| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Doctor Fruitloop
   |
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:22:00 -
[31]
What 3rd said.
We should seriously consider leaving this godforsaken place and hope we aren't so stupid as to*****up Mars.
On a less controversial note, the reality is that it is happening and we will probably live through or die in it. I am doodling plans for a safe house in the Scottish Highlands to live in if it all goes Fubar and I need to restart the human species 
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:45:00 -
[32]
I love people who are denying things like that..'it doesnt exist'..'made up lies'...your lives must be very easy :)
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 23:09:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Kirjava
Adonis, I will assume your skyhook is an orbital elevator?
Technically it is only an orbital elevator if it is used to enter orbit without the usual amount of energy required to do so while pushing against thin air, but the physical construct is the same.
-----
"Why can't you just be friends?" -- Oveur |
Audri Fisher
Caldari
VentureCorp
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 23:58:00 -
[34]
Originally by: 3rdD Dave
Why does the politics of this topic even matter? Surely as tenant of the planet, thats you and me, shouldn't we be doing all we can to help our ONLY home and make sure our children's children have something to love.
It really bugs me that all this very stupid discussion takes place at all. Deforestation, rising water levels, more violent weather patterns.. why does it matter if its by human or by a natural cycle???
Were only tenants on this planet, instead of raping it for every single resource we can get out of it for MONEY we should be doing our up most best to preserve it.
I agree with you in part, we should be mindful of the extent of the earths resources, and use them in a sustainable matter. I disagree with you on the preserving the earth. It can't be done. the earth has changed drasticaly since it was formed, and quickly. just in the last thousand years the earth has warmed and cooled considerably. The reason the US speeks english and not Norse is becuase greenland froze and it wiped out the Viking settlements. The biggest land empire the world has ever seen is because the Mongols needed new space because of climate change.
Even if we do succede in "preserving" the earth, at what snapshot in time should we do it? How about the last Ice age?
The earth is constantly changing. We can't stop that, we have to adapt to the earth, because it will not adapt to us.
|
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 00:14:00 -
[35]
I thought that current thinking on the matter was that the damage was already done and whatever we do now is just damage control, if that's even possible. Climate change is a natural event anyway and, in true style of Battlestar galactica, has happened before and will happen again. All we've done is speed it up a few (?) years.
Just so you know Im not spouting my own insane dribble and simply going on the insane dribble that someone else spouted
Sources:
Natural Climate Change
BBC natural climate change
Damage already done?
More Damage done? (to the aussies this time)
The ever popular wiki note...use it in your Uni work kids, your tutor will love you (don't really they will probably fail you!)
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 00:46:00 -
[36]
Pascal's Wager applied to global warming? I like it, nice video.
I say there's no 100% argument against it; the only disagreements you can have are subjective, honestly. The original Pascal's Wager, on the other hand, is irrational for reasons relating to God and not to logic.
---
Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 01:33:00 -
[37]
Okay first of all, yes the planet is getting warmer.
Asking whether its "man made" or "natural" implies that man is not part of nature.
Anything man does is natural. If we kill off all the Buffalo its the same thing as if the Wolves kill off all the Sheep.
Dinosaurs were extinct before humans ever got here. Other animals went extinct that had nothing to do with humans like the Wooly Mammoth and Sabretooth Tiger.
Every species of creature is not meant to survive, that is natural selection.
The same goes for human beings.
If human beings through their actions affect conditions that cause our species to die out, then we will be gone, and another species will take our place as the dominant apex predator on planet Earth.
So you see, human beings are not above nature, we are a part of it, and we can become extinct just like the dinosaur and the wooly mammoth. In fact it is a %100 chance that we will go extinct, as all species eventually will.
Whether that happens sooner or later is not an "environmental" concern, it is a human self-interest concern.
The polar ice caps melting is not a threat to the planet. Its a threat to humans who live on coasts.
We can't do anything to hurt the planet. The planet on the other hand can squash us like insects.
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 07:56:00 -
[38]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 03/12/2007 07:58:54
Originally by: 3rdD Dave
Were only tenants on this planet, instead of raping it for every single resource we can get out of it for MONEY we should be doing our up most best to preserve it.
Originally by: Cipher7
Asking whether its "man made" or "natural" implies that man is not part of nature.
Anything man does is natural.
qft
|
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 10:51:00 -
[39]
Jeez I was just using a turn of phrase. What I meant to imply was that we, the human species, have had a massive impact on it since our development of industry etc. So in that the accelerated version of global warming can be considered "man made" compared to the, what seems to be, much slower "non-man made" version, just as any implications of the wolf eating every last sheep could be considered "wolf made".
Plus I know a few peole in my philosophy class who would definately consider the current iteration of Modern man non-natural. The wolf eating every sheep wouldn't happen thanks to co-existance. There arn't enough wolves to do that because there arn't enough sheep to maintain that population. Just as there arn't sheep roaming every square mile of the earth because, if there was, there would be more wolves to eat them (in this simplified version at least, obv sheep have to eat too etc etc.).
Point being modern man isn't exactly "co-existing" and so in that sence can be considered non-natural. Unlike tribal man that still exists and does co-exist.
Depends how you personally define natural, as is the case with most these kind of discussions.
Just sayin' 
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 11:06:00 -
[40]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 03/12/2007 11:11:37
edit: actually nvm 
|
MalVortex
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 12:12:00 -
[41]
Edited by: MalVortex on 03/12/2007 12:17:24
Ugh. Global warming debates. Whats next, abortion?
First, this guy likes to hear himself talk, and he doesn't talk nicely enough to get away with it. Second, he fails right off the start, making blatant T/F scenarios. Sciences as complicated as Planetary Weather Change are *never* going to be a "did we or did we not cause global warming?". It will be, to what extent, if any, has man made on the environment, and what likley change, if any, will occur as a result of our impact and total change?
Then you must have a lot of studies done to determine whether this global climate change, if any, can be changed for better human habitation conditions, and what the cost/benefit of that will be.
Hes simplifying millions upon millions of variables and outcomes into 4 options, and for all we know atm: all 4 of those options might be impossible! *gasp*.
I wish politics would GTFO of the scientific community and let them do their jobs. Its nothing more than a fear mongering talking point right now. Not enough data exists to support any conclusion, let alone on a course of action for our entire species to undertake.
Edit: and for those "omg we broke the natural cycle" people:
Natural shall be defined as any physically possible interaction of actors in the universe.
The only objective of a species shall be defined as continued existence. The most logical way to continue this existence is to maintain the maximum number of and diversity of its organism as possible.
Humanity's current actions fit all definitions. The "pillaging" ( ) of the planet is a natural and predictable outcome when you introduce a superior organism among inferior ones. Our species ultimate goal should be to expand among the stars, thereby protecting against near all forms of extinction wide events.
|
ry ry
StateCorp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 12:18:00 -
[42]
Edited by: ry ry on 03/12/2007 12:18:38
Originally by: Kirjava
So, I will give 10M isk to whoever can find a logical flaw that destroys this arguement....
rickroll him. failing that, goatse.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Xen Gin
The Dragoons
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 12:20:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 03/12/2007 12:20:16
Originally by: MalVortex
Ugh. Global warming debates. Whats next, abortion?
First, this guy likes to hear himself talk, and he doesn't talk nicely enough to get away with it. Second, he fails right off the start, making blatant T/F scenarios. Sciences as complicated as Planetary Weather Change are *never* going to be a "did we or did we not cause global warming?". It will be, to what extent, if any, has man made on the environment, and what likley change, if any, will occur as a result of our impact and total change?
Then you must have a lot of studies done to determine whether this global climate change, if any, can be changed for better human habitation conditions, and what the cost/benefit of that will be.
Hes simplifying millions upon millions of variables and outcomes into 4 options, and for all we know atm: all 4 of those options might be impossible! *gasp*.
I wish politics would GTFO of the scientific community and let them do their jobs. Its nothing more than a fear mongering talking point right now. Not enough data exists to support any conclusion, let alone on a course of action for our entire species to undertake.
Because politicians, people and businesses don't want to hear the complicated answers. It is unfortunate, but the scientists have to dumb down questions and solutions, In a hope that the stupid people understand what needs to be done and how it needs to be done, so that it can be done.
|
MalVortex
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 12:24:00 -
[44]
The problem is the politicians are jumping the gun. It wasn't so long ago that global warming was predicted to result in a global ice age. Our models can barley predict the weather tomorrow. Despite the data we *do* have, we have nowhere near enough to predict what will happen, let alone what factors caused it to happen, and the best way to stop it from happening.
|
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 14:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: MalVortex
Edited by: MalVortex on 03/12/2007 12:19:03
Natural shall be defined as any physically possible interaction of actors in the universe.
The only objective of a species shall be defined as continued existence. The most logical way to continue this existence is to maintain the maximum number of and diversity of its organism as possible.
Humanity's current actions fit all definitions. The "pillaging" () of the planet is a natural and predictable outcome when you introduce a superior organism among inferior ones. Our species ultimate goal should be to expand among the stars, thereby protecting against near all forms of extinction wide events. Preserving or caring about other species who's existence we do not hinge upon is meaningless.
By this definition I find it hard/impossible to exclude anything at all as natural, and so there is no real point in the definition. What are you defining it against?
Surly Natural should be taken as "not of artificial origin". So the long process between crude oil and useable petrol and then us using it for whatever purpose is non-natural as the process described in any of this doesn't happen naturally. If we were, for the sake of this argument at least, to assume that combustion of petrol has a deteriorative effect on the environment then this effect would be non-natural.
The deteriorative effect of a volcano errupting however can be considered natural, even if we were to cause it, as it is a natural event in nature.
This definition isn't perfect, you could go on all day but you cannot simply define by exclusion of everything.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 15:02:00 -
[46]
Originally by: ry ry
Edited by: ry ry on 03/12/2007 12:18:38
Originally by: Kirjava
So, I will give 10M isk to whoever can find a logical flaw that destroys this arguement....
rickroll him. failing that, goatse.
Sorry Ry, I don't get it, whats a rickroll?
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
vanBuskirk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 15:09:00 -
[47]
The argument he put forward has even more force than he thinks, because his "worst case scenario" is not the worst case scenario. <WARNING CHAOS THEORY JARGON>
Climate modelling on a rather crude scale has been done - a rather better effort is being mounted by the power of the internet (www.climateprediction.com) but what appears to be the case is that with the continents as they now are there are three attractors, two more stable than the other one.
Case one is Snowball Earth. Ice everywhere, the entire ocean frozen over to a depth of hundreds of feet, no land life and only a little life hanging on next to undersea water vents. This is stable on a timescale of millions of years because almost all sunlight is reflected, but not stable on a longer scale than that - because CO2 emitted from volcanoes eventually builds up enough to flip it over to conditions hotter than today. Incidentally, this case is thought to have happened at least twice in Earth's history. And this case could happen as a result of the current warming trend - there is such a thing as overcorrection in control systems.
Case two is conditions more or less like today (at least on this scale) with possible fluctuations from the depths of an ice age to those like the Carboniferous Era - maybe ten degrees hotter than today. Either of these "extremes" is unpleasant, but humanity would most likely survive.
Case three is a hotter and nastier version of Venus. Hot enough at the surface for rocks to glow cherry-red and to melt lead, maybe a hundred atmospheres of surface pressure, clouds of concentrated sulfuric acid. This condition is permanent short of major astro-engineering projects.
If there is even the tiniest chance of case 1, to say nothing of case 3, then just about any cost can be borne in preference. Case 1 means humanity extinct. Case 3 means all life on Earth extinct - permanently. And nobody actually knows whether is possible. Possibly, the only way to find out is to do the experiment. I'd rather not.
----------------------------------------------
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 15:46:00 -
[48]
To the OP:
The problem with his argument is called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle (aka False Choice Dilemma).
Wiki says it as well as I can so...
Quote:
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering the whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
|
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 18:31:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Harondor Miriadwaith
By this definition I find it hard/impossible to exclude anything at all as natural, and so there is no real point in the definition. What are you defining it against?
That's exactly the point.
Anything man does is natural.
When an ape takes a branch, shapes it, and sticks it into an anthill and eats the ants we say "Look at that, the ape made a tool to get food."
Humans are just smarter apes with more complex tools.
Man is a bipedal animal.
If the factory that produced my computer contributed to the extinction of the Tibetan Snow Owl, too bad so sad, but keep pumping out the computers because daddy needs an upgrade.
Why is it when Beavers build a dam it's "natural" but when Humans build a dam it's a hazard to the environment?
Beavers are f*cking animals just like Humans.
Birds build nests. Humans build Condos.
Everything man creates is "natural" including spaceships and nuclear power plants.
And if the other animals don't like it, tough.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 18:43:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Cipher7
And if the other animals don't like it, tough.
Some animals actualy took it seriously when we told their species to "GTFO, adapt or die".
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 20:35:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Cipher7
Originally by: Harondor Miriadwaith
By this definition I find it hard/impossible to exclude anything at all as natural, and so there is no real point in the definition. What are you defining it against?
That's exactly the point.
Anything man does is natural.
When an ape takes a branch, shapes it, and sticks it into an anthill and eats the ants we say "Look at that, the ape made a tool to get food."
Humans are just smarter apes with more complex tools.
Man is a bipedal animal.
If the factory that produced my computer contributed to the extinction of the Tibetan Snow Owl, too bad so sad, but keep pumping out the computers because daddy needs an upgrade.
Why is it when Beavers build a dam it's "natural" but when Humans build a dam it's a hazard to the environment?
Beavers are f*cking animals just like Humans.
Birds build nests. Humans build Condos.
Everything man creates is "natural" including spaceships and nuclear power plants.
And if the other animals don't like it, tough.
I sense your naturally an angry person.
I'm not sure if I came across as having a problem with the advancement of technology or having "man made" artifacts, I don't. Infact Im not eactly an environmentalist (sitting next to my 800Watt Liquid coolant cooled PC - the coolant which will probably wipe out a lake when disposed of).
And yes when the beaver makes a Dam it is natural. If we were to make a dam in the same way as the beaver then it too would be natural. IE using raw matierials in their Raw form. As soon as you process something it is no longer in its natural state. So using concrete and reinforced steel to build a dam is a tad different. Were the beaver to evolve it's building technique to process the materials first then I would admit that that too is no longer what can be termed natural.
Same goes for your "condo" argument. Tribal man can quite happily create a mud hut. We have gone beyond mud huts (thankfully) and now build skyscrapers and houses but how can you term those things as natural? Why would the word natural even come into it if everything is natural. Those things would simply "be" without any form of definition.
Also saying "thats exactly the point" doesn't quite get to the crux of what i was saying. Generally things that include everything arn't defined. Thats why we have terms such as natural and man made, processed and unprocessed.
Also in your quote there you have distinguished us from animals. Don't worry, everyone does. But there-in lies your problem. IF you distinguish us from animals then you have to distinguish "man made" from "natural" too. (oh and yea we ARE animals...and no a lot of the human race dont like it and that too is the point).
Natural isnt just the distinction of Tool use, processing, co-existance or the fact that we did it. Its simply a definition there to seperate a large area of different things.
Anyway Im not going to get any further into this syntactic argument as that's all this is. Also about a mile off topic
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 21:40:00 -
[52]
we should all just grow things out of hemp. need a shirt? There ya go have a hemp shirt, need some paper? make that out of hemp. Growing hemp is a nice carbon sink, it grows faster then trees as well. and there are other side benefits 
going "green" is just a side benefit of not being dependent on oil
its like building your own skill books, implants, and blueprints rather then paying the npcs had to get an eve joke in
that and "A false" is there not the possibility that we believe we avoided climate change, and celebrate and  where as we really did nothing....
on a side note im sure the fact that todays "extreme weather," aka it is snowing today, in December, is a side effect of global warming 
|
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 21:40:00 -
[53]
The word "natural" comes from a Judeo-Christian worldview that Man is a special being and that all the other species are animals.
"Process" what so mixing concrete with sand is somehow different from mixing mud and twigs?
When a bee takes sugars and transforms it into honey, and makes a honeycomb, that's not processed right?
Lets save all the cute furry animals and kill anything that looks icky.
Hyprocrits.
George Carlin had a segment on people like you. Imma try to go find it.
|
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 21:44:00 -
[54]
For all you "save the planet" clowns
George Carlin on "Saving the Planet"
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 22:43:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 03/12/2007 22:44:43
Originally by: Cipher7
For all you "save the planet" clowns
George Carlin on "Saving the Planet"
Darwinian selection will rule out certain species over the course of time, its 'natural'. Ever since we came around with long words like industrial development its starting to go at a rather worrying pace.
He's funny, yeah, but wrong at so many point.
I like his reasoning at 3:20, yet what he forgets is that we arent 'killing the planet', we are killing the planet that supports us. Earth will still be here a long time from now, but it would be nice if we could keep it habitable for humans.
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 23:22:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Cipher7
The word "natural" comes from a Judeo-Christian worldview that Man is a special being and that all the other species are animals
"Process" what so mixing concrete with sand is somehow different from mixing mud and twigs?
When a bee takes sugars and transforms it into honey, and makes a honeycomb, that's not processed right?
Lets save all the cute furry animals and kill anything that looks icky.
Hyprocrits.
George Carlin had a segment on people like you. Imma try to go find it.
lol did you not read what i said? Ive covered everything you've said in this already. Im no environmentalist, I probably eat more meat than is my fair share and I take responsibility for the fact that they are animals but in as humane and positive way as I can afford to do so. That's just me. We can maintain the lifestyles that we have but it'll cost. I would rather pay ú16 for 4 chicken ******* from free range wood chicken than ú3 for those bread in warehouses with no room to move (although i admit this is mainly for a personal health and taste reasons).
Also i think youll find that I said no one thing covers it individially, obviously it won't so you can quite happily pick one thing I said like "process" and argue it as a single point. A true definition could probably fill an entire paper.
In my personal view we need to make the distiction between non-human animals and human animals. We have the ability, to an extent, to shape the world and understand what we are doing and we do need to take responsibility for it. Even if that is just saying what we are doing MIGHT have an impact. We don't have to do anything about that but it is necessary. I dont believe we are special in any dualist god given right kind of way tho.
Richard Dawkins has a fantastic view on the arrogance of man and tempering this to a level that I personally agree with (see "the god delusion"). Daniel Dennett is also a fantastic thinker on such things.
From what you've said I see you having a very "you and us" point of view. Maybe that's not your position but that's just what your coming across as in your posts. Remember the shades of grey instead of just Black and white.
Anyway by looks of things this may just get to the point where we have to agree to disagree.
|
MalVortex
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 03:19:00 -
[57]
Quote:
By this definition I find it hard/impossible to exclude anything at all as natural, and so there is no real point in the definition. What are you defining it against?
Yes, thats exactly the point. By your own admission, you have no counterargument to the definition. Unless you can provide a reasonable counter-definition, this one will stand. Furthermore, it is not rendered pointless by including pretty much everything - it directly removes the possibility for man made actions to be considered "unnatural". Given that the "unnatural" state of man is a primary argument used in favor of unnecessarily gimping our own species, this definition is quite a potent counterargument.
|
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 03:46:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Harondor Miriadwaith
I would rather pay ú16 for 4 chicken ******* from free range wood chicken than ú3 for those bread in warehouses with no room to move (although i admit this is mainly for a personal health and taste reasons).
When people say "taking care of the environment" what they really should say is "reducing harm to humans from the environment."
What is the cost of all the antibiotics and growth hormone in our meat? What is the cost of having cows that haven't walked 5 feet in their whole lives? What is the cost of genetically altered wheat and produce?
Man thinks he can outsmart nature. Man is wrong and there is a price to pay.
I think the human race in on a catastrophic course, and that thought doesn't bother me one bit.
A general culling of the population is in order, to bring us back in balance.
This does not require any human action.
Nature will handle it.
|
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 06:43:00 -
[59]
He can't spell 'catastrophies' - good enough for me
-
Latest Video |
ry ry
StateCorp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 10:58:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Kirjava
Originally by: ry ry
Edited by: ry ry on 03/12/2007 12:18:38
Originally by: Kirjava
So, I will give 10M isk to whoever can find a logical flaw that destroys this arguement....
rickroll him. failing that, goatse.
Sorry Ry, I don't get it, whats a rickroll?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rickroll
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |