CLIMATE CHANGE, THE GREATEST THREAT TO US ALL

[El Mamerro]

OH EM GIZZLE!!!!!

yes, sex<masturbation....breathing<suffocating....understanding<overstanding

 

wat

 

That's either a totally bungled analogy or it just completely went over my head.

[GnomeToys]

METH BINGE

[El Mamerro]

Or it could be that too.

[Removed]

Wait, I did admit to being selfish.

 

It's sort of like religion...when people tell me that I have to go to church, read the bible and lead a squeaky-clean lifestyle or else I'm going to burn in hell for eternity they lose me. What's wrong with trying to live by the Golden Rule and being the most decent person you can be?

 

I do what I can to keep things clean and I don't actively make the planet worse. That's about as much as anyone should expect, so when they tell me that since I don't buy 100% organic produce or because I wear shoes that were possibly made in a sweat shop or I own something from Ikea that I'm screwing up the planet.

 

That's what I have a problem with. It's gone from doing the right thing to brand awareness, and that was never the point.

 

As far as my belief that all of the good intentions regarding environmental awareness and green culture may be futile, if everyone had started paying attention to this shit 40 years ago when it was first brought up then I might think differently.

 

I don't mind that people are finally beginning to make some changes in their lifestyle but it basically took 40 years of brainwashing to get them to do it, and a good portion of the new environmental laws that have been passed are not aimed at the gross polluters, but at the individual. That's what bugs me.

 

Ok so I think I am starting to understand your perspective. I also think to a degree the environmental movement has been co-opted by capitalism. Although this should come as no surprise. So long as unchecked capitalism exists then big business will find a way to profit from any paradigm shift, and during this process there is a high likely hood that they will favour decisions geared towards profit rather than ethics. This is where brand awareness becomes important, everyone needs some basic products, so if people buy brands that they know are ethical, it does give some small degree of power to the person purchasing.

Am I detecting a degree of resentment toward people who are playing off their environmental beliefs for social status? Totally understandable. Though I don't think this is an adequate reason to refuse to acknowledge that their is a serious problem.

To a large degree I think peoples personal actions are mostly futile, turning light switches off etc does make a positive contribution but its nothing compared to powering a heavy industry business. The lionshare of responsibility lies with government to regulate industry and provide environmental infrastructure. However under a democratic system government tends to only jump on issues that it thinks are popular, and this is where participation is important!

[shai]

Where it breaks down for me is when "making a difference" becomes a commodity and the consumer rushes in without doing their homework. A good example are CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs).

 

Everyone jumped on them because they touted as being more efficient with less power. No arguments there. However, they contain mercury, just like regular fluorescent bulbs. Are they being disposed of them properly? No, most of the time they're thrown out just like regular incandescent bulbs when they break or wear out. Therefore, the short term "feel good" aspect is offset by people not knowing about the long-term effects involved with improper disposal of the product.

[shaolinmasta]

yadada

 

overstand = stop listening to this guy

 

[Removed]

frankie5er...................watch the fucking film already. please

 

I watched it.

 

A critique.

[Nightscrawler]

wheres that pic again... o yeah...

 

i used this in a report i did on the effects of co2 on the global temperature. I couldn't find anything that contradicts it yet...

 

[russell jones]

The only problem with that picture is that it shows a huge scale of time. We as a species have only existed for the last 200,000 years, so only the last part of that graph, which show CO2 and temperature increasing quickly, is relevant to our current situation. I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the fluctuations in temperature at the end of the graph are due to more accurate data for the last 300,000 years being gathered from ice caps.

 

This graph shows that we are in a cool period in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, which also happens to be the period we evolved in. No one doubts the earth was hotter in the past. The problem is that life, especially ours, may not be able to adapt to quick changes in the environment. Those big spikes and dips in the graph seem to correspond with mass extinction events. Yeah, the earth will survive, but we may not.

[shai]

Yeah, the earth will survive, but we may not.

 

Which was my point all along.

 

Three billion people on this planet don't really have shit. The whole "George Jetson/Star Trek/flying car/world peace" paradigm depends on a more even distribution of resources and at this point in human evolution (the "gimmie-gimmie-I-want-more" phase), we're so far removed from that being a possibility...it's sad when you think about it.

 

So those three billion people are going to burn whatever the fuck they want and hijack ships and drive 1982 Tercels because the first world doesn't give a fuck if people in Africa or Southeast Asia have CFLs or Priuses much, less enough to eat or clean water. The first world is desperately trying to con itself into thinking that it's making a difference when it's really business as usual, but painted green and packaged in some feel-good 40% post-consumer waste cardboard box....and as usual, the third world gets the hind tit and is desperately trying to survive because they don't have the luxury of delusions.

 

If you want to make a difference, BUY LESS and don't buy crap you don't fucking need. You don't need 30 pairs of Nikes, you can do fine with three pairs of good shoes. Plant a few trees or a garden, recycle, clean the neighborhood. Don't buy a fucking new car just because it's a hybrid.

 

You know, little things. Or not doing big things. It's not hard.

[Mainframe]

Three billion people on this planet don't really have shit. The whole "George Jetson/Star Trek/flying car/world peace" paradigm depends on a more even distribution of resources

 

Not really. If living standards were equalized for everyone on the planet, 1st world standards would drop drastically. Nobody would have much fancy shit. Any realization of our visions of the techno-future depends on our ability to manage resources MUCH more efficiently than we do now. Maybe that's what you meant?

 

In general...has anyone in here read Collapse by Jared Diamond? He also wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel. There are plenty of historical examples of how human societies have impacted resources and coped with climate change. Many of these civilizations were wiped out. It's completely stupid to think that humanity today doesn't have a vast and constantly increasing impact on the earth.

 

I agree with most of what Shai Hulud is saying. In my opinion, I think it's wise to listen to scientists and be critical of what the government/big business is trying to sell us as "green" technology. There are different sides to the issue. I do think the problem is barely relevant at an individual level. Aside from living reasonably, you can't expect every individual in first world countries to do that much. Unfortunately these problems need to be addressed at a higher level. Things like requiring solar panels on every new home built, legislating caps on water use for lawns and gardens at home, shifting to greater reliance on nuclear power, building better public transit, this type of shit will have an impact.

 

One of the most embarrassing environmental efforts I've seen is the one to conserve tap water. People are dumping huge amounts of water into lawns and golf courses, while farmers are pushing for more and more water (rather than more efficient irrigation) to dump on their crops, and we see commercials telling us not to leave the tap running? Tap water is what, 0.01% of water use? Our toilets are filled with clean water for god's sake. Maybe we are gonna ruin the planet.

 

OK that was a rant.

[russell jones]

Which was my point all along.

 

Three billion people on this planet don't really have shit. The whole "George Jetson/Star Trek/flying car/world peace" paradigm depends on a more even distribution of resources and at this point in human evolution (the "gimmie-gimmie-I-want-more" phase), we're so far removed from that being a possibility...it's sad when you think about it.

 

So those three billion people are going to burn whatever the fuck they want and hijack ships and drive 1982 Tercels because the first world doesn't give a fuck if people in Africa or Southeast Asia have CFLs or Priuses much, less enough to eat or clean water. The first world is desperately trying to con itself into thinking that it's making a difference when it's really business as usual, but painted green and packaged in some feel-good 40% post-consumer waste cardboard box....and as usual, the third world gets the hind tit and is desperately trying to survive because they don't have the luxury of delusions.

 

If you want to make a difference, BUY LESS and don't buy crap you don't fucking need. You don't need 30 pairs of Nikes, you can do fine with three pairs of good shoes. Plant a few trees or a garden, recycle, clean the neighborhood. Don't buy a fucking new car just because it's a hybrid.

 

You know, little things. Or not doing big things. It's not hard.

 

They solve that in the Star Trek universe, it's called a replicator.

 

10/4 on everything else. Whether you believe in global warming or not, you still have to share the planet's resources with the rest of us, so consuming less and living simply is a good idea for now, a necessity for times to come.

[shai]

Not really. If living standards were equalized for everyone on the planet, 1st world standards would drop drastically. Nobody would have much fancy shit. Any realization of our visions of the techno-future depends on our ability to manage resources MUCH more efficiently than we do now. Maybe that's what you meant?

 

But I DO think people in the first world have too high of a standard of living. We have millions of "poor" people here in the States who are obese and own six cars along with a house full of shit they don't need. That makes no sense to me. The definition of the word "poor" in the first world is "insolvent", whereas in the third world it means "completely assed out." You don't get to eat the rich people's trash if you're poor, you go to the poor people's dump and hope for the best.

 

That's not to say that we need to get on their level, but we're too materialistic for our own good. We need to get past that point.

 

Imagine if along with all this environmental awareness in industry came a push for quality that went something like this- "We're going to cut our output by a third and use local, well- paid labor to concentrate on making the best products we can, and also to save energy and raw materials. That does mean that the price of our goods will have to go up, but we're committed to doing right by the environment and to provide you with quality goods that will last a lifetime."

 

That would be pretty nice, wouldn't it?

[Removed]

But I DO think people in the first world have too high of a standard of living. We have millions of "poor" people here in the States who are obese and own six cars along with a house full of shit they don't need. That makes no sense to me. The definition of the word "poor" in the first world is "insolvent", whereas in the third world it means "completely assed out." You don't get to eat the rich people's trash if you're poor, you go to the poor people's dump and hope for the best.

 

That's not to say that we need to get on their level, but we're too materialistic for our own good. We need to get past that point.

 

Imagine if along with all this environmental awareness in industry came a push for quality that went something like this- "We're going to cut our output by a third and use local, well- paid labor to concentrate on making the best products we can, and also to save energy and raw materials. That does mean that the price of our goods will have to go up, but we're committed to doing right by the environment and to provide you with quality goods that will last a lifetime."

 

That would be pretty nice, wouldn't it?

 

It would be nice, its unfortunate that it cannot exist without consumer complicity(which is riddled with problems that I wont go into), and in my opinion strong guidance by government.

 

One thing I found interesting about this documentary is its message that environmentalism had been hijacked by anti capitalists. My suspicion is that this is this exposes the films true agenda which is to influence the debate with an capitalist/anti-capitalist tone.

It is a easy path to lead people down, environmentalism equates to anti industry, which equates to anti capitalism. Hey Presto!

 

I think realistically it is difficult to divide the issues of environmentalism and anti free market capitalism.

For the most part I see free market capitalist theory as a reactive force with ability to predict and react to immediate or short term paradigm changes. I cannot see how an absolute free market could behave with long-term foresight enough to bypass obstacles like this. Which is unfortunate because it may be the only system capable of generating technology quickly enough to soften the environmental blow.

 

The issues in preventing any real progress on this topic as I understand them are;

The inability for democratic nations to make significantly unpopular decisions, regardless of their benefits.

The lack of a strong guiding international force to prevent competing nations from minimising their contributions to reducing co2.

Inequality between developed and developing nations.

Severely ingrained consumerist cultures in developed nations, and the political instability it would cause by upsetting this existing pattern.

[once upon a crime]

global warming is a farce... coldest june and july on record in the northeast... go fuck yourselves.

[Mainframe]

^Actually that's probably a confirmation of global warming. Certain regions are expected to cool while others become hotter, as oceanic/atmospheric circulation changes.

[Y@d@d@]

yeah its called different seasons in different hemispheres.

its called different climates in different regions.

oceanic/atmospheric circulation changes are always happening and have always happened.

it cant be the same circumstances globally in all faucets forever, instead its forever changing.

c'mon now.

[MomentIsNow]

global warming is a farce... coldest june and july on record in the northeast... go fuck yourselves.

 

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Global warming isn't just about the temperature going up, It involves drops in temperature too... It might be the coldest June and July for you but somewhere else in the world it could be 120+

[Mainframe]

it cant be the same circumstances globally in all faucets forever, instead its forever changing

 

I just checked my faucet, it's stable. Better call Australia and see which way their toilets are flushing.

[Y@d@d@]

facet***************************

[Defiled Remains]

harp

[nsmbfan]

i think most people that have a strong belief on anything, one way or another, are the biggest danger to the world.

 

life is sales. you get sold every day. i equate our generations information overload to walking into a cheap casino. everythings kind of fake in it's own way and out to get your money.

 

believe in yourself and what you are capable of. question everything. buy into nothing. for the whole world is a stage.

[anker.]

I heard today that studies have shown "symptoms" of global warming may actually be due to ocean cycles/the moons gravitational pull and all that jazz. Does that mean the earth is emo?

[twonpoo]

worse part about all this info tossing, is that nowdays, anyone who has $ to make documentaries supporting their agenda can have a follow up wave of parrots on message boards all over the web regurgitating their new discoveries.

 

non experts pursuing other sheep.

 

Awesome.

[!@#$%]

i'd say the biggest threat to us all is us.

 

overpopulation.

bottom line

fools need to stop reproducing

[Mainframe]

worse part about all this info tossing, is that nowdays, anyone who has $ to make documentaries supporting their agenda can have a follow up wave of parrots on message boards all over the web regurgitating their new discoveries.

 

non experts pursuing other sheep.

 

Awesome.

 

Right. This seems especially stupid when it comes to science. It's hard to fathom why people who have little to no scientific experience relating to climate change run around spouting opinions like they're experts. Questioning policy is one thing, but these sheep need a lesson in listening to what real experts (i.e. climate scientists) have to say. It's very easy for some asshole with an agenda to bend the "facts" to fit their own ideas. I see plenty of that in these popular internet documentaries that message board denizens seem to swear by. To think that the government or the "new world order" or whatever can pull the wool over the eyes of the entire scientific community on a very scientific issue is simply stupid.

 

I understand that the issue has become politicized, but I know many scientists personally, who have decades of experience, who understand the workings of the scientific community and where funding comes from, and who have gotten their hands dirty doing research relating to global climate change. They pretty much all agree that climate change is a very real and very important issue. There are abundant well-researched examples of the impact human activities can have on global scales. Whether or not CO2 is the most important thing going on right now (overpopulation is sort of the atavistic problem), industrial emissions are not anywhere close to benign.

[russell jones]

The best way to reduce overpopulation is through eliminating poverty and education. 1st world country citizens do not have overpopulation problems.

 

 

That will even out, because if the third world rises out of poverty, they may start consuming like those in rich countries, thereby canceling out the benefits of a lower population.

 

Additionally, a good percentage of people in third world countries work in agriculture, where having more children is a benefit, rather than a burden. In other words:

 

Industrial Society = Less Children = Benefit

 

Agricultural Society = More Children = Benefit

 

Did I mention the cultural/religious bias against birth control of any kind in some places? No... Ok.

 

On top of all that, if third world countries rose out of poverty, who would make my iPod or mine the metal for it? Our rich society is dependent on poor societies around the world. No poor people, no cheap stuff. Hey, so maybe it will work!

[Chappaquiddick]

The best way to reduce overpopulation is through eliminating poverty and education. 1st world country citizens do not have overpopulation problems.

 

Society needs poor people.

[nsmbfan]

society doesnt need poor people. poor people create crime in an attempt to resolve their problems of poverty.

 

society needs to get rid of the greed and corruption of Capitalism first. then provide basic human essentials for everyone with the surplus of shit we have.

 

zeitgeistmovement.com

[Removed]

society doesnt need poor people. poor people create crime in an attempt to resolve their problems of poverty.

 

society needs to get rid of the greed and corruption of Capitalism first. then provide basic human essentials for everyone with the surplus of shit we have.

 

zeitgeistmovement.com

 

Poor people do not create crime. Criminal behaviour is found across all demographics.

 

That's a fantastic idea, but I think you will find any attempts to put it into practice get very messy very quickly.

 

Don't waste your time with zeitgeist conspiracy rubbish. If you are interested in the understanding the economic theories that govern society, read about Adam Smith, Karl Marx, J M Keyenes, and Milton Freidman.