populated state, has no negative effect on its ecosystem shows that you do not understand science. Depends on the viewpoint, actually. Used at its most efficient rate for human survival (note that I said "survival", not "prosperity"), given our current level of technology, the planet could easily support one order of magnitude or even two orders of magnitude more people. Think bootstrapping massive scale renewable energy collection (solar sats in orbit, massive hydro and wind investments and so on and so forth), renouncing consumerism and unhealthy fears about genetic engineering and other such techniques, doing only what's necessary as opposed to what's desirable and so on and so forth... and we could even extend beyond the limits of this planet (albeit slowly, given the current technological level). However, that would involve humans behaving more like ants or other eusocial insects rather than the closer-to-reality scavenger/predator mix behaviour, which has an infinitesimally small chance of ever happening IMO. Used at its most destructive rate (pretty much almost what we're already//still doing), and with people burdened with massive phobias, we're slowly heading towards a future almost inevitable decline (which we might be able to mostly postpone for a few generations). Either way, "the planet" does not "care" if humanity thrives or shrivels, and neither does it "care" whether we conserve and improve or completely destroy the current ecosystem... life always finds a way, even if that way is something yucky like all-consuming bacteria or giant jellyfish. Only humans care about that. We're not the first dominant species (although we're almost completely certain we're the first sapient one), and if history is a good indicator (it usually is), we might not even be the last one (although we could be the only sapient one to ever develop on the planet). _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.08 00:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Akita T Depends on the viewpoint, actually. Used at its most efficient rate for human survival (note that I said "survival", not "prosperity"), given our current level of technology, the planet could easily support one order of magnitude or even two orders of magnitude more people. Think bootstrapping massive scale renewable energy collection (solar sats in orbit, massive hydro and wind investments and so on and so forth), renouncing consumerism and unhealthy fears about genetic engineering and other such techniques, doing only what's necessary as opposed to what's desirable and so on and so forth... and we could even extend beyond the limits of this planet (albeit slowly, given the current technological level). However, that would involve humans behaving more like ants or other eusocial insects rather than the closer-to-reality scavenger/predator mix behaviour, which has an infinitesimally small chance of ever happening IMO. Used at its most destructive rate (pretty much almost what we're already//still doing), and with people burdened with massive phobias, we're slowly heading towards a future almost inevitable decline (which we might be able to mostly postpone for a few generations). Either way, "the planet" does not "care" if humanity thrives or shrivels, and neither does it "care" whether we conserve and improve or completely destroy the current ecosystem... life always finds a way, even if that way is something yucky like all-consuming bacteria or giant jellyfish. Only humans care about that. We're not the first dominant species (although we're almost completely certain we're the first sapient one), and if history is a good indicator (it usually is), we might not even be the last one (although we could be the only sapient one to ever develop on the planet). Most definitely. I was speaking of negative impact as it has to do with man's existence at current levels and how our careless actions can negatively effect our futures in foreseen and unforeseen ways, and yes man will probably live a long and dirty existence for some time to come. As for the earth caring, I never implied that and anyone that wants to speak of the earth anthropomorphically should get their head checked. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2011.02.08 01:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Lady Skank Originally by: Jno Aubrey However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. The planet will still be there probably for billions of years after we are gone but how much damage will we have done? how much rain forest will be left? how long will it take for the seas to recover or for global biodiversity to reach the same levels it had before we started our rampage in the 18th century? It could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for Earth to recover. To recover from what? For what? To what end? The idea that (for example) the cute little beaver and his dam are a part of nature but man and his works are somehow outside of nature is perverse and just wrong. Y'alls go hug a tree now. See if it hugs you back! I cannot understand why you don't see the damage man kind has done over the last 150 years, we have flattened mountains and then spilled the toxic by products of mining into the water table. Millions of acres of rain forest have been torn down and the remaining forest has been polluted with entire lakes of waste crude oil metres deep leaking dangerous chemicals into the environment. Massive areas the size of a US state are being torn up so oil can be extracted from the sand underneath the top soil and again spilling toxic waste into the region causing fish to grow tumours and prematurely die. The use of coal has spouted CO2 and ash and poisons for over a hundred years ever since the industrial revolution causing lethal smogs and slowly changing the composition of the atmosphere and the pH balance of the seas and coal powered economies are still growing. The African droughts in the 1980s are a easily visible result of the damage atmospheric pollution can cause, contamination in the upper atmosphere refracted sunlight and actually moved the monsoons away from the regions they would normally have precipitated on, the suffering of the humans was the focus of the media but the environment was devastated to with animals dying from lack of water and migration routes changed for the first time since the ice age and man caused it all. TL;DR We have ****ed up our planet in so many ways and as for hugging trees a tree has as much right to be here as we do.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 02:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Lady Skank I cannot understand why you don't see the damage man kind has done over the last 150 years, we have flattened mountains and then spilled the toxic by products of mining into the water table. Millions of acres of rain forest have been torn down and the remaining forest has been polluted with entire lakes of waste crude oil metres deep leaking dangerous chemicals into the environment. Massive areas the size of a US state are being torn up so oil can be extracted from the sand underneath the top soil and again spilling toxic waste into the region causing fish to grow tumours and prematurely die. The use of coal has spouted CO2 and ash and poisons for over a hundred years ever since the industrial revolution causing lethal smogs and slowly changing the composition of the atmosphere and the pH balance of the seas and coal powered economies are still growing. The African droughts in the 1980s are a easily visible result of the damage atmospheric pollution can cause, contamination in the upper atmosphere refracted sunlight and actually moved the monsoons away from the regions they would normally have precipitated on, the suffering of the humans was the focus of the media but the environment was devastated to with animals dying from lack of water and migration routes changed for the first time since the ice age and man caused it all. TL;DR We have ***ed up our planet in so many ways and as for hugging trees a tree has as much right to be here as we do. Sure we have changed the planet in many ways. But it is not all bad, not even MOSTLY bad. In fact, I would propose that the benefits of our activity far outweigh the "damage" done, at least in the developed world. Much of the less-developed world has a lot of work ahead of it. People who want us to clean up the planet and go back to nature usually don't understand just how dirty, nasty, and dangerous nature in the raw really is. There is no idea of cost-benefit. To the environmentalist who is ruled by his emotions, any benefit no matter how miniscule justifies any cost, no matter how outrageous. Oh, and trees don't have rights. Rights are a man-made concept and sane people don't apply them to vegetation. I killed a ficus through neglect last month and the authorities have yet to arraign me on charges of negligent vegicide. ________________________________________ Always choose the lesser of two weevils!*
Jon Taggart	Posted - 2011.02.08 03:37:00 - [15] Regrettably I am unable to contribute anything of value to the discussion, but I do absolutely love George Carlin's take on the subject.
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:25:00 - [16] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Lady Skank Originally by: Jno Aubrey However, I can say without fear of error that the planet does not give a rat's left buttock what we humans do to it; it will be here long after we are gone. The planet will still be there probably for billions of years after we are gone but how much damage will we have done? how much rain forest will be left? how long will it take for the seas to recover or for global biodiversity to reach the same levels it had before we started our rampage in the 18th century? It could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for Earth to recover. To recover from what? For what? To what end? The idea that (for example) the cute little beaver and his dam are a part of nature but man and his works are somehow outside of nature is perverse and just wrong. Y'alls go hug a tree now. See if it hugs you back! OK, let's look at this from a purely selfish view: one which looks at our own self interest. It has taken millions of years to create the oil reserves that we have become so dependent upon. Off the top of my head, I think the earth originally had 6 trillion barrels of oil. Unfortunately, only half of this is "economically" recoverable. To date, we have used over half of the "economically recoverable" portion. We now have 1.3 trillion barrels of oil left. If we continue to burn oil as we do today, oil will get harder (and more expensive) to acquire. Thus everything that is produced from oil will become more expensive. Plastics, gasoline and (perhaps the most important) fertilizer. Did you know that the only reason why we can enjoy cheap food is because of fertilizer? Without petroleum based fertilizers, plants will sap nutrients from the soil. Eventually, when those nutrients are gone (or rather, become scarce), crops will fail. While we are on the topic of oil, because we burn so much of it, we release vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - influencing global climate change. Global climate change increases the amount of energy in our oceans, which are the primary driver behind powerful hurricanes. Due to climate change, we are experiencing stronger hurricanes with increasing frequency. These hurricanes cost billions of dollars in damages which have to be paid by somebody (usually the government and by extension the tax payers). Lumber companies are clear cutting old growth forests faster than they can grow back. Once these forests are gone, soil erosion occurs, ruining the fertility of the land. Furthermore, old growth forests are biologically diverse - but the forests that are planted elsewhere to "replace" them are monocultures - incapable of supporting an ecology. Monocultures lack biodiversity and sap too much of the same nutrients from the soil - thus the nutrients are removed faster than they can be replaced. This further reduces the quality of the soil - making it harder and harder to use the land for agricultural purposes. Helium: although it is the second most prevalent element in the universe, it is actually very rare on earth. The natural concentration in the earth's crust is 8 parts per BILLION (with a "b"). Thus, even though 3000 metric tons are created every year via radioactive decay of naturally occuring minerals in the Earth's crust, helium is considered a non-renewable resource. At our current rate of consumption we will run out of helium in 25-30 years. Is that enough reason to care? Of course we could simply continue consuming the vast quantity of resources that we have today and leave our fate to chance and hope that alternatives will be found. And if alternatives can't be found and we have not yet gained the capability to exploit extraterrestrial resources, it will be too late. Human civilization as we know it will cease and all life that we know of will eventually go extinct - either by man made causes or natural. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Jno Aubrey To the environmentalist who is ruled by his emotions. And there I was thinking that the consumptionist was the only one ruled by their emotions Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:01:00 - [18] There is the past several decades been a consistent pattern of rising temperatures. 2010 had record heat waves, floods, storms, snow blizzards. This has dramatically affected food production causing currently record food prices. And oil prices are high at the moment as well. The political intransigience and inertia of human affairs mean that paradigm shifts are like running into a brick wall: Change is often only done against established ways of doings things when a crisis happens. So it's not about directly about humans reacting to the climate change they cause its about humans reacting to crisis paradigm shifts due to humans initial inflexibility about having to deal with a requirement to changing their value systems of material consumption and behaviour. Earth is a very big place with a huge amount of people on it and those who in countries who trade with other all over the globe will be affected economically by climate change if even if it does not affect them but a trading partner. The hard service of flesh will carry man through war, famine, economic strife. If the house, built out of material consumption, is knocked down because of these types of calamities man will press flesh to tools to rebuild. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
yani dumyat Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:31:00 - [19] Edited by: yani dumyat on 08/02/2011 12:38:58 Originally by: Jno Aubrey People who want us to clean up the planet and go back to nature usually don't understand just how dirty, nasty, and dangerous nature in the raw really is. There is no idea of cost-benefit. Why should people who want to clean up the planet want to go and live in the woods? We live on the scabby crust of a molten blob of metal that has a nasty habit of wiping out most of its inhabitants every now and again, going back to live in the trees is the equivalent of saying 'lets roll over and die next time there's an extinction event'. Cleaning up the planet while sustaining a large population requires a high level of technology, things like in vitro meat, GM crops, hydrogen fuel cell cars, 3d printers and other cradle to cradle manufacturing are what's required to see us safely in to the future. Want to talk about cost-benefit? The cost of not cleaning up our act is potential extinction for the human race, the benefit is that we get to be lard arses driving SUV's and eating huge quantities of meat. The cost of cleaning up our planet is changing our patterns of consumption slightly and the benefit is that we give future generations a better chance of survival. If you weren't trolling and honestly believe that environmentalism has no cost-benefit then just wow, I don't even know what to say. For survival of the human race we will almost certainly have to leave this planet at some point. Nature seems to favour fusion powered self sustaining ecosystems as the basis for supporting life, until the day we can build such a thing for ourselves we'd better take care of the only one we've got.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:14:00 - [20] Originally by: yani dumyat Want to talk about cost-benefit? The cost of not cleaning up our act is potential extinction for the human race, the benefit is that we get to be lard arses driving SUV's and eating huge quantities of meat. The cost of cleaning up our planet is changing our patterns of consumption slightly and the benefit is that we give future generations a better chance of survival. If you weren't trolling and honestly believe that environmentalism has no cost-benefit then just wow, I don't even know what to say. My point was that your typical enviro type does not care how much it costs to gain even the tinyest benefit, or even a non-existent "benefit" that nevertheless makes him feel good about himself. Example: after the Gulf oil spill, the US has stopped offshore drilling to protect the environment. Good idea right? Well, um, it seems that the vast majority of oil that is spilled comes from oil tanker incidents. And what is the result of stopping offshore drilling? That's right - we are importing more oil using oil tankers and thus have increased the probability of future spills! Please don't misunderstand me - I want to live in a clean, healthy, green, pleasant environment myself. Here in the USA we have had the luxury of being wealthy enough to throw money at the environment to reduce emissions, improve efficiencies, etc. That is beginning to change, and in the wrong direction, as our economy melts down. The likely effect of this in the long term will be a lower priority to environmental concerns. Wait for it. Societies have to be able to look beyond the day-to-day scramble for survival before they can afford to consider the environment around them. When your one and only priority is putting food on the table you are not going to care about whether some snail in your backyard is the last of its species. My belief is that the ultimate answer is to increase wealth and living conditions across the entire planet so that we can all afford to deal with these things. And the best way to do that is through capitalism, economic freedom, personal freedom, and private enterprise. Its a proven system and while it has many flaws its still better than anything else we've tried. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.

Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:25:00 - [21] Originally by: Slade Trillgon Originally by: Jno Aubrey To the environmentalist who is ruled by his emotions. And there I was thinking that the consumptionist was the only one ruled by their emotions Slade One does not preclude the other. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Jno Aubrey My point was that your typical enviro type does not care how much it costs to gain even the tinyest benefit, or even a non-existent "benefit" that nevertheless makes him feel good about himself. Example: after the Gulf oil spill, the US has stopped offshore drilling to protect the environment. Good idea right? Well, um, it seems that the vast majority of oil that is spilled comes from oil tanker incidents. And what is the result of stopping offshore drilling? That's right - we are importing more oil using oil tankers and thus have increased the probability of future spills! Please don't misunderstand me - I want to live in a clean, healthy, green, pleasant environment myself. Here in the USA we have had the luxury of being wealthy enough to throw money at the environment to reduce emissions, improve efficiencies, etc. That is beginning to change, and in the wrong direction, as our economy melts down. The likely effect of this in the long term will be a lower priority to environmental concerns. Wait for it. Societies have to be able to look beyond the day-to-day scramble for survival before they can afford to consider the environment around them. When your one and only priority is putting food on the table you are not going to care about whether some snail in your backyard is the last of its species. My belief is that the ultimate answer is to increase wealth and living conditions across the entire planet so that we can all afford to deal with these things. And the best way to do that is through capitalism, economic freedom, personal freedom, and private enterprise. Its a proven system and while it has many flaws its still better than anything else we've tried. Yes, unfettered and unregulated development worked in the past to keep the planet green and a healthy place for humans to exist. You are kidding me right? Have you heard of the Great American Dust Bowl? A clear, simple and relatively current example of how unregulated human action can utterly destroy their environment in a very short time. If it was not for environmentalists then many of the regulations today would not exists and you would have had much of the US turned into uninhabitable land. Do you think that the local individual should be able to dig unnatural water flows from river beads to make it easier to mine? Do you think that people should be able to kill as many of a type of animal they want without worrying about the animals existence and their effect on the ecosystem? Do you think that every industrialist should be allowed to dump their waste directly into the local river bed? If you answered no to these then I ask what is your proposal to stop and/or punish those individuals that put their financial well being above those that live around their production? Or should said people just have to buck up and suffer the consequences of other peoples actions? Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:49:00 - [23] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 08/02/2011 13:55:13 Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Slade Trillgon Originally by: Jno Aubrey To the environmentalist who is ruled by his emotions. And there I was thinking that the consumptionist was the only one ruled by their emotions Slade One does not preclude the other. Denial is a state fueled by fear. It'll all sort itself out in the future water wars. The US will annex Canada, Canada will offer no resistance as it's seen the carnage between China and Russia already when China made its move for Siberia. Oh yeah and Germany will absorb Sweden as the swedes vote to disolve the own nation. Also Known As
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:50:00 - [24] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Slade Trillgon Originally by: Jno Aubrey To the environmentalist who is ruled by his emotions. And there I was thinking that the consumptionist was the only one ruled by their emotions Slade One does not preclude the other. Well duh! That was the point of my eye roll. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:46:00 - [25] Originally by: Slade Trillgon Yes, unfettered and unregulated development worked in the past to keep the planet green and a healthy place for humans to exist. You are kidding me right? Have you heard of the Great American Dust Bowl? A clear, simple and relatively current example of how unregulated human action can utterly destroy their environment in a very short time. The dust bowl was caused by poor farming techniques (no crop rotation, fallow fields, etc) combined with an historic drought. Farming technology has improved drastically (thank you, private enterprise!) and we no longer have that problem in developed countries - however in the third world this is an ongoing problem. Improved third-world economies will result in their being able to afford to use more advanced techniques. Originally by: Slade Trillgon If it was not for environmentalists then many of the regulations today would not exists and you would have had much of the US turned into uninhabitable land. I disagree with you here. You seem to believe that people, unregulated, will naturally foul their own back yards. I think that by and large most people will look for ways to improve their surroundings and that overbearing regulation just slows things down. Originally by: Slade Trillgon Do you think that the local individual should be able to dig unnatural water flows from river beads to make it easier to mine? It depends on too many factors to give a single answer. One must consider the cost, the benefit, and the ownership rights involved. Originally by: Slade Trillgon Do you think that people should be able to kill as many of a type of animal they want without worrying about the animals existence and their effect on the ecosystem? If I own the property, then I should be able to control who or what is present on my property. That doesn't mean I have the right to go on YOUR property and kill your fuzzy little critters. Nor may I ignore laws regarding animal cruelty, the discharge of firearms in city limits, etc. Originally by: Slade Trillgon Do you think that every industrialist should be allowed to dump their waste directly into the local river bed? Of course not, I am not advocating anarchy. Originally by: Slade Trillgon If you answered no to these then I ask what is your proposal to stop and/or punish those individuals that put their financial well being above those that live around their production? Or should said people just have to buck up and suffer the consequences of other peoples actions? Everyone acts in his own self interest, and punishing someone for doing so is lunacy (or communism - same thing). I put my financial (and general) well-being above yours because I don't know you from Adam - does that make me evil? Should I criticize my neighbor because he puts the welfare of his 3-year-old son above mine? We already have umpteen-bazillion laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives and livelihoods. We need less, not more. Please note that less <> none. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2011.02.08 17:00:00 - [26] Originally by: Jno Aubrey ...Everyone acts in his own self interest, and punishing someone for doing so is lunacy (or communism - same thing). I put my financial (and general) well-being above yours because I don't know you from Adam - does that make me evil? Should I criticize my neighbor because he puts the welfare of his 3-year-old son above mine? We already have umpteen-bazillion laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives and livelihoods. We need less, not more. Please note that less <> none. No, it's called law and order, it's been around since the dawn of civilization where the society put the good of the many before the good of the few and punished overly self-invested members of the collective. Nothing you can pin on communism and where capitalism has failed, letting egomanics run amock unchecked. Do refrain from using petty micro examples to illustrate something on a macro level where this has little bearing. Also Known As
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 20:35:00 - [27] Originally by: Danton Marcellus No, it's called law and order, it's been around since the dawn of civilization where the society put the good of the many before the good of the few and punished overly self-invested members of the collective. Nothing you can pin on communism and where capitalism has failed, letting egomanics run amock unchecked. Do refrain from using petty micro examples to illustrate something on a macro level where this has little bearing.[/quote Do refrain from being deliberately dense. Communism has failed every time it has been tried. I realize that doesn't stop people from trying but humans have a sad propensity to 1) forget the past and 2) believe that if only THEY were in charge we'd get it right this time. It is oh so easy to create tyranny under the doctrine of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." All very well until its YOU who happen to be one of the few. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2011.02.08 21:46:00 - [28] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Danton Marcellus No, it's called law and order, it's been around since the dawn of civilization where the society put the good of the many before the good of the few and punished overly self-invested members of the collective. Nothing you can pin on communism and where capitalism has failed, letting egomanics run amock unchecked. Do refrain from using petty micro examples to illustrate something on a macro level where this has little bearing.[/quote Do refrain from being deliberately dense. Communism has failed every time it has been tried. I realize that doesn't stop people from trying but humans have a sad propensity to 1) forget the past and 2) believe that if only THEY were in charge we'd get it right this time. It is oh so easy to create tyranny under the doctrine of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." All very well until its YOU who happen to be one of the few. Most people defer from acting on their most base of instincts just fine in the interest of the greater good. Also Known As
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 22:37:00 - [29] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Most people defer from acting on their most base of instincts just fine in the interest of the greater good. That was kinda my point in the first place . . . __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2011.02.08 23:22:00 - [30] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Danton Marcellus Most people defer from acting on their most base of instincts just fine in the interest of the greater good. That was kinda my point in the first place . . . Where? Also Known As



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.