Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Earth Day
Thread: Earth Day This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 08:54 AM

It's just natural selection, remember?
Survival of a species is all about ADAPTION and ADJUSTMENT, which is why insects are so darn successful in surviving because they can adapt and adjust so darn well.
Same is true for humans: if we "screw up" the environment, than it's largely a consequence of us having adjusted so well that we thrive. It's a common and general NATURAL occurrence, that when a species thrives - usually because there are extremely favorable conditions - their rising numbers will
a) change the favorable conditions until they are normal or even unfavorable and
b) invite OTHER species to adapt and adjust, because species living off of a thriving one will find favorable conditions.

Which means, disease is the NATURAL consequence of increasing population; also the thriving of a species like rats would be.

Which means: We do NOT want to play by the rules!

Instead we make our own. Which is ultimately, what adaption and adjustment is all about.
Which also means that I'm in agreement with Mvass, and I'd like to add here, that I don't think that it is even debatable for any clear-headed, rational individual of the species homo sapiens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 09:15 AM
Edited by artu at 09:26, 24 Apr 2014.

I disagree with Mvass at the point where he idealizes a mindset which worked when we lived in cabins in the wood and postulates it as a general rule. Saying things like "if I want ivory I should be able to kill elephants, why not?" sounds naive and in the long-term, destructive to me.

Quote:
their rising numbers will
a) change the favorable conditions until they are normal or even unfavorable


is exactly why we should care about the environment, even on a pragmatical basis.

Also, pragmatism alone does not usually result in happiness.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 11:02 AM

What's this "we" business, artu? WHO should care for the environment, in which way and how?
And define "care for the environment", please.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 11:14 AM
Edited by artu at 11:15, 24 Apr 2014.

On a global basis, "we" is nations of the world and their governments. So, it refers to things like signing the Kyoto Protocol, using environment friendly energy production as much as possible, researching and developing technologies accordingly, giving funds to that etc etc. On a more "citizen scale" we is everybody, people in general, and to care refers to considering the above when voting, not cutting a tree in your yard because it blocks your view, trying to keep the little pollution you produce to a minimum level etc etc.  Anything unclear or wrong with that?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JoonasTo
JoonasTo


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted April 24, 2014 11:26 AM

Quote:
Neandarthal had stronger bones and better stamina but when the climate changed, they died out

The current understanding is that they didn't die out just like that, more that they fused with the modern humans over a period of time.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 11:47 AM

Yes, there is Neandarthal and Denisovan DNA in some Europeans at some minimal levels. But as a seperate specie, they died out. Finding some European lion DNA in some African lions means their paths intersected and they interbreeded seldomly. It doesnt mean the European Lion isnt extinct or they fused 50/50.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 11:47 AM

artu said:
On a global basis, "we" is nations of the world and their governments. So, it refers to things like signing the Kyoto Protocol, using environment friendly energy production as much as possible, researching and developing technologies accordingly, giving funds to that etc etc. On a more "citizen scale" we is everybody, people in general, and to care refers to considering the above when voting, not cutting a tree in your yard because it blocks your view, trying to keep the little pollution you produce to a minimum level etc etc.  Anything unclear or wrong with that?


I didn't know you were speaking for everyone in the world.
What if you think Kyoto is bull?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 11:55 AM

I'm not speaking FOR everyone, I'm giving my opinion on what everybody should be doing. This is a subject where efforts are meaningful when they are collective. Also, as I stated earlier I think the laws should be international on such matters since the effects are, (on a mega-scale of things of course, not about the apple tree on your yard). But there is no muscle to enforce such law so it's just wishful thinking.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 12:02 PM

So you think the Kyoto is really great or what?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aron
Aron


Known Hero
posted April 24, 2014 12:03 PM
Edited by Aron at 12:11, 24 Apr 2014.

Personally I support emissions of Co2 for it has been shown that an increased abundance of Co2 in the air is conductive for plant growth which we need to replant deforested areas, areas that have burned down and to increase agricultural production.

It is other types of gasses which are both toxic and far more heat isolating which we should be worried about. It is the continous efforts to cut down the Amazonian forest for Soy Bean production and various type of biofuel-cashcrops which is destroying the earths capacity to produce oxygen and to absorb toxic materials and at the same time also lessens the absorption of Co2. This is being done despite the fact that biofuels have worse energy efficiency than fossil fuels and that they emit almost as much toxic components when used up.

Obviously the solution is Nuclear, Solar, Wind and Wave energy expansion as we burn up our fossil fuels while preferably using the added Co2 to regrow or forests and produce more effective agriculture.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 12:17 PM

JollyJoker said:
So you think the Kyoto is really great or what?

I'm not an expert on it and I'm no scientist who is capable of a critical analysis of the restrictions it brings but reducing the CO2 levels sounds right and nobody objects to the deal in terms of its purpose.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 12:30 PM

But it's not been doing that - obviously.

I mean, it's all very fine to commit to a reduction of greenhouse gases - but only for SOME?

Back to the problem:

The problem is, that a SMALLER part of the world's population lives under circumstances so favorable that they can AFFORD investing into ecology. Which makes sense; after all, if you are wealthy you want to ENJOY your wealth, so you can't have all the nice things destroyed and ruined that makes it enjoyable in the first place.
While the LARGER part lives under circumstances so unfavorable that they don't give a damn about ecology, but instead want to better their circumstances of life.

Conclusion: if we want them to care, we have to share.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
seraphim
seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted April 24, 2014 02:07 PM

Quote:


Conclusion: if we want them to care, we have to share.


Thats an inhumane thing to ask.

Besides, why should people who live well give 1 or 2 cents about poor people, especially dumb poor people?

CO2 levels are going to regulate themselves. Once african countries , china and india have no water to drink, they will be dying to improve CO2 emission, I am sure of that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Locksley
Locksley


Promising
Famous Hero
Wielding a six-string
posted April 24, 2014 04:23 PM
Edited by Locksley at 16:35, 24 Apr 2014.

Maybe scientists never will become 100 % certain of all causes and consequences of the climate changes, but I think that a few percentages of uncertainty are not a reason to not do anything to stop the changes. Better safe than sorry.

There's currently A LOT of green technology development projects going on at universities, in public programs and even in companies (for example car producers). But since this technology currently is too expensive to produce commercially, it doesnít get the chance to be refined enough to compete with our current technology.

At least where I live (Sweden) most people worries about the climate, and political parties to the right, middle and left want to do a lot for the climate. Here's summary of what they all agree upon (even if the parties differs on how much they want each action):

- The public sector could hand out research money, support entrepreneurs, support green technology when acting as a customer, establish emission limits, introduce climate taxes and give subsidies to people buying environmental friendly cars, better insulation of homes and sun panels and so on.
- There are also agreements in the EU and things like the Kyoto protocol and emission trading.
- When the green technology can compete with technology using a lot of energy, companies will start to use it.
- When production of green fuels (CO2 neutral) can compete with production of fossil fuels, everybody starts to use green fuels.
- Common people can vote in the elections, are encouraged to drive less, and more importantly to buy "green" things (with some help from the state).

Currently itís perhaps mostly the developed countries that can afford this kind of support to green technology, but in the long run it could be a good investment for these countries:

- Good for the climate.
- Good for their energy costs.
- Good for their companies who export to countries that want the new cheap green technology to replace their old expensive fossil fuel oriented and energy thirsty technology.

The economy ISN'T a reason for developed countries to not take these development costs, or not to be more ambitious than the developing countries.

Sustainable development may be an overused word but the idea that protecting the environment has to mean that economic development has to cease and  that our standard of living has drop to a minimum isnít true. In a new report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated how much it would cost to reduce the CO2-emissions to achieve an acceptable temperature:
Quote:
Estimates of the economic costs of mitigation vary widely. In business-as-usual scenarios, consumption grows by 1.6 to 3 percent per year. Ambitious mitigation would reduce this growth by around 0.06 percentage points a year. However, the underlying estimates do not take into account economic benefits of reduced climate change.
0.06 percentage points a year sounds like a reasonable cost for trying to avoid troubles that are likely to come, and as indicated above some of it can probably be seen as an investment that will pay off in the long run.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 05:53 PM

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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted April 24, 2014 07:10 PM

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.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
Chewer of Expensive Shoes
posted April 24, 2014 08:07 PM

artu said:
A disease coming out of the North Pole to wipe us out? Problems that come from drilling? You should really decide what you're talking about here, end of civilization followed by mass extinction or serious but managable threats... Put aside the fact that it's a completely arbitrary speculation, a disease is very unlikely to finish us off since we are so widespread now, including thousands of islands.  Mass extinctions are very rare, they come by in hundreds of millions of years and even they are not that fast if you have the intelligence to detect what's coming and prepare. (Biological time scales are long! Even when we say something like Cambrian Explosion, we are referring to millions of years.)

That being said, there are some biologists who consider us, the humans the next event  of mass extinction FOR SOME OTHER SPECIES. Not exactly something to brag about but I'm sure Mvass will tell us how wonderful and amazing that is


maybe because i'm not just talking about ONE thing, artu. i'm addressing more than one angle, because they ALL come into play, in regards to the future state of the human race, and the environments they live in.

i first found the actic-ice disease article on msn, but can't find it anymore. disease related to polar ice caps melting(a handful of links):
frozen in ice

is it still "completely arbitrary speculation"?

as far as "we are widespread, disease cannot wipe us all out", you must have forgotten how diseases and viruses mutate. i already addressed this, you must have forgotten.

and besides, even IF there are no deadly viruses in the polar ice caps, would you agree that them melting is a bad thing?

understand, artu, that the reason WHY i am addressing all of these angles at once, is because they are all things that we will see down the road, in one way or another, due to how the human race uses and abuses the environments they live in. the way the human race is going, and the way the environment is going, it is inevitable that much more horrible things will come to pass, that the human race will not be able to recover from.


@ jj: "Which also means that I'm in agreement with Mvass, and I'd like to add here, that I don't think that it is even debatable for any clear-headed, rational individual of the species homo sapiens."

using the latin term for the human race will not make your views any more viable, jj. nice to see that there are now TWO people who parrot humanity's foolishness. again, i'm not surprised. the way things are, and have been going, with the human race and the environments they live in(notice that i didn't say THEIR environment), i think most of the human race thinks as you two do. human beings remind me of lemmings. this part is particularly evident: "Lemmings have become the subject of a widely popular misconception that they commit mass suicide when they migrate. It is not a mass suicide, but the result of their migratory behavior." human beings, as a whole, don't seem to be AWARE that they are committing suicide, with their ways of life.

i think it's funny, jj. you thinking that the massive amount of daily evidence, and anyone speaking about it, that strictly is to the absolute contrary of what you and mvass believe, that those people wouldn't be "clear-headed, rational individuals".

this reminds me, of the discussions over religion, between you and elodin. only now, you're playing the part of elodin. and I'M the rational one. it's fun, role-playing, wouldn't you say?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 24, 2014 08:17 PM

Dude, you are just a troll who tries to provoke people in order to take pleasure in any kind of reaction they show. At best you are ranting.
Therefore don't expect an answer or any further comment.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
Chewer of Expensive Shoes
posted April 24, 2014 08:20 PM

typical response from someone who cannot handle a rational argument.

you think because i found something funny, all of a sudden i'm a troll? i guess you think anyone who finds something ironic is a troll?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 24, 2014 09:08 PM

Some of those links' credibility is quite suspicious to say the least and NONE OF THEM says anything about the end of civilization or human race. So yes, it's still arbitrary speculation. You dont seem to understand the main argument: Mass extinction is not a lightning strike, it takes time, it gives signs. Humans may be greedy but they are not greedy to the point that they will wipe themselves out entirely. And yes, I know viruses mutate but that didnt cause them to wipe us out before and nothing is different in that aspect.  You seem to be doing the same thing again, you have a conclusion, when your reasons for that conclusion are confronted, you simply pick new ones. That's not a rational argument, that's arriving at reason from conclusion, which is the opposite of a rational argument.

With you, no matter what the subject is, it always comes down to how a lost cause humanity is and the end of the world. Guess what, shouting dooms day all the time doesnt automatically make you a realist and cursing humanity unconditionally doesnt make you wiser. JJ's right about one thing, it's ranting at best.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0551 seconds