Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
    #14458536 - 05/15/11 07:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

LightShedder said:
lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads.  When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.





How do you justify your claim that people have an extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occuring? 

Who exactly has these warheads that are so fragile?  How exactly do they cause a catastrophe if not maintained daily?  I've never heard of this- what do you base this on?




Its funny cuz I instantly thought of that cartoon with the little guy bangin' his hammer on the tips of all the missiles....

Really, as I understand it, those things have very precise ignition mechanisms, and to get one to detonate without doing it properly, is damn near impossible. They aren't as 'unpredictable' and fragile as many seem to think they are.


Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/15/11 07:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinescubared1
Experienced Guide
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/12/11
Posts: 44
Loc: Somewhere in the East
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14460192 - 05/16/11 12:50 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The fact of the matter is this. We as a race are hung up on a materialistic based society and lifestyle (not all, but most). We are dependent on a fossil fuel to provide our means of access to this materialistic paradise. We are inconsiderate, greedy, and conceited. Humans think they own the Earth, when in actuality we do not. Yet, it is human nature to care for those who can not provide for themselves. We pay the price so the worthless people of this world can drive around in SUV's and have three or four kids who inevitably fall prey to the same cycle as their worthless parents and then begins another cycle of ignorance.
Until we as humans can learn to love, learn, laugh, covet, forgive, and understand we are doomed to a predetermined end.

Scuba for Prez 2012


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14460212 - 05/16/11 12:56 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I should have been more specific. Not so much as the arsenal of warheads but the "arsenal" of the general nuclear technology in place that, if left unmaintained for 24 hours would quickly become that- an arsenal against the global ecology.

Once the power grid goes down, nuclear power plants can run automatically on diesel generators. Until the diesel fuel runs out. At that point, it's only a matter of time before the meltdown.

There are 436 operating NPP in the world.

In addition, all of the manufacturing facilities around the globe that have deadly gases under containment that might be released into the atmosphere should the power fail and or the fuel supply cut off.

Either you, johnM are ignorant of this blatantly obvious fact or as usual you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.


questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Comradez]
    #14460233 - 05/16/11 01:01 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Comradez said:
We could support 100 million people living a wealthy, industrialized lifestyle, or...

We could support 2 billion people living like people in Bangladesh. 

I'd much prefer the first option, and I think most people would. 


Case closed.





Hahaha! To annoyingly attack your idea and quote johnM,

"wudduya base that on errr?"

I beg to differ. I'd suppose 1.9billion would prefer the second option to your .1 billion demanding the first! It's stupid to take a democratic vote on it anyways considering how unfair that is.

"democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".
-Benjamin Franklin


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder] * 1
    #14461566 - 05/16/11 11:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.




This is what keeps people from flat out Making shit up, like you have in this post.

Most Gov weapons buildings are meant to survive unmanned for decades. They are built like Hoover dam, to continue to operate in the face of a disaster.

If you honestly think that 24hrs without supervision and every nuke and deadly gas in the world would be released, you need to stop watching tv.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14462854 - 05/16/11 03:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Stop mocking me and making personal remarks.  Stick to the issues, please.  If you cannot tolerate questioning of your ideas or become this upset when someone doesn't believe your claims simply because you've asserted them, then the science and technology forum might not be the best place for you.

Quote:



Either you, johnM are ignorant of this blatantly obvious fact or as usual you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.

questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.




You said *somebody* had an "extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring".  Given that you've now retracted that statement, I'm having difficulty understanding how you attribute all this ignorance and malice to me when you seem to agree your claim was wrong.



Quote:

In addition, all of the manufacturing facilities around the globe that have deadly gases under containment that might be released into the atmosphere should the power fail and or the fuel supply cut off.






What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off?  I'm not familiar with any kind of storage vessel for particularly nasty gasses that require power to contain.  What are you referring to here?  Containers that vent anyways, like those for compressed nitrogen, et cet I suppose would release gas more rapidly if cooling isn't supplied, but that's obviously not a big deal for the environment- the gasses get released during use anyways.  Just stay out of confined spaces.  What are you referring to that manufacturing facilities store like this?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
    #14462959 - 05/16/11 04:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off?




Your missing something important John:

Quote:

you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.

questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.




This is all the answer you need. He obviously is ok with making up his own facts, representing them as such, and then shout down anyone who asks for proof.

I would put money on it he is a Creationist as well.


Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 04:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14464747 - 05/16/11 09:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I suspect this to be the likely answer as well, he just made it up or it came from a misunderstanding of things he heard in the news, but I try to simply ask first.  By now I think its pretty clear what's going on, though. 

I just don't get how these guys get so upset at simple questions, however.  You ask him why he's saying such outrageous things, like the world will end if nukes aren't maintained daily, and its like you insulted his mother.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
    #14464984 - 05/16/11 09:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Do you think the deadly gases will just sit around in their happy homes FOREVER? Until the sun bursts or a meteor destroys our planet? I'm less optimistic. Ultimately, without understanding every storage facility on earth, I'd guess they would be released somehow. If I'm incorrect please correct me.

No offense by the mocking John, I just get the feeling sometimes that you demand proof when you actually agree (maybe not in this case) knowing that it is a fact that is unprovable. I mean how can you prove that there aren't any deadly toxins that are stored requiring power? Or that would inevitably be released without human maintenance? Even if were talking 500,000 years, these storage facilities aren't infinite.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14464990 - 05/16/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

And it's irrefutable that there would be a severe nuclear crisis if man or power stopped.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder] * 1
    #14465124 - 05/16/11 10:04 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
Do you think the deadly gases will just sit around in their happy homes FOREVER? Until the sun bursts or a meteor destroys our planet? I'm less optimistic. Ultimately, without understanding every storage facility on earth, I'd guess they would be released somehow. If I'm incorrect please correct me.




Sure, but its also foolish to think that they would take precautions like they did with the Hoover dam (a dam built in 1936 btw), a dam made to last over 10 years without a single person touching anything, and NOT apply things like that to WMD's and test weapons? Get real. (it is important to note here that i am referring to the US, other 3rd world countries MAY be less careful, but it still does not imply the 'fragility' that you seem to think they have).

Quote:

LightShedder said:
No offense by the mocking John, I just get the feeling sometimes that you demand proof when you actually agree (maybe not in this case) knowing that it is a fact that is unprovable. I mean how can you prove that there aren't any deadly toxins that are stored requiring power? Or that would inevitably be released without human maintenance? Even if were talking 500,000 years, these storage facilities aren't infinite.




I think that the problem is that you brush off someone asking for proof as foolish.  It is not unreasonable to ask you to provide proof of your claims, or else we could all just go around saying whatever we want about anything whenever we feel the wish to, which we CAN, but you will be greeted like you were.

Google Jon Kyl, and the hashtag #notintendedtobeafactualstatement. He is a perfect example of saying what you want, and not caring about the repercussions.

Quote:

LightShedder said:
And it's irrefutable that there would be a severe nuclear crisis if man or power stopped.



No it is not irrefutable, im refuting it right now. Now provide some evidence please.


Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 10:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14465182 - 05/16/11 10:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Then you've lost all credibility and earned my contempt sir.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/03/15/rush-hour-read-anatomy-of-a-nuclear-meltdown/

"The key to the crisis is water. In addition to the uranium fuel rods, the fuel assemblies have channels which carry highly purified water between the fuel. The water acts as both a moderator for the nuclear reactions and a coolant for the reactor core. On top of it all, it makes the electricity: as it is heated by the reactor, it turns into steam that drives the power turbines. Once the water passes through the turbines it is cooled and re-injected into the core to do it all again.

It all goes great unless the water stops flowing, and that’s exactly what it appears has happened in the wake of a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake that shook the region on 11 March. Diesel generators designed to keep feeding water to Fukushima Unit 1 apparently shutdown about an hour after the quake. Yesterday, the water supply to Unit 3 was interrupted. In both cases, the cores began to heat up.


So, without emergency cooling, the temperature at the core of both reactors began to rise. As it did, what water that remained began to boil off, increasing the pressure inside the pellet-shape pod."

Nice recent relevant example. How do you expect the cooling waters to reach the core after were long gone.

http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/inside-ngc/2008/03/aftermath-life-after-people-day-10-to-1-year.html

Let me change my statement, it's irrefutable to those with basic knowledge and understanding of how nuclear reactors function that the world will face a nuclear crisis after humans are gone.

I mean there's just too many things that weve created to list. So how long do you guys predict all the nuclear reactors, warheads, biochemical toxins etc. will remain the way it is after were gone. It would seem silly to think that these things will just gently deconstruct themselves.

As for the reactors, it wouldn't take much time at all for contamination to occur. Wont matter for us cause well be gone but it's sad to think that we build all of this technology with no realistic plan on reversing it's inevitable path.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465202 - 05/16/11 10:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I see one end and one end only for all the chemical toxins being stored everywhere. You want to show me proof that they will infinitely be sealed off from the atmosphere?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465220 - 05/16/11 10:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
Then you've lost all credibility and earned my contempt sir.




Why because i asked for proof?

I actually liked that post, you had links, some info i didnt know, and it was presented well. But to say someone lost all credibility and earned contempt because they asked you to provide actual proof for your claims, is absolutely ridiculous.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14465242 - 05/16/11 10:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

If you were unaware of this, and refuted my claim, you've lost credibility. Not for asking for proof.

And maybe it's an exaggeration to say ALL credibility. Don't be insulted, I don't feel like anyone in this forum considers anything I say as close to credible.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465251 - 05/16/11 10:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

But to stay slightly on topic, I'm genuine when I ask for proof that the wide array of biochemical toxins (to the earth) will be infinitely safely sealed. It is honestly disturbing to think that every toxin we've created and have stored will someday merge with the earth in an irresponsible way. No one thought if this when creating the stuff. Or they at least failed to consider it.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465257 - 05/16/11 10:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
If you were unaware of this, and refuted my claim, you've lost credibility. Not for asking for proof.

And maybe it's an exaggeration to say ALL credibility. Don't be insulted, I don't feel like anyone in this forum considers anything I say as close to credible.




I don't feel insulted. I just wish you would realize the difference between providing opinion and providing fact.  Your initial post was nothing more than speculation. THAT post (with the links) actually had some substantiated facts. If you had STARTED with those, then I would have never asked for proof to begin with ;D


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465269 - 05/16/11 10:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
But to stay slightly on topic, I'm genuine when I ask for proof that the wide array of biochemical toxins (to the earth) will be infinitely safely sealed.




Again, no one said that, that would be speculation. It was merely said that it would not be as 'instant' as you made it come off in your first post.

Quote:

LightShedder said:It is honestly disturbing to think that every toxin we've created and have stored will someday merge with the earth in an irresponsible way. No one thought if this when creating the stuff. Or they at least failed to consider it.




The key word there and for any manmade disaster like you describe, is 'someday'. Aside from that, I agree that they didn't think it through. Thank god some people are NOW thinking about it, now that another disaster has struck.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/118064259.html


Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 10:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLightShedder
Trading currencies
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
    #14465307 - 05/16/11 10:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Someday is scary enough. Call me unscientific for involving morality and emotion but shit, we have no regard for the condition of the planet when constructing said toxins. Does the chemist who manufactures said toxin think, "but before I die I'll come destroy this poison by breaking it into simpler molecules". No, they think "this will be safe so long as it stays contained in this here container" (I know this is a generalization John so don't u dare ask for proof). That seems so normal for a chemist but it's incredibly selfish and if earth had a consciousness it would be sad lol.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKrizzKaliko
Lurker
Male


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
    #14465331 - 05/16/11 10:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LightShedder said:
Someday is scary enough. Call me unscientific for involving morality and emotion but shit, we have no regard for the condition of the planet when constructing said toxins. Does the chemist who manufactures said toxin think, "but before I die I'll come destroy this poison by breaking it into simpler molecules". No, they think "this will be safe so long as it stays contained in this here container" (I know this is a generalization John so don't u dare ask for proof). That seems so normal for a chemist but it's incredibly selfish and if earth had a consciousness it would be sad lol.




Lol, for sure man.

I think a couple people have had their regrets. We know Einstein didn't like what he did (though someone else would have just come along to do it), but who knows about all the others.

Imo, the real problem, is the amount of money those people are paid to do it. It's pretty easy to brush off your own intuitions and morals when a fatty-bomb-batty check is coming to you constantly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Help With Boadcasting Live talk-radio over the net ekomstop 485 0 10/03/04 02:57 PM
by ekomstop
* Bird flu vaccine may be ready in 2007
( 1 2 all )
Cracka_X 2,082 25 07/30/06 11:04 AM
by kotik
* Stalking the wild taboo The14thWarrior 830 5 10/19/05 11:14 PM
by Phluck
* DEA billboards
( 1 2 3 all )
GaNjAShRooM 5,645 42 11/19/02 09:52 AM
by New Name
* Mexico swine flu deaths raise fears of global epidemic zorbman 911 17 05/05/09 07:27 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* Cure For Aids/HIV Possibly Discovered! Announced Today Irishdrunk 2,104 16 02/17/06 06:15 PM
by fresh313
* teck, is our problem thirdEYEviewe 451 5 05/28/06 07:08 PM
by supra
* Pictures of one of Earth's last uncontacted tribes firing bows and arrows
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ShroomMan420 6,888 73 06/28/08 02:15 PM
by ToTheSummit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
5,237 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.