| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
   |
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:08:00 -
[1]
Okay, a chap I know in real life emailed this to me, no words just the link and I watched it. At the end of his arguement he challenges people to find flaw's in it in a process of elimination for policies on Enviromental Enginearing.
So, I will give 10M isk to whoever can find a logical flaw that destroys this arguement....
I seriously can't 
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Groes Thir
Gallente
Karjala Inc.
Onnenpyora
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:26:00 -
[2]
Move into an iglu. Ice age? Build thicker walls.
|
Star Gazer07
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:27:00 -
[3]
One major issue isn't whether or not global warming is real. Most evidence turns to it being real "the polar ice caps are obviously melting". The question is "Is it a natural occurance or is it man made" and "will it become a problem, or will it not be a problem". Honestly another option is we take the economic problems & global warming screws us over. Now we have a double disaster. Add in the fact that with the polar ice caps melted they won't deflect as much sunlight meaning even more warming.
It's too simplified. There's way more factors then just yes, no, true, false. This guy really is making an uneducated guess, not an educated one.
Why vote for the lesser of the two evils?
VOTE EVIL SQUID TODAY! |
Bluefix
Gnu Terror Corps
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:29:00 -
[4]
Although I agree with the conclusion, the flaw is that he assumes equal chance of "false" and "true".
"True" is most likely and that's why I'd reach the same conclusion, but the video does not take this into account and if I were to argue that "false" was far more likely, the action "No" could be defended.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:32:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Star Gazer07
It's too simplified. There's way more factors then just yes, no, true, false. This guy really is making an uneducated guess, not an educated one.
That is true, I am only studying it at an end of High school level but all the examples and studies I have done slot roughly into one of those 4 options. Even colonising other planets comes into column A. It does seem to come up with a proof by contradiction that we need to act regardless if it is real or not because the possible conseqences of inaction outweigh the consequences of acting and not needing to.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
das licht
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:20:00 -
[6]
Real bullet proof gamblers pick ticket B.
Quitter pick ticket A.
Very simple. Boom!
|
Rialtor
Amarr
Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:27:00 -
[7]
The flaw is that we have enough money/knowledge/manpower/etc. to actually solve the problem now. He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies. A major level of conservation would not only hinder technology buy totally mess up the global economy. What we should do is try to be responsible. Right now there's pollution that's really unnessary, we can streamline those with at a fairly small cost, and it might actually be improvements overall.
If he means that humanity is not always attempting to find a better energy source then he's just wrong, so in essence we always have and always will be looking for a solution.
Even if the most stringest conservative movement was passed, it still wouldn't impact the issue by more than a few years, but we'd definately slot down prgoress in other areas.
The solution is to come up with better technology, which we are trying to do.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rialtor
He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies.
I don't really understand your argument. Because we might be able to better later we shouldn't try now? Latest estimates predict that we have about 30 years to change things before we hit the point of no return...
----------------
Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
Rialtor
Amarr
Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Rialtor
He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies.
I don't really understand your argument. Because we might be able to better later we shouldn't try now? Latest estimates predict that we have about 30 years to change things before we hit the point of no return...
That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Lala Ru
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:38:00 -
[10]
While I support changing global behavior for climate change, his argument is nothing but a rehash of Pascal's Wager. You can't draw any conclusion unless you know the possibilities involved. If, THEORETICALLY, human caused global climate change has only a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance to be true, then his argument falls apart.
Personally, I believe the opposite, in that humans are certainly causing climate change. However unless we have a good handle on the possibilities of climate change and a concrete grasp of the costs and consequences involved, his argument doesn't work.
Now where's my 10m ISK?
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:39:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rialtor
That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
But I still don't understand how acting later and not acting now can help our chances, even assuming that there are massive advances in our understanding of climate change in the future. The argument might be valid if we're tampering with the climate through some other artificial method, but cutting back on pollution and carbon emissions in general certainly can't have any negative effects on the environment and is what the vast majority of climatologists are recommending.
Is still seems like a better idea than buying real estate in the artic.
----------------
Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:42:00 -
[12]
There are no logical flaws in his reasoning because its the most simplified version you can get - and the flaw is right there, in the oversimplification.
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
das licht
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:44:00 -
[13]
Will we ever be able o terraform e.g. mars, if we even can't solve that litle GCC problem?
I don't kn÷w!
Scary.
|
Lala Ru
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:44:00 -
[14]
Here's a more concrete example.
To buy a lottery ticket, or not. You don't know if you're going to win or not.
If you don't buy, you gain nothing and lose nothing. $0 change.
If you buy, if you lose you're down $1. If you WIN you're up 200 million dollars!!
So, is buying the lottery ticket a good deal? You have no idea until you actually look at the ODDS involved.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:45:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 02/12/2007 18:44:59
..I still agree with him though. We humans have an influence on our environment previously unwitnessed for any species or any development. If we want to keep our presumably unique earth and not destroy ourselves in the process, we need to change our way of life.
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:45:00 -
[16]
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:46:25
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:46:00
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:45:45
I'm going to go with:
Given the statement "GCC is caused by humans" is true. That doesn't say anything about whether we can take any actions against it or not, or whether they will prove useful or futile".
This would be the true worst case scenario for A, true as well as the true worst case scenario all together. That makes the whole catastrophe inescapable so B at the least comes with the benefit of not wasting moneys on nothing while we still have the earth, instead we could develop FTL drives so we can bail and destroy the next planet we find.
What I'm saying is that the smiley-face in (A, true) isn't the given it's made out to be IFF worst case scenario is applied to it, which is the case for the other choices according to the argument.
...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
~ Prism X
EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer,
Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
Rialtor
Amarr
Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Rialtor
That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
But I still don't understand how acting later and not acting now can help our chances, even assuming that there are massive advances in our understanding of climate change in the future. The argument might be valid if we're tampering with the climate through some other artificial method, but cutting back on pollution and carbon emissions in general certainly can't have any negative effects on the environment and is what the vast majority of climatologists are recommending.
Is still seems like a better idea than buying real estate in the artic.
It's a matter of working smarter not harder, and resource allocation. Global warming isn't the only issue mankind has, so it shouldn't be the only thing we spend money on. And getting the most bang for our buck is important.
I agree we should streamline processes that are not. But that's hardly a huge investment. What he means in his video is a MASSIVE program to try to combat global warming now. And currently our only way to fight it would be massive conservative movement.
If he's advocating that, and it sounds like he is, I'm not for that. It's far too reactive to a problem we do not yet understand.
There are 6 billion people now, if we somehow cut emmission by half. How long till the population doubles? Do they not need more power as well, can we then again reduce by half?
The end goal is to get a technology that can efficently harness natural energy sources for everyone and we have always been actively researching and working on it. I'm all for putting more money on the research end, and streamlining processes. But conservation, I don't think that should be done now.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:54:00 -
[18]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 02/12/2007 18:56:36
the only thing here to be realised is that we need to change our thinking
that we need to end this self destructive behaviour
and embrace life not deny it
the realization that life as it is already given is full and sufficient
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rialtor
It's a matter of working smarter not harder, and resource allocation. Global warming isn't the only issue mankind has, so it shouldn't be the only thing we spend money on. And getting the most bang for our buck is important.
I agree we should streamline processes that are not. But that's hardly a huge investment. What he means in his video is a MASSIVE program to try to combat global warming now. And currently our only way to fight it would be massive conservative movement.
If he's advocating that, and it sounds like he is, I'm not for that. It's far too reactive to a problem we do not yet understand.
There are 6 billion people now, if we somehow cut emmission by half. How long till the population doubles? Do they not need more power as well, can we then again reduce by half?
The end goal is to get a technology that can efficently harness natural energy sources for everyone and we have always been actively researching and working on it. I'm all for putting more money on the research end, and streamlining processes. But conservation, I don't think that should be done now.
OK Rialtor, thanks for clarifying that for me. 
----------------
Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
And I'm still "What the hell-ing?"
Anyway, as most people have said what I would've said. 10 million what? ISK? Cake? $? Babies? Degrees of temperature?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:05:00 -
[21]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: CCP Prism X
...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
And I'm still "What the hell-ing?"
Anyway, as most people have said what I would've said. 10 million what? ISK? Cake? $? Babies? Degrees of temperature?
10 million of nothingness
|
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: LUH 3471
10 million of nothingness
Which will do me the exact same good as 10 mil ISK.
~ Prism X
EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer,
Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:08:00 -
[23]
To prevent climate change we need to invest heavily in skyhook technology.
Once we can tether a satellite to the ground we can then put a thermoconductive core in the tether and a heatsink at either end, with movable heat shields on the space end. We then have the ability to combat the primary cause of climate change, which is that heat is not being radiate out through the upper atmosphere, by way of a global heatsink. If we cool the earth too much we simply reverse the process, shielding the outer heatsink when it is out of the sun, to raise it again.
Yes I have had a few but this idea holds water sober as well. The only missing element is a strong enough tether, which carbon nanotubes have brought us a long way toward.
-----
"Why can't you just be friends?" -- Oveur |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Originally by: LUH 3471
10 million of nothingness
Which will do me the exact same good as 10 mil ISK.
Well then, in that case.......
Can I have your stuff?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:11:00 -
[25]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Well then, in that case.......
Can I have your stuff?
I don't swing that way, sorry.
~ Prism X
EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer,
Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:18:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
I don't swing that way, sorry.
Well then.....I'm just going to have to take it!  Even if it takes me till next fanfest.
*wardecs CCP*
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 20:15:00 -
[27]
Adonis, I will assume your skyhook is an orbital elevator?
I have also thought we should work on these to expand humanitys horizons, but a heat sink? Thats a new one..... and nanotubes are the only thing with enough tensile stenghth that we know of, but we should be able to get one built within the next few decades (theoreticaly). We would need a few OE though to do that at a faster rate than we are building it up and being on one side of the Earth while the other is radiating heat ect.
The main problem will be who builds the first one, whoever does will be the unrivaled superpower of the Earth, so whoever owns it will be a state and hence military run.
Think of it as an arms race as soon as one starts being built, the fact that the countries straddeling the equator are not the best places to build such an expensive instalation dosen't help..... I am hopeful Britian/EU can get one built on Ascention Island, it's accessable by sea and is British territory near the equator
Also the person who was first to contradict the arguement will be sent isk asap.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:04:00 -
[28]
Just to point out that according to his tables if we take action whether or not GW is true or false still leads to Global Depression. Additionally a global depression brings much of those same problems from his major catastrophe column as well. Economic, health, social, and political. Great depression would be considered low scale compared to this. So column A is bad either way.
Column B is still pretty darn bad if the worst case scenarios do happen. Its just that we are still unsure of what exactly will happen. Right now its all a big guess as to what problems will happen exactly. On top of that, the science behind it all is still in debate. We dont understand weather as much as we like and are reduced to plugging in stats into a clean cut computer model.
Damned if you do, maybe damned if you dont.
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 |
UPA Terf
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:08:00 -
[29]
please....im begging...not another global warming thread...they make me cry
|
3rdD Dave
Gallente
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:16:00 -
[30]
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.
|
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 |
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 11:24:00 -
[61]
Originally by: ry ry
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
What the **** did I just watch?...... 
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Harondor Miriadwaith
Caldari
Comrades in Construction
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 13:32:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Cipher7
Man thinks he can outsmart nature. Man is wrong and there is a price to pay.
About 3 posts ago man WAS nature...I know this is a facetious point but do you see how your contradicting what you previously said?
aaaaanyway....
The rest of your comment sort of implies that we should work against (i wont say nature) the environment however the most successful technologies that "keep the environment safe for man"{paraphrase} are those that work with nature.
I do have to agree that we are headed to a bad time but how that is going to come about is up for debate. As for the end of mankind all together...well maybe but I think it's more likly to be mankind as we know it.
Some are likly to survive somewhere but how long, how many and when? well im not Nostradamus but then it's a part of the human condition to expect the end of the world. Probably more so for those that play eveo.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 14:04:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Cipher7
Man thinks he can outsmart nature. Man is wrong and there is a price to pay.
Nope, man can outsmart nature.
We get caught out a few times but when we do it rarely happens again if we find a way around it.
We are getting more advanced faster than nature can evolve, in time we will start adding 1 year to the expected human lifespan per year, at the moment we add a few weeks a year to the human lifespan or something like that. Note we know can perform brain surgery and the human body has barely changed in the last 10 000 years.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Cipher7
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 15:48:00 -
[64]
All it takes is a plague or a virus to knock down the whole house of cards.
The Spanish Flu killed more people than WW2.
Or how bout that nice Bubonic plague.
HIV is a good one, not only kills ya, but also inhibits sex cuz everybody's scared that you might have it. That should cut down the birth rate a bit, especially in Western countries that have a high awareness of it.
Man is but one of nature's creatures. So far its most powerful and cunning creation.
I bet the dinosaurs thought they were pretty hot stuff too. All big and bad with sharp teeth. All it took was a climate change to give em all dirtnaps.
|
ry ry
StateCorp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 16:12:00 -
[65]
Edited by: ry ry on 04/12/2007 16:17:18
the weirdest part of this is thinking about 'nature the entity' when nature is blatantly an abstract concept.
'nature' is the result of a very long chain reaction, triggered and catalysed by the infinitesimal interactions between organisms and shit. uuhh.. that sounded more ****y than i hoped, but you get the drift.
to paraphrase a crap bumper-sticker/t-shirt logo; 'nature happens'.
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 |
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 18:47:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Cipher7
All it takes is a plague or a virus to knock down the whole house of cards.
The Spanish Flu killed more people than WW2.
Or how bout that nice Bubonic plague.
HIV is a good one, not only kills ya, but also inhibits sex cuz everybody's scared that you might have it. That should cut down the birth rate a bit, especially in Western countries that have a high awareness of it.
Man is but one of nature's creatures. So far its most powerful and cunning creation.
I bet the dinosaurs thought they were pretty hot stuff too. All big and bad with sharp teeth. All it took was a climate change to give em all dirtnaps.
The spannish flu is presumed to be a strain of bird flu. There is mass funding to create a vaccine for the H5N1 strain, and some people have gotten it and survived it.
HIV will eventualy be dealt with, maybe not this decade but it will be dealt with, take nanotechnology and develop an artificial immune system, maybe happening within the current century thus rendering HIV to an inconvenience like mumps today.
With Sex yea it reduces the birth rate, but we will find way's around it, sex is too important to the human psycology to not try and come up with solutions.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Kyusoath Orillian
Northern Intelligence
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 22:26:00 -
[67]
the guy in the video misses an important point. there are people that want that worst case scenario , me included. financial breakdown, cities destroyed, millions dead, post apocalyptic world. bring it on . nuke the north pole.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 22:35:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Kyusoath Orillian
nuke the north pole.
I find it ironic your corp is called "Northern Intelligence"
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |