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

Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.09 03:04:00 - [31] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. As can be seen in this extremely critical view of the Dust Bowl narrative or in this more liberal narrative put forth here, you will find nothing about private enterprise being responsible for the return of the farm lands after the droughts of the 30's. Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. True, most people will not foul their backyards, but most industrialists do not run their operations in their backyards. They run them in the backyards of the poorest people or down stream of their main residences. Originally by: Jno Aubrey It depends on too many factors to give a single answer. One must consider the cost, the benefit, and the ownership rights involved. Do not forget the potential effects on the individuals that live down river and the rights of those that make a living off of fishing species that can be negatively effected by large river deviations. Add in the fact that most large running water systems fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game, so ownership rights are typically moot points anyway. Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. You do not sound like a hunter. By the way this "hippy tree hugger" is an avid hunter. Most hunting occurs on land owned by the State and Federal government. Yes, hunting regulations still exist on private property but there are, in some States, farmer hunting licensees that give farmers a little more leverage to deal with troublesome critters. As the above is off the topic of my original post as most species that have been hunted or fished to extinction was done so on non-private land and fisheries. Originally by: Slade Trillgon Do you think that every industrialist should be allowed to dump their waste directly into the local river bed? Originally by: Jno Aubrey Of course not, I am not advocating anarchy. Well guess what they did for decades before the government forced them to stop? /redundant question Also, lets not forget the near destructive effect the pesticide DDT had on the birds of the world. Not that I really care about the species more then any other, but I am sure the nationalists out there might, but the Bald Eagle was saved by regulations that eliminated the use of DDT and a few other nasty pesticides. Regulations that are, in the grand scheme of things, new. Would you say that it is fine now to take those regulations off of the books? cont... :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.09 03:06:00 - [32] 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. First off I never called you evil and if I remember correctly it was you the resorted to passive aggressive name calling in the beginning. So lets just say that my stance is one that circles around no religious stance on good and evil. I do believe that man has a responsibility to preserve as much of the world for as long as possible for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with good and evil. So as I dance this dance with you we have come back to the same ending I come to when I have this discussion with others. You are willing to say that some regulation is needed, so please start listing the regulations that should be eliminated and, considering that these regulations typically come from some perceived wrong, what should the punishments be if one then wrongs someone else in their return to doing things as they were done in the past. One of the main problems that is always at the forefront of society is how do apply justice equally no matter the size of the wallets involved. In the US the "ruling class" (if we want to bring "class" into it) do not really want to suffer the consequences of their actions when a court of law finds them guilty. The "Old money" in this country created a system of regulation and fines that saves their wallets money in the end when they screw up, as opposed to the punishments they would incur if we operated under Common Law and judged each case on its merits. Unfortunately, your ilk typically also have a tremendous distaste for lawyers and their theoretical pracice Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 11:56:00 - [33] Edited by: Vogue on 09/02/2011 12:01:46 Look at the old USSR for examples of industrial environmental fallout that were caused by the lack of oversight of an environmental protection agency. There were many causes of toxic waste causing damage. Western economies have lost most of their old metal bashing heavy industries to economies such as China who have low costs. So in turn we have exported carbon emissions to these types of countries. Though the USA has many high tech industries it is worth noting that they have an overall trade surplus with agriculture. This is strategic so the USA is self reliant for food products. U.S. Agricultural Trade Totals For November 2010 Exports: $12,917,824,252.00 Imports: $7,101,063,241.00 Trade Balance: $5,816,761,011.00 In the future with food shortages, energy shortages, water shortages the countries that are self sufficient in these areas will ride the economic shocks from this far better. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 13:47:00 - [34] 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.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:01:00 - [35] 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. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:32:00 - [36] 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. Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:42:00 - [37] 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.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:56:00 - [38] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. 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... Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:05:00 - [39] 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.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:16:00 - [40] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. Stop being an idiot, you know full well electricity can and will replace oil but the political will behind it is lacking. Delenda est achura.

Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:16:00 - [41] Oil cannot be replaced easily though it is itself an organic derivative - biofuel. Likewise various agricultural crops can replace oil. But the environmental effect required of huge scale agricultural bio-fuel crop production is massive. There is the food v fuel issue, soil erosion, water needs. But it could help the third world out of poverty (not that western strategic thinkers give a hoot about this). Chart of carbon emissions for bio-fuels and extracted ready to go fuels .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:06:00 - [42] 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.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:43:00 - [43] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. There is currently non because... Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 18:09:00 - [44] 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.
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.10 00:06:00 - [45] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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! So techniques like solar panel farms,wind turbines,geo thermal energy,or water turbines aren't available? How about modernized coal power plants that inject the carbon dioxide emissions back under the earth,wich is where they come from initially...The technology is there for it.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.10 01:56:00 - [46] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 10/02/2011 02:09:21 Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. Just be aware that every species that we lose, the advancement of science is impeded that much more. Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. I do not disagree with this Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. What is sad is that proper shelters would have eliminated most of those deaths without toxic chemicals. Originally by:** Jno Aubrey I would get rid of the minimum wage laws that kill jobs. It would be interesting to see how the US economy reacts when the buying power of a large portion of the countries spenders is removed. Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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 am for anything that supports doctors. I will sway away from the health-care topic as I am too vested in it and have not formed my opinions on what I believe the changes to be. However, I will say that I do get fed up with people driving up the cost of my necessary health-care because they are too lazy and self involved to actually give a rats ass about their own health, which blows my mind. The ironic part with this is that I dedicate myself to trying to help as many unhealthy people reverse their behaviors Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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 support this on the condition that the companies are held liable for any and all malfeasance. Give the journalists something to work on. Originally by: Jno Aubrey I would allow, nay encourage, more clean-coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to be built. I agree. Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. Some are also the worst offenders of poaching laws. Unbiased reason is always good to have when looking to regulate or deregulate. EDIT: grammar and punctuation Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.10 02:42:00 - [47] I think the main point comes down to just 1 thing, wich most choose to ignore it....Basically that we're delusional enough to believe that this planet is ours, and that any steps we take to save it actually make a difference in the earth's own survival, wich has been around for 4+ billion years, and has survived plenty of mass extinctions, massive volcanic activity, continental plate movements to create the landscape we have now, magnetic pole shifts and getting hit with asteroids repeatedly, and climate changes in the past over these billions of years of it's existance, surviving disasters far worse that human kind could ever inflict upon it... So with that in mind,trying to "Save" earth is mostly in context to humans remaining the top species on the planet, and not becoming extinct like it's happened to thousands of species over millions of years...The earth itself doesn't care either way as it'll still be here anyway, so it's our own greed,stupidity and self interest that will eventually kill us as a species, even though we have the means to change things no matter how painfull or expensive the changes are. We're screwed...
Enraged Stoat	Posted - 2011.02.10 12:37:00 - [48] Originally by: digitalwanderer We're screwed... This. Cool stories. If you liked that film you might also like BARAKA. Epic cinematography, go find a bluray of it today. And sequel on its way (finally after 19 years).
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.10 14:59:00 - [49] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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! 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... Delenda est achura.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.10 15:10:00 - [50] 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 Sowel '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. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority

Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.02.10 15:47:00 - [51] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. very well said. It just doesn't fit in with the modern leftist environmentalist. White Guilt has been replaced by 'human guilt'. Also, the wealthier the country tyhe less it's population grows
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:07:00 - [52] 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 - [53] 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.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:26:00 - [54] The UK is particularly prone to food, gas and oil price supply and demand fluctuations. The charlatans in London have made our country the most open for free trade. This is good for inwards investment but we are screwed as far as energy and food strategic independence goes. Well at least we have lots of coal left .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
T'arho Sukri Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.10 23:10:00 - [55] IT doesn't seem like it was mentioned yet but there was another movie that came out like 20+ years ago called Koyaanisqatsi which is quite similar in showing how humanity has changed the planet. It is filmed in a very similar manner and has such things as beauty and terror about it. You can watch it here on youtube as well. koyaanisqatsi Originally by: Schwa88 Edited by: Schwa88 on 04/11/2010 04:50:53 This thread has made my head asplode.
FunzzeR Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2011.02.11 00:59:00 - [56] Meh Koyaanisqatsi was better and had a killer soundtrack. PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!! THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!!
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.11 04:34:00 - [57] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. 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.... It's almost like we have to be on the brink of disaster to make significant changes that will ultimately allow the human race to remain the top species on the planet, and that's just plain stupid any way you cut it, but i do agree that politicians in general are short sighted overall, keeping only their attention to issues that increase their chances of getting re-elected, and avoiding the difficult issues that just keep getting worse and worse as time goes on, and the more those are pushed back because it may cause said individual not to be re-elected, the greater the problem becomes and greater the sacrifices for future generations...Look no further than the US debt at 14 trillion dollars and climbing fast... We're screwed...
Tara Moss	Posted - 2011.02.11 08:21:00 - [58] Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.11 14:09:00 - [59] 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.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.11 14:26:00 - [60] In one respect fusion reactors could be very dangerous. If you can power an entire city for 3 days from a cup of easily available hydrogen isotope then people and industry will use very cheap electricity with total abandon. But before this happens cars, homes, appliances will be connected to connected to their service provider on a internet like connection so a complete auditing can be done of power consumption. And if need be the excessive use of heat generating appliances can be regulated. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority

digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.11 19:15:00 - [61] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. Wasn't it Eisenhower that stated in a speech soon after the end of world war 2,where he mentions the risks of a permanently militerized country?, and in the case of the USA, enough military assets to fight 2 major wars at the same time and overseas no less, thanks in large part to the 14 aircraft carriers in service right now,each needing over 5000 people aboard to be fully operational,and costing upwards of 10 billion a pop once fully fitted out? With the USA spending this much on military(about 600 billion a year),and with the recession still very much an issue and it's massive debt, it's going progessively bankrupt trying to be the world police, and no single country can do it anyhow, as there's tons of smaller conflicts around the world where military assets would be needed and very little to nothing is sent there.... And the USA can be energy self suficient even when it comes to oil, since there's proven oil reserves within the country itself that could last a couple of decades, but i get the impression that they want to drain every last once of oil they can from the middle east, drop them like a hot potato since they have nothing left to offer besides that, and then concentrate on those reserves within US borders....Basically, having this standing military was first and foremost with regards to the ****ing match betwween the USA and former soviet union during the cold war(it's still going on now, just not news worthy like it used to be), control natural resources overseas needed for the country's economic growth, and not so much to defend other nations or their social programs,but i guess they can do that from time to time, if nothing more for the public relations bonus,but that's what the united nations is for and when the USA went at it alone to Iraq, there's was no weapons of mass destruction found at all,and al queada is located in afghanistan and pakistan primarily... So here we are 8 years later, the situation in Iraq still isn't resolved, as it remains to be seen once the US troops pull out completely, if the country doesn't become an even bigger mess than it already is, after 5000+ troops died there and 30 000+ wounded in the 8 year period, with over 100 000 Iraqi civilians dead too and who know just how much money was spent in that war at this point....Even bush wrote in his book that's now on sale how the war in Iraq was a mistake!....Tell that to family members who lost people who they cared about in that war. War and military doesn't solve all the problems like you think it does basically....
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.11 19:29:00 - [62] 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.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.11 20:07:00 - [63] Edited by: Vogue on 11/02/2011 20:11:37 Edited by: Vogue on 11/02/2011 20:09:56 With economics you can't have your cake and eat it. France has a lot of pride and investment in public infrastructure. It now produces most of its electricity through nuclear power. It is in French culture to take pride in the state. The elite are proud to be civil servants. But it has a huge amount of bureaucracy and its economic edge is dwindling. The US has a very strong corporate sector that is efficient, profitable and has huge stockpiles of cash. But it also needs a lot less employed people to operate. A lot of US infrastructure is in decline. Though the high IP service sector just needs an office building. The USA will look like the montage from Minority Report in 2050. US foreign policy is basically whackamole. It's noble efforts have included the Yugoslav civil war which was contained. And Somalia which did'nt happen. I watched the Koyaanisqatsi film. A good art house movie but It has not made me a tree hugger. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.11 20:08:00 - [64] Originally by: Jno Aubrey 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. The USA's own oil reserves have been known for a few decades now actually,and yes,it was regulation in the 1970~1980's that kept them from building more nuclear power plants,even though the latest generation produces practically no radioactive waste as all....Toshiba even has what's called a dry nuclear reactor that's the size of a hot tub and provides enough power for 2000 homes for 7 to 10 years.... As for war,the last fully sucessfull campaign was world war 2 completing it's stated objectives ....Korea ended up in an cease fire,but both countries are still technically at war with each other even today,and there's vietnam(ouch), then there's the first Iraq war, wich was sucessfull in freeing Kuwait, but ended there, and now we have this 8 year long mess with the second one and no one knows how it'll end exactly... And now there's this potential fight with Iran, wich is the last big oil producing country on the map in the middle east, and also being accused of developing weapons of mass destruction...Does that remind you of the same reasons used at the start of the second Iraq war... The USA is maintaining the status Quo on alternate energy options and has for the last couple of decades, so it's not so much a question that it takes time to build these things afterall because it obviously does, it's that they haven't started building them at all in the first place, and are trying by every means possible to secure oil reserves overseas, and pretty much everyone sees it for what it is..
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.12 00:19:00 - [65] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 12/02/2011 00:20:06 Originally by: digitalwanderer War and military doesn't solve all the problems like you think it does basically.... Unfortunately it solves one of the biggest problems in the US. The US popualtions discontent with taxes is quelled with each new conflict. At least those that ran the US in the past got something out of reading The Wealth of Nations Originally by: Adam Smith When a nation is already overburdened with taxes, nothing but the necessities of a new war, nothing but either the animosity of national vengeance, or the anxiety for national security, can induce the people to submit, with tolerable patience, to a new tax. Hence the usual misapplication of the sinking fund. EDIT: run to ran Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2011.02.12 00:55:00 - [66] Koyaanisqatsi The Real Space Initiative - V7
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.12 01:45:00 - [67] Originally by: Adunh Slavy Koyaanisqatsi Gesundheit __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Redflare Caldari Black Metal Armory Vanguard.	Posted - 2011.02.12 01:49:00 - [68] Edited by: Redflare on 12/02/2011 01:51:09 The lot of you are idiots. No one seems to realize that all of these endless pages and ceaseless threads of silly banter (no, I think I'll call it human waste!) lead to nothing?! Even Jno, who seems to hold himself as being God and Prophet combined, has yet to say anything substantial. Yes, even the environmentalists have done nothing but spam. Use math, or I will continue to taunt you while pointing my finger at you, laughing all the way. Disclaimer: I am not going to take the time to perform the math myself. However, quick google searches on the sciences behind all of this would do you good. Do not stop at a popular science website, else suffer the wrath of a pointy object (with me wielding it, and stabbing you with it, repeatedly). ____________________________________________ [center]Due to the overwhelming number of people with "Red" in there name, I'd consider it required that everyone call me LOMPOCUS from now on![/c
Templar Dane Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2011.02.12 02:06:00 - [69] Originally by: Lady Skank 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. The planet has gone through radical changes before, it will recover. Unless we were to somehow knock the planet out of it's orbit...which would be pretty damn spectacular. We could glass the whole damn thing, and eventually things would go back to "normal". Just be proud that the current changes are caused by your own species. The radical changes that have occurred before were the cause of "natural" forces, whose to say that we aren't? If humans hadn't evolved, it would be some other intelligent species **ing everything up. Imagine if dolphins continued to get smarter, and evolved something akin to opposable thumbs. They'd have an industrial revolution, create machines that pollute, "over-fish" squirrels, etc. So, the lesson to be learned here...is don't **ing trust dolphins.
Kim Jong Lau Gallente Hysteria Nexus	Posted - 2011.02.12 02:28:00 - [70] It is true the planet WILL continue careless of what humans do but what people fail to realise is it isnt just animals, plants and all other natural stuff that is being destroyed it is other humans who have to suffer. In the end humans will destroy humans well before they destroy the planet, like parasites and this is what people fail to see when they 'dont care'. - 0.0 will be all MINE!

Redflare Caldari Black Metal Armory Vanguard.	Posted - 2011.02.12 02:40:00 - [71] Originally by: Kim Jong Lau It is true the planet WILL continue careless of what humans do but what people fail to realise is it isnt just animals, plants and all other natural stuff that is being destroyed it is other humans who have to suffer. In the end humans will destroy humans well before they destroy the planet, like parasites and this is what people fail to see when they 'dont care'. Where is your MATH!? ____________________________________________ [center]Due to the overwhelming number of people with "Red" in there name, I'd consider it required that everyone call me LOMPOCUS from now on![/c
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.12 02:42:00 - [72] Originally by: Kim Jong Lau It is true the planet WILL continue careless of what humans do but what people fail to realise is it isnt just animals, plants and all other natural stuff that is being destroyed it is other humans who have to suffer. In the end humans will destroy humans well before they destroy the planet, like parasites and this is what people fail to see when they 'dont care'. Or like late stand up comedian George Carlin said it in his many routines...."The planet will shake us off like fleas, a surface nuisance". I think it's mainly that we've become too short sighted, arrogant and greedy, combined with the ever growing population worldwide and ever dwindling natural resources that's gotten us into this mess, and we're so deep in it that getting out of it means making sacrifices, wich most people are unwilling to do in the first place, so we're caught in this vicious circle that leads nowhere...
Joe McAlt	Posted - 2011.02.12 06:20:00 - [73] Whenever you hear about a research group predict that there will be some ecological disaster coming, just remember that such predictions bring attention and attention brings the one thing that every researcher needs more than anything else. Grant money. They are no different than anyone else, their pocket book comes first. You don't get grants when your study says that there is nothing to worry about....
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.12 12:34:00 - [74] 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.
NightmareX Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2011.02.12 18:12:00 - [75] Hello again, and thanks for all of the answers. I know there is quite alot of things that can be discussed about our planet and i also know that many agrees and disagrees about what we all says here and what the movie says. After i watched the movie, i just realized on what we are doing with the planet, or not only with the planet, but what we are doing for our mankind in the future. Ofcourse, as things are now, all things is just fine for us humans. But the question is, how long time does it takes before there isn't possible for humans to live on earth? I'll guess that's a question no ones know. But i have some few short movie clips about the HOME movie to show you. The Making Of, The Adventure, The Ecology, Commitment of PPR and The Music. Enjoy.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2011.02.13 17:11:00 - [76] Originally by: Templar Dane Originally by: Lady Skank 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. The planet has gone through radical changes before, it will recover. the planet is fine ... How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
yani dumyat Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.02.14 00:39:00 - [77] There is a simple solution to all this, we should give crack ******* to everyone, people would live short but happy lives till all us polluting parasites were dead - Support crack dealers for a greener planet!
Vicker Lahn'se Minmatar STRAG3S STRAG3S.INC	Posted - 2011.02.14 10:51:00 - [78] Nightmare, thank you for the link to that exquisite movie. The message it contains is one that needs to be told again and again if there's any hope of people uniting to soften the blow of an inevitable catastrophe.
NightmareX Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2011.02.18 14:59:00 - [79] Alright, time for a bump i'll guess


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.