|
 carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
 Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria  [Re: Evolving]
#1438384 - 04/08/03 04:30 AM (21 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Do you have any verifiable facts on the matter? I posted an article that brought up some valid points.
Of course, it's all a theory.
I'm not willing to bet that this rapid atmospheric change is nature rebalancing itself using us as unconcious vessels to deliver it.
All that stuff about windwills springing up on desert lanscapes is well and good, but the rates of CO2 emissions continue to accelerate despite this. Rapidly changing the conposition of the atmosphere should be of concern, what with the lack of verifiable facts and all.
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
 GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Evolving]
#1438415 - 04/08/03 05:07 AM (21 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Your very proud of yourself arent you?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: GazzBut]
#1438670 - 04/08/03 08:31 AM (21 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Aren't you?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Evolving]
#1438972 - 04/08/03 10:57 AM (21 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
This nearly destroyed the American automotive industry as people started buying more fuel efficient cars from the Japanese.
So you think this implies they'll stop using cars if gas prices increase? Could you explain how the two follow?
While you're at it address the fact that gas prices in the UK are 3-4 times higher than the US and car ownership and use is still increasing.
Did I state this?
I was just applying your scarcity theory to other areas of conservation. So you only apply it to certain areas? Do you think the free market can be trusted with the amazon rain forest for example?
Certainly a novel theory. Keep polluting untill we run out of things to pollute with. Why not simply destroy all animal and plant life on earth? That would enable corporations to pollute without fear of damaging anything and profits would skyrocket.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: ]
#1439786 - 04/08/03 03:22 PM (21 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
sometimes yes...but then I do or say something inane! 
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: GazzBut]
#1440073 - 04/08/03 05:05 PM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
We'll there's something we have in common!
Nice to see you back posting btw.
Cheers,
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Evolving]
#1440192 - 04/08/03 05:42 PM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Evolving writes:
My opinion is that no one in his right mind wants to pollute or destroy the life giving properties of the earth. However, short sightedness and unsound thinking abound in human affairs. Many people latch onto the most dire environmental scenarios with a religious fervor that precludes all rational thought on the matter, they never stop to think that perhaps things aren't as they are scared into believing.
Maybe so, Evolving. But so are there people who justify dumping wastes (as in RG's example, which sadly is a mild one) by latching onto the most UN-dire environmental scenerios--e.g. "Yeah, yeah, the sky is falling." It's a very convenient complacence, no? Still others, in my opinion, don't give a rat's ass what they do to the environment, if they think it won't come back to haunt them.
If you think about the improvements that have come over the past decades in the U.S. regarding cleaning up our air, land, and waters, you can't help but credit the work of environmentalists. Yes, even some of these radical environmentalist groups. This is the case in any polemic issue, from feminism to gun control--the radicals play a role.
By the way, to go back to an arguement you and Alex had a while back about the improvements to the environmental situation in the U.S., I felt you were both partly correct--U.S. environmental regulations have improved greatly and many industries have shown a willingness to comply; however others have packed up and moved to other less stringent nations, such as Mexico.
I think this kind of race-to-the-bottom profit method is bad news for everyone. But that's for another thread. (And a topic you've shown to know more about.)
peaz
hongomon
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1440262 - 04/08/03 06:07 PM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Oh, and one more thing: (I hate responding to my own post, dammit)
I have a strong feeling that whatever new resources become available, whatever new fuel source we develop, and however efficient our recycling becomes, we will always be taxing the environment. We'll always be struggling to keep our rivers and oceans clean, we'll always be fighting over access to recourses, and so on.
Why? Two reasons. The first is obvious. There's too damn many of us and there's more all the time and we seem for some reason inable to sufficiently confront the problem of overpopulation; and second, the concept of individual self-restraint is a vague concept, even one worhty of scorn. It's as if it goes against the sacrosanct concept of individual liberty.
Well, we've been doing a fine job of establishing the concept of individual liberty in its respectful place over the past few centuries, but somehow the notion of responsibility to the whole, to society, hasn't enjoyed the same progress. And I don't think that the socialist/communist doctrine I've learned about has it all figured out either, but I do believe that somehow the two--individual freedom and group responsibility have to co-exist, almost in a religious way, or we're always be in a mess.
hongomon
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1441607 - 04/09/03 01:35 AM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Great posts hongomon!
Cheers,
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1442142 - 04/09/03 07:25 AM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Spot on - a synthesis of communist and capatalist ideals? Sounds goroovy to me!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1442387 - 04/09/03 09:22 AM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
hongomon writes:
There's too damn many of us and there's more all the time and we seem for some reason inable to sufficiently confront the problem of overpopulation;
Yes. Circumstances in the developing nations need to improve to the point where it no longer is necessary to have a dozen children in the hopes that two might make it to adulthood.
Well, we've been doing a fine job of establishing the concept of individual liberty in its respectful place over the past few centuries, but somehow the notion of responsibility to the whole, to society, hasn't enjoyed the same progress.
The principle of individual liberty, consistently practiced, results in a responsibility to society.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: GazzBut]
#1442398 - 04/09/03 09:26 AM (21 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Spot on - a synthesis of communist and capatalist ideals? Sounds goroovy to me!
Impossible on the face of it. There can be no compromise between universal individual liberty and universal self-sacrifice. As soon as individual rights are violated as standard government policy, it is no longer Capitalism, it is the same "interventionist" system we see in all "free" nations today.
pinky
--------------------
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Phred]
#1443622 - 04/09/03 03:43 PM (21 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Pinky:
Yes. Circumstances in the developing nations need to improve to the point where it no longer is necessary to have a dozen children in the hopes that two might make it to adulthood.
You don't think circumstances already have? If it were still necessary to have a dozen children in the hopes that two might make to adulthood, then the population of such countries wouldn't be skyrocketing. Old ideas die hard?
Pinky:
The principle of individual liberty, consistently practiced , results in a responsibility to society.
I'd love for you to expand on this. I'm skeptical, but as I've just written, I'd like to see the two coexist.
hongomon
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: GazzBut]
#1443643 - 04/09/03 03:50 PM (21 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
I agree, Gazz. Pinky may be right about these two -isms never coexisting--but maybe you've hit on the nature of the polarization that's been going on. The Coms stress social responsibility and the Caps stress individual freedom. Obviously it's not that clear-cut, but I get that impression sometimes.
hongomon
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Phred]
#1443683 - 04/09/03 04:05 PM (21 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Well done!
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Phred]
#1447391 - 04/10/03 04:24 PM (21 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Dang, Pinky, I was really hoping to hear what exactly you meant by "consistently practiced" individual liberty equating social responsibility. Is this kind of like that comment you once made that "no capitalist would knowingly shit in his own nest"?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1452539 - 04/12/03 01:11 PM (21 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
hongomon writes:
You don't think circumstances already have? If it were still necessary to have a dozen children in the hopes that two might make to adulthood, then the population of such countries wouldn't be skyrocketing. Old ideas die hard?
Apparently in some developing countries, old ideas do indeed die hard. What strategies do you suggest we in the developed nations adopt to persuade those in the developing nations to cut their birth rate?
I'd love for you to expand on this.
Sure. I'll do that as soon as you provide me your definition of "responsibility to society". I would hate to expend energy addressing the wrong point, and from our past encounters I am all too aware that you define things differently than I do.
pinky
--------------------
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Phred]
#1452744 - 04/12/03 02:31 PM (21 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
PInky writes:
Apparently in some developing countries, old ideas do indeed die hard. What strategies do you suggest we in the developed nations adopt to persuade those in the developing nations to cut their birth rate?
You must be aware of the complexity of your question. I can't help but wonder--are you stating it to suggest that if I can't come up with a solution, I should keep quiet? If not, forgive me for assuming, seriously. Especially because it is a good question, and one I've been thinking of throwing out here for a while.
Remember, though, that the "old ideas die hard" response of mine was to your (IMO dumb) statement that people, in this day and age, need to have twelve kids in order to get two to adulthood. And remember that that statement of yours was to my simple objective observation that the population was going to continue to climb.
As for what I mean by "social responsibilty", I could expand on it, and we'd probably discover similarities as well as differences. In fact, the topic might be a nice thread to relieve us from all this war bullshit. But you're the one who said, " The principle of individual liberty, consistently practiced, results in a responsibility to society ." You've used the term, so I'll be glad to go by your definition for now.
hongomon
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: Phred]
#1452756 - 04/12/03 02:38 PM (21 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
regarding population:
for now, here's an article you might appreciate:
phil harvey
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria [Re: hongomon]
#1453801 - 04/12/03 10:05 PM (21 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
hongomon writes:
I can't help but wonder--are you stating it to suggest that if I can't come up with a solution, I should keep quiet?
Not at all. I am genuinely curious as to what actions you feel the developed nations should take to address the problem.
Remember, though, that the "old ideas die hard" response of mine was to your (IMO dumb) statement that people, in this day and age, need to have twelve kids in order to get two to adulthood.
Not quite correct. I stated that people in developing countries in this day and age... etc. etc. Do you deny that in some developing countries a family may have more children die before the age of five than children who make it to sexual maturity? If so, I can steer you to some humanitarian websites working in Africa who provide statistics about this kind of thing. More to the point (as you noted with your "old ideas die hard" comment), the people in these countries who keep having more children are not always those who have read the latest infant mortality surveys for their region and are willing to trust the statisticians when they tell them they need less children. Many cannot read at all. Their personal experience and that of almost all their neighbors can be summed up in the phrase "children die".
But you're the one who said, " The principle of individual liberty, consistently practiced, results in a responsibility to society ." You've used the term, so I'll be glad to go by your definition for now.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't introduce the term, you did. You made an undetailed general claim:
"we've been doing a fine job of establishing the concept of individual liberty in its respectful place over the past few centuries, but somehow the notion of responsibility to the whole, to society, hasn't enjoyed the same progress."
I made a mental note that you had provided no supporting evidence for your claim that the notion of responsibility to society hasn't enjoyed the same progress, but let it slide and instead responded with an equally general, undetailed claim that there is a direct connection between the spread of individual liberty and increased responsibility to society. Since both our claims were so general and unsupported, I felt it unnecessary to ask at that point for your working definition of "the whole" or "society". Why bother? It took maybe fifteen seconds to compose and type my comment.
But if you want me to expand on it, I want your definition of "responsibility to the whole, to society", or at least, of "society". This isn't a dodge -- I'll do the work. I just don't want to have you cut it off at the knees two lines into the explanation because my guess at what your definition may be turns out to be inaccurate.
pinky
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms
carbonhoots
Xlea321
TrueBrode
Psilocybeingzz
Phred