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 [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.07 19:31:00 - [1] 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!
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.07 21:59:00 - [2] 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!
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 02:54:00 - [3] 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!*
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:14:00 - [4] 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 - [5] 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.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:46:00 - [6] 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.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 20:35:00 - [7] 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.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.08 22:37:00 - [8] 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.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 13:47:00 - [9] Slade that's a big challenge - what to eliminate? There is so much. Forgive me if I take a US-centric view since I am most familiar with the burden of law in this country. Just for starters, I'd eliminate the endangered species act - at least any part of it that infringes on personal property rights. Allow evolution to take its course. I would cut funding for the EPA by 50% immediately. That agency is out of control. Example: EPA has decided that because milk contains oil, that dairy farmers must now create a plan to deal with milk spills, build containment facilities, and train "first responders" in the event of such a spill. Since you mentioned it, I would lift the ban on DDT for use in non-food agriculture and especially for control of mosquitos in developing countries. More people have died because of the DDT ban (1-2 million a year from malaria transmitted by mosquitos) than were killed by ****** in WWII. I would get rid of the minimum wage laws that kill jobs. I would eliminate the new healthcare act and also get rid of any law that prevents insurance companies from selling policies across state lines in order to stop stifling competition while reforming tort laws to that doctors don't have to pay half their salaries for malpractice insurance. Bring the US into line with the rest of the world, where the loser in a court battle has to pay the costs. I would encourage more offshore drilling for oil, eliminate all barriers to fracing for natural gas, open up ANWR for oil drilling, and get rid of all the red tape that has stopped this country from building any new oil refineries for years. I would allow, nay encourage, more clean-coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to be built. That's for starters. PS. No I am not a hunter - never cared for it. But the hunters I know are mostly avid conservationists and have a much better appreciation for the realities of animal husbandry than your average bureaucrat. Fake edit: LOL at word filter eliminating the name of former German Chancellor. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:42:00 - [10] Originally by: Wendat Huron Originally by: Vogue If push comes to shove the USA will exploit the oil reserves in Alaska. I think the USA is keeping this in reserve when peak oil is realised and affects economic market sentiment. The environmental foot print of drilling would be negligible. Did you miss that memo? Oil is not the future commodity, rare metals are and China is monopolizing the market while the US still crusade for oil. Oil is the engine of our economy and will be until we find a cost-effective alternative. Its hard to mine for rare earth elements (or anything else for that matter) if you cannot produce or afford the power to do it. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.

Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:05:00 - [11] Originally by: Wendat Huron Oil can be replaced today, it's a matter of choice not to by those who benefit from the current system. Oil going missing will be a non-issue for the sake of fuel. For producing plastics on the other hand... What an interesting point of view. Perhaps you could tell us how we can replace oil today? Seriously, the entire planet is waiting with baited breath on your revelation. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:06:00 - [12] Originally by: Wendat Huron Stop being an idiot, you know full well electricity can and will replace oil but the political will behind it is lacking. There is currently (no pun intended) no viable way to replace oil with electricity. Electric-powered trucks to move goods from San Francisco to Kansas City? Electric trains to haul from coast to coast? Electric freighter ships? Commercial / freight / military aircraft? Let me guess - you live in Europe and have no clue of the logistics and infrastructure issues of a very BIG country? These things will all come to pass eventually, but not in my lifetime. Biofuels are not the answer - look what happened to food prices and availability when we started using corn for fuel instead of food. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 18:09:00 - [13] Originally by: Wendat Huron There is currently non because... Because current technologies are not economically feasible. Because we don't have the electrical infrastructure to deliver it to where it is needed even if it were available. Because oil, coal, and natural gas are cheaper, more efficient, more available, more transportable. Believe me, if i could buy one of these at Wal-Mart I'd be first in line! __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:07:00 - [14] Originally by: Wendat Huron Because the political will who is in bed with big corporations won't make it so. Simple as. Instead of moving ahead to the next step we know is there they're hellbent on depleting the existing finite resources. It's not them waking up tomorrow to find out a new and interesting technique to do something, if only we had some oil left to do it with... I don't deny that there is truth in what you say, but it is more complicated than that. We simply don't have an effective replacement for oil today, and whether that is caused by "vested interests" suppressing research, not enough money invested in research, or just that we've hit a brick wall, the fact remains that we need oil for the forseeable future. You may complain about corporations protecting their profits and not taking the long term view, but the answer surely is not government. Governments (well, democratic ones at least) do NOT take a long-term view. Here in the US your typical politician has a view that lasts 2, 4, or 6 years depending on which office he holds. I expect that the solution to the problem will come from private industry, and most likely the energy sector where the incentive to do so, i.e. the profit motive, is the greatest. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:14:00 - [15] Originally by: Vogue The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Thomas Sowell 'Democracies' are poor at handling paradigm shifts. The global financial crisis was one of them. It is even more scary when some countries don't recalibrate after such shocks. I love that quote (and how true it is). Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man - I would recommend any of his writings on economics along with anything written by his friend and peer, Walter Williams. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.11 14:09:00 - [16] Originally by: digitalwanderer We would be much more advanced if military budgets weren't as large as they are, and invested some that money into research projects that are lagging behind mainly due to lack of funding...The private sector can't do that on it's own, that much is for sure,not when it comes to the major projects like fusion reactors, which there's some test facilities here and there,but at the current pace,we might have the first commercial fusion reactor up and running by 2040,Meaning we practically have to run out of oil, pollute the environment even more and deplete it's resources further still, before it comes online,and that's just the first one, as many more of them are needed on a worldwide scale.... I would love to see the USA cut back its military budget and let the rest of the planet spend its own money for its own defense. Then we'd see how their precious social programs fare under the pressure of maintaining a beefed-up standing military. Its kindof a chicken-egg thing though - we need to be self-sufficient in energy before that would be a viable policy. Originally by: digitalwanderer We're screwed... Probably, but things WILL sort themselves out one way or another. Preferably without too much violence. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.11 19:29:00 - [17] Originally by: digitalwanderer War and military doesn't solve all the problems like you think it does basically.... I hope you're not referring to me . . . War solves plenty of problems, but our need for energy is not one of them. We are going out of our way to prevent the US from becoming self-sufficient in oil, which perpetuates the need to have a military presence in the middle east and spend billions upon billions in the process. It will take a long time to get there. Oil wells and platforms, refineries, pipelines, and nuclear reactors don't build themselves overnight. In our current regulatory and political environment it is actually not possible, and that is what needs to be addressed first. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.12 01:45:00 - [18] Originally by: Adunh Slavy Koyaanisqatsi Gesundheit __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.12 12:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Redflare Where is your MATH!? You want math? Take the name REDFLARE and transpose letters to numbers: 18 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 12 + 1 + 18 + 5 = 69 We have now determined that your IQ is 69. There are other connotations to this result I will not go in to. Turning to the established science of Numerology, we now add 6+9 to get 15, then add 1+5 to get 6. We have now determined the value of your post as 6 on a scale of 100. Personally I feel that is generous. I hope this satisfies your need for scientific precision. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.

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.