|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 24, 2014 09:35 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 21:37, 24 Apr 2014.
|
it only seems like ranting, because i am always discrediting humanity and their works. of course, i am going to be angry about their selfishness. what is there to gain, about a level-headed argument, when it solves nothing whatsoever?
i bring up every single thing that is negative in regards to human beings and the environments they're squatting in, that is either caused by humans, or could be their undoing, because THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT: human being's effect on their environment. their ultimate(and eventual) demise because of it, is a natural course in this conversation. i'm not talking about immediately, i never was. maybe that helps you to think that i'm merely "ranting" here?
the bottom line is, artu, that humanity is destroying their environment, and, that it will eventually be their undoing. that's all i've been saying(at least, trying to say). if you think i am altering my arguments with every response, it is because you don't understand what i'm saying(or in this case, trying to get across) at all. it is rather obvious that you don't, in fact.
otherwise, we wouldn't be coming to different conclusions over what i say.
i understand, as well, that what i am saying isn't going to be the popular thing to believe. humans would rather live in their manufactured little worlds, i understand that. the issue, is that they shouldn't let any danger to their ego's keep them from thinking that they could be improving their footprint, over the earth.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2014 11:44 PM |
|
|
Fred, I think there's an inconsistency in your logic. You talk about how greedy humans are, how they won't stop at anything to get what they want, and so on... and then say we'll go extinct. If humans are as you say, the only way this can be consistent is if humans want to go extinct, but that's clearly not true. We're so goal-oriented that we won't achieve the critical goal of not dying? Come on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 12:22 AM |
|
|
|
He can say they are short-sighted but that's when extinction (especially if you are as widespread and populated as humans) not being an instant thing comes in... When you tell him that it's not an instant thing, he replies "I didnt say it was gonna happen immediately." Of course, in reality, those are very different things. But he can not be convinced, because it's not about what's true or not, it's about constantly whinning about how humanity sucks, probably that's how he deals with his problems, whatever they are.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 01:45, 25 Apr 2014.
|
lol, yeah, that's a great argument there, artu. sure. i'm just whining. and i change whatever i feel like changing up at a moments notice. if you guys only want to hear a certain thing, sure, go right ahead. the earth is fine. human beings are SO responsible, sensible, and they will come out on top of everything. yeah. dear god, my sides. 
seriously, though. come on, give me a break. you guys can do better than this, to express your side of this discussion. you're really not trying hard enough. convince me otherwise. EXPLAIN, with something to actually BACK UP your ridiculous claims.
meanwhile, i'll be sitting here, waiting for the evidence that i see pretty much daily, that backs up how i think, to change.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 01:52 AM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 01:53, 25 Apr 2014.
|
Quote:
that humanity is destroying their environment
YES
Quote:
, and, that it will eventually be their undoing.
NO
Were smart enough to circumvent that problem PLUS we're destroying the environment to actually live a better life. Have been doing so since time immemorial I might add.
There are literally two spots that the humans have not "destroyed" on this planet, both of them being in the deepest pits of the ocean. Everything else is man made now.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 01:56 AM |
|
|
|
Nobody said we're angels, we are not a colony of suicidal sociopaths though. And it's you who keeps giving answers that are completely flawed and ignoring legit answers that refute your argument which is even more flawed. Each debate you participate in, you bring in the same speech and each time less people take it seriously. Like you, I believe in second chances and you had yours. Maybe, it's time to try the tavern or VW instead of the OSM, it might suit you better.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 02:01 AM |
|
|
Why so personal? Maybe we should have a soap thread or something.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 02:04 AM |
|
|
|
I dont think anything I said qualifies as personal.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 02:34 AM |
|
|
Talking about another person is the same as being personal.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 02:40 AM |
|
|
|
Not really, if someone tries to compansate flawed arguments with unjustified smugness, they should be informed that it's not working. It gets repetetive and boring after a while. The worst thing about this age of social media is, people started to think as long as you sound or look like something, the content becomes irrelevant. It isn't.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 02:45 AM |
|
|
No.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 03:05 AM |
|
|
|
I already said it has nothing to do with humanity being a plague or even with improving our life conditions, but with an economic system that crumbles if it doesn't grow infinitely. if there isn't enough economic activity going on, the amount of money in circulation will diminish and people may have trouble paying for basic necessities, that's why we apparently always need more work, and it doesn't matter how useless or even harmful that work is. (it is said that war is the best way to boost an economy)
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 03:19 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 03:21, 25 Apr 2014.
|
artu said:
Nobody said we're angels, we are not a colony of suicidal sociopaths though. And it's you who keeps giving answers that are completely flawed and ignoring legit answers that refute your argument which is even more flawed.
where is your proof, that anything you say on this subject, isn't flawed itself? even with no news, no articles, nobody else telling me any different, i can put 2 and 2 together, when i see what is happening around me. when i see the behavior of the species in question. when i see how they live their lives; what they value; what they find sacred; how they treat their environment; and most of all, how many MORE of them there seem to be around me, every time i step foot outside my house. now, multiply the behavior of what i've seen, by most of the people on the planet. it's a simple deduction. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand my point.
artu said:
Each debate you participate in, you bring in the same speech and each time less people take it seriously. Like you, I believe in second chances and you had yours. Maybe, it's time to try the tavern or VW instead of the OSM, it might suit you better.
what i am saying is no less true. the reason i keep repeating it, is because it is the core of every problem that i've seen posted here. but you don't get that, obviously. you want to have the apparent pleasure of debating about things, without understanding the grave issues facing humanity's future. that is obvious, as well.
i could give less than a damn, if you(or anyone, for that matter) don't take what i say seriously, in regards to the serious nature of the point i have been trying to get across to people, most of my life. go ahead and ignore it, it'll still be there. the worst may not happen in our lifetimes, but if it did, would you still have the privilege of ignoring it, then?
i would say, not.
you want me to leave what you see as your little playground, and i understand why. reality is harsh; you'd rather endlessly debate about things without seeing them for what they really represent. you can try and insult my intelligence all you want, artu. it's not going to shake my understanding of how things actually are. you can take that to the bank.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 03:27 AM |
|
|
You put two and two together and get "we're going to die because we're removing too much from underground".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 06:21 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 30 Apr 2014. |
Edited by fred79 at 01:46, 15 May 2014.
|
that's a gross oversimplification. you're taking what i say, and apply them like what i said makes no logical sense, and try to make me look insane. horrible try btw, mvass.
let me break what i said down. make it more simple to absorb.
1. humans are selfish. they think only of what benefits THEM. there is a multitude of evidence to prove this. anyone who denies this, is living in a dream-world.
2. humans, in their selfishness, cannot see the consequences of their actions, at least not immediately. it has taken a loooong time for human beings to see the impact that they make on the environments that they affect.
3. humans, now beginning to understand the effects that they cause to the environments that they dwell in, or travel through; are trying to rectify their errors, by producing things that are better for the environment; and trying to remove things, that aren't. although, nowhere near what they should be.
4. humans have been multiplying for years. they live in every corner of the globe; even in some of the harshest climates, and have done so, for centuries. even if you do not read anything about it, or if no one tells you about it, you would know this; by how many more people you see around you, than you have in the past. you will see the most evidence of this in cities.
a. evidence to back up the fact that the human race are still multiplying all over the world, is the rising cost of food, water, housing, gas, etc(not to mention, more and more forested areas being cut down to make more room for living areas, roads, etc). why the rising prices? because the resources are dwindling.
why would the resources dwindle?
here, one could speculate:
the weather is all over the place. that could lead to droughts, floods, temperature drops and peaks, etc., which could be bad for crops. having yearly seasons cross over into one another(which i have seen more and more evidence of) could have the same effect.
the demand is becoming greater than the supply. which means, that there are more people using more resources. this would also explain the rising prices of certain things, and the exploding prices of other things, in relation to their availability, and the demand.
pollution. there are natural causes of pollution, such as volcanic ash, but the earth finds a way to deal with that, as there isn't an overabundance of it. so, what causes the rest of the pollution? human beings, and their technologies, and carelessness(due to their selfishness). pollution could also(and my logical guess, is) be tied to the weather and climate differences being inconsistent, as it is what could be causing those very changes(again, my money is on IS).
and, here we come, to:
5. what matters most, to human beings? how many human beings have you talked to, in regards to their care for the environment? would any of them quit working at a factory that puts out pollution, if it meant they would have to go and find another job? "someone else would do it, and get paid. i might as well." have you ever seen the news, or talked to people in your family, that if a company were to come to them, and ask them if they could take the oil/natural gas/whatever from their land, and that they would be PAID for it, what do most people do? "i let them take it, and pay me. they're going to get it anyway, if the neighbor says yes. i might as well be paid for it." even IF they say no(and if everyone in the area were to say "no"), the government steps in and procures what they need, from land that those "owners" paid taxes on.
have you ever talked to people, and asked them, how many kids they plan on having? have you taken a good look at the numbers of families with kids? have you taken a good look at how many kids that are a part of that family? take military families, for example. they tend to procreate, when a soldier comes home from a deployment, especially. there are those females who get pregnant before deployment, just so that they don't get shipped to a hostile zone.
have you ever asked a couple, or just a woman, how many kids they think they should have? they get angry with you, when asked how many that they should have. and why? who is anyone to tell them how many kids they should have? *take a minute, and think about the common consensus/feelings towards china, and their "one kid" law.*
and why? selfishness. so, when it comes down to it, what matters MOST to human beings? themselves. not the environment(or the further demands their children will make on it).
given that china is the only country in the world(that i know of) that actually controls the rate of human births, what is bound to happen with the rest of the world? what will it take, for the rest of them to understand that "another mouth to feed", not only needs fed, but needs watered, housed, and given the things required to "be a part of society"?
society. indeed, society matters much more to human beings, than the environment. society; an idea(created by humans), an ideal, and everything else in the world comes second.
given that the priorities are as they are, and that the world has changed so much by our presence here, and our unwillingness to put the environment before ourselves, where do you think humanity is headed?
that's not even mentioning how many vehicles everyone seems to need, how many trees that they cut down to make more room for human developments, etc. no, i could have written a book, on what else humans have done, to turn the world that they inhabit into their own personal little habitats.
if any of that has come across as "ridiculous speculation" to anyone, then maybe, you should consider yourself part of the problem.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 08:07 AM |
|
|
And the bees! Don't forget the poor, suffering bees! Out of their selfish desire for honey, humans are farming them. And now the bees are dying, thanks to human selfishness. When you ask a beekeeper how many bees they want, they want more bees, so they can sell more honey. It doesn't last forever. Now the bees are dying out, thanks to selfish greedy humans, and we're next.
Right, fred?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 08:52 AM |
|
|
LOL. 
i'm not sure about the bees, you freak.  someone might have found out why, but i can't remember if they did right now or not. i know i always wondered about their near-disappearing act(i used to catch a hundred of them in a big pickle jar, then let them all go at once, when i was a kid. in the past 4 years, i've probably seen 10 bees out and about, total).
i wonder about a lot of trending animal behavior nowadays. between whales beaching themselves, flocks of birds dying out of nowhere, and the bees disappearing, yeah, it has me a little worried.
|
|
Locksley
Promising
Famous Hero
Wielding a six-string
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 11:20 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 30 Apr 2014. |
Edited by Locksley at 11:32, 25 Apr 2014.
|
I see that this has become an over-heated debate since yesterday but I take the risk to add a few things.
Fauch said:
green capitalism isn't the solution, it actually aims at keeping everything that is the problem and put some cosmetics over it.
the problem is our economic system demands infinite growth. companies have to sell always more if they want to stay competitive and make profit. and green capitalism exists to support it. it is made to seduce people who are concerned about ecology, but the goal is only to make more profit. as long as your car producers are only concerned about making more profit, producing more "ecological" cars will still mean more pollution. that's why they come up with new "ecological" technologies, instead of more simple solutions like avoiding activities that bring little benefits while generating pollution. one of those solutions actually increases GDP, the other doesn't.
My previous post was an attempt to give a positive answer to the initial question "anyone under the impression that environmentalism(and the people involved) are actually changing the outcome of the future stability of the Earth's environment as a whole?" The post is a picture of how things are working, and of the current plan to deal with the climate problems.
Since we have the economic system we have with its focus on profit it's not strange that many aspects of the work for a better climate are portrayed as economic issues. That could convince many selfish persons, companies and states that it's a good idea to deal with the climate problems.
A lot of people worries about the climate, and many of these persons want to do something for the climate. Especially young people worry about the climate - the problems may become acute in their/our future - and a lot young people are or have been students.
In all academic fields subjects like environmental studies, green technology and human environmental behaviour & politics are very popular. This is a growing ground for all kinds of social, ecological and technological solutions for the climate problem.
These persons has to become entrepreneurs and seek support from companies if they want their inventions to become realized, since we have the economic system we have. For these persons it's NOT the profit that is the most important thing (but yeah, money is needed for living and even more of it is a nice bonus), it's that they do something that they think is important. They run businesses because that's the means to achieve what they hold as important and good.
(Other students that don't make green technological inventions and run businessess, become civil servants/officials/administrators, or journalists or join an organisation to work with important & good stuff)
Since many other people, not only these "university environmentalists", worry about the climate they vote on and even join our political parties to the left, middle and right. These parties try to do what they can to attract voters and to solve problems that the politicians too think are important to solve, but there are also many other very important problems they want to deal with.
There are non-economical solutions like information campaigns/propaganda to change the attitudes of citizens, businessmen, civil servants and policy makers. This way it's possible to "avoid activities that bring little benefits while generating pollution", as Fauch put it (good point), and to introduce for example more recycling. Many things can be banned by lawmakers when it's realized that they're not necessary or bring little benefits, but it would be difficult to quickly change the whole economic system. So they kind of have to regulate the system to force selfish persons and companies to change their ways, and also work within the system by actively supporting green inventions.
Parties and countries have different views on how ambitious they can and should be in this work. It's often debated how this can be paid, since we have the economic system we have there must be a profit. In my last post I simply posted a thing that I thought was interesting; the IPCC experts' calculation indicating that it's NOT that huge cost we NEVER can afford, i.e. things are not hopeless. It's a big cost but to some extent it's also an investment with potential to pay off, especially for the countries that are leading the new technological development.
mvassilev said:
At its root, this is a huge coordination problem. The vast majority of the costs of emissions are borne by somebody else, so everyone has an incentive to emit too much. If you're an individual (or a company), it makes sense for you to drive/fly/run your factory/etc a lot, because you're not paying for the full costs you're imposing on other people. Governments could try to internalize these costs, but in addition to the political difficulties (it's controversial) and the implementation difficulties (who should pay, how much, and for what?), there's an international coordination problem as well. For example, if the US reduces its emissions, it reduces the costs it's imposing other countries, but that doesn't give them a reason to reduce their own emissions - they free ride on the benefits. And unlike a government that can force coordination among its citizens, there's no international entity that can force this level of coordination among governments.
Good points. When I studied political science there was much discussion about these things.
The whole problem of cheating, freeriding and placing the cost on someone else can theoreitically be solved within the state by the state, i.e. it's legitimate for a state to introduce environment protecting measures (like those mentioned above, or even harsher ones).
But states prioritate environment politics in different ways. Some, like Sweden, takes it very seriously. Some know about the problem but can't afford to deal with it, some doesn't care and others haven't enough knowledge, some states are perhaps not part of the problem etc. Some states are democratic and realize (in theory) the interests of the citizens, while dictatorships exists for the ruling elite.
In the international system the coordination problem is much worse. Some say it's a great achievement that representatives from all states gather and discuss the IPCC reports, it's an indicator that many countries see it as a severe problem, and at least a beginning to future coordination.
In Europe the EU has a coordinating function where common decisions are binding and where the EU funds and programs can be used for financing environment protection, sustainable infrastructure and innovation-supporting systems and incubators.
When it comes to the two big polluters who aren't very willing to do much for reducing emissions, the USA and China, there are some special circumstances compared to Europe where most want to and try to do things on their own and in cooperations.
China's leaders prioritate stability above all, and economic development is a part of their strategy. However, the environmental problems caused by coal burning, car driving and industry are so severe that they have do at least something to keep the increasingly more worried people content.
In the USA the situation is more complex. Many politicians and voters don't see any problems at all, others take global warming very seriously. Many leading politicians rely on support from businesses to finance their election campaigns, which makes it difficult to introduce emission limits or sign international treaties - even if they would like to. The financial crisis also makes environment protection difficult, when fracking for fossil fuel means an economic recovery. The urban planning consequently give priority to cars. At the same time the USA does a lot of research on green technology. California and some other states manages to reduce thier emissions. Things are happening on lower levels, even if the state USA isn't very active in international cooperation.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 12:16 PM |
|
|
[quote name=fred79
let me break what i said down. make it simpler. not because i think you guys are morons, but because maybe, you are considering the source(me and my divergent personality, as it were) too much into your contemplations of what i am trying to tell you.
Quote:
1. humans are selfish. they think only of what benefits THEM. there is a multitude of evidence to prove this. anyone who denies this, is living in a dream-world.
Nothing wrong with that. The strong take from the weak. THe weak will be the first ones to suffer from this.
Civilization is not humanity, democracy is not humanity.
The end of civilization will not result in the end of humanity. The only difference between the past and now is that some people posses the ability to destroy the earth. I dont think thats going to happen because nobody is stupid enough to use nukes, not even pakistan or north korea.
Quote:
2. humans, in their selfishness, cannot see the consequences of their actions, at least not immediately. it has taken a loooong time for human beings to see the impact that they make on the environments that they affect.
What, exploiting poor countries is blindness? Extinction of species, destruction of rainforests, acidification of oceans, global warming, Multi resistant bacteria and so on are all cases where interests of the few cause this. But then, thats only impeding our ability to survive, not the immediate destruction of humanity.
Again, whats at stake is civilization, not human survival.
Being civil is not what makes humans human. We have beeb living for 98000+ years in absolute savagery, killing animals, killing others, slavery and so on.
Quote:
3. humans, now beginning to understand the effects that they cause to the environments that they dwell in, or travel through; are trying to rectify their errors, by producing things that are better for the environment; and trying to remove things, that aren't. although, nowhere near what they should be.
Wrong, the only people that care about the enviroment are people that have the time and interest to do so.
You see, caring about the enviroment impedes economic or social development of a state. Nobody wants to spare some water so that your country can ship it to africa. Screw africa is what people say when they are given the choice to care or not to care.
Quote:
4. humans have been multiplying for years. they live in every corner of the globe; even in some of the harshest climates, and have done so, for centuries. even if you do not read anything about it, or if no one tells you about it, you would know this; by how many more people you see around you, than you have in the past. you will see the most evidence of this in cities.
Rich countries popilation is falling, poor countries are multiplying and dying like rats.
Once there is no food for poor countries, dont worry, nature will regulate human population.
The increase of Drug reistent bacteria, floods, war, famine and all of that will be inevitable. Then we will got back to 1 billion or less from the 7 billion. Life isnt precious there is no such thing as the right to live. Not in nature.
Quote:
a. evidence to back up the fact that the human race are still multiplying all over the world, is the rising cost of food, water, housing, gas, etc(not to mention, more and more forested areas being cut down to make more room for living areas, roads, etc). why the rising prices? because the resources are dwindling.
Luckily, the some peple breed less. But dont worry, once things reach an unberable level, those african lands will be good places to start building up military bases and proctect farm land.
Quote:
5. what matters most, to human beings? how many human beings have you talked to, in regards to their care for the environment? would any of them quit working at a factory that puts out pollution, if it meant they would have to go and find another job? "someone else would do it, and get paid. i might as well." have you ever seen the news, or talked to people in your family, that if a company were to come to them, and ask them if they could take the oil/natural gas/whatever from their land, and that they would be PAID for it, what do most people do? "i let them take it, and pay me. they're going to get it anyway, if the neighbor says yes. i might as well be paid for it." even IF they say no(and if everyone in the area were to say "no"), the government steps in and procures what they need, from land that those "owners" paid taxes on.
Thats the beauty of capitalism. There will always be somebody willing to do things you would never consider, for money.
But then, thats just human nature.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 01:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you want me to leave what you see as your little playground, and i understand why. reality is harsh; you'd rather endlessly debate about things without seeing them for what they really represent.
Unfortunately, that's not it. Call me old-school but I get irritated to see people emberass themselsves. You can not begin to imagine how sad it is when you believe your position to be "the man who tells the truth no matter what." Open your eyes, you are not putting two and two together, that is what everybody else does when they object to you. But instead of actually listening, you pull some BS and switch to teenager with Gothic make-up mode, "hah, you people dont understand, humans are awful, awful."
Btw, even if it happened, reducing back to 1 billion would be nothing close to extinction or end of civilization so you are altering your argument again. And all that talk about how people will keep having children no matter what... in most European countries, the birth rates are down, not up, that's why they keep accepting immigrants: young labor. Now, it is true overpopulation would start creating problems eventually but it is again true, this is also a process that takes time, long time. Even when there is NO imeddiate threat, a country such as China regulates birth rate, what makes you think anybody wouldn't if we were facing extinction, what makes you think they would even have to, people's behaviour would change accordingly anyway.
Predicting end of civilization is almost as old as civilization itself. It can happen one day, it will happen one day, nothing lasts forever. But us polluting ourselves to death in the forseeable future is so improbable and so unlikely, it can only be categorized as a conspiracy theory and those are not analytical, they are just speculations that feeds on people's fears.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
