Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Paradoxium]

If you start forcing these population controls on the likes of Japan, it would be an absurd proposition. Most of the biggest booms are in less developed countries. What right do we have to force and control their mating habits?

 

[BlackLantern]

I wasn't talking about any controls...you mentioned Japan so I figured I'd throw that out there....Japan is seeing a growing Brazilian immigration though

 

[Paradoxium]

nono not you BL, we were discussing about population controls prior to this.

 

[BlackLantern]

oh ok then...I just don't want to make Satanic Psyduck mad at me

 

[Heretic]

You should buy neither, since the worlds temperatures have gone up and down repeatedly over the last thousands of years and we cant predict what the sun will do over the next few decades. This is hardly the hottest decade ever (in fact, its cooler than the 1990s, which the pro-fraud crowd had to destroy evidence to hide) and it is hardly the coldest decade ever.

 

[Kelly]

Actually Japan has a drastic decrease in population due to a number of factors.

1. Women are now working, and waiting longer to have children.
2. Their strict immigration policy.

They are about to hit a major, major, major problem in productivity due to this decrease.

Brazil is seeing a major increase in their Japanese population, and they have the 2nd largest Japanese population 2nd only to Japan.

 

[Paradoxium]

You know I've always thought the Japanese would immigrate to the western North American coast, instead of Brazil. I wonder what the attraction to Brazil is about.

 

[BlackLantern]

maybe Brazil is a place where the inhabitants of that country don't have a sick obsession or make a mockery of their culture....

 

[Kelly]

You know I've always thought the Japanese would immigrate to the western North American coast, instead of Brazil. I wonder what the attraction to Brazil is about.

They are, actually....British Columbia is probably #3 if I had my guess. ..but BC had a major influx of people from Hong Kong close to the mandate of Hong Kong going back to China from the UK....many people in BC are not necessarily happy about this immigration. As BL said, Brazil may be more open to it.

 

[Arc-Light]

If i had to choose...i would rather go through an Ice Age than a Water World.

 

[SuperFerret]

If i had to choose...i would rather go through an Ice Age than a Water World.

Duh. Sabretooth Tigers with Denis Leary's voice > Kevin Costner.

 

[Arc-Light]

Duh. Sabretooth Tigers with Denis Leary's voice > Kevin Costner.

Hmm i don't know the more i think about it, if i can have a water world Jeanne Tripplehorn then i change my choice.

 

[The Battousai]

You should buy neither, since the worlds temperatures have gone up and down repeatedly over the last thousands of years and we cant predict what the sun will do over the next few decades. This is hardly the hottest decade ever (in fact, its cooler than the 1990s, which the pro-fraud crowd had to destroy evidence to hide) and it is hardly the coldest decade ever.

You're still clinging to that? It's already been shown repeatedly to have been an overblown reaction - by those who already denied climate change - to a few misunderdstood phrases (out of 13 years of emails, mind you).

 

[The Battousai]

I think humans must have an effect on climate change. But to extreme levels where us and us alone can completely change the climate to a dangerous level? No.

You can't think solely in the short-term - it's in the long-term where the data is predicting serious change. There are predictions that the global-wide temperature will increase by at least 1C in only a few decades, and at least 3C by the end of the century (these are conservative estimates).

In regard to "going back to the stone age", I agree - that wouldn't be enough, and as Carch said it's been said to be too late for that method.

However, there is a possibility of eliciting enough change if technologies were made to remove more carbon (and, perhaps, other greenhouse gases as well) from the atmosphere than we're putting out (until it reaches the point where stabilizing the net amount would be the best choice, of course).

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I dunno how much relevance this has here, but since we're apparently going to suffer an ice age within the next billion years, I figured I'd bring it up here:

My brother said he recently saw or read something, saying that apparently some scientists believe that we're not the first "round" of humanity- that apparently humans have started out five or six times before us, achieved our level of civilization and technology or higher, and killed itself off, either due to mistreatment of the planet, or to apocalyptic prophecy (I believe he was referring to the 2012 thing). He also said something about humanity being due for one more wipe-out, or something.

I don't believe the world will end in 2012 by any means, but I thought the whole "impending doom by cold snap" would tie in here. Just tossin' it out there.

 

[Timstuff]

It sounds like something you'd hear on that dopey radio show that they play at night where the host will believe any opinion as long as it's not "mainstream" (Coast to Coast AM I believe it's called). I think a lot of people on a subconcious level like to think that human beings are powerful enough that we can control the weather, to the point that nature would see us as such a threat it'd try to wipe us out to save itself, but you really do have to buy into a lot of baloney to believe it. First of all, you have to believe that humans can control the weather-- we can't. Global warming and cooling are part of the earth's natural cycle, not the result of damage being done to the environment. Secondly, you have to at least somewhat believe that nature has conciseness, and that it sees human beings as a threat that it will eliminate if necessary. Nature, as a collective is a concept created by man, not an actual tangible thing. It is our way of describing all of the natural life cycles that form an eco system, the planet is not a god (even though some people treat it like one).

 

[A&W]

It is quite possible for capitalism to result in that. It is by virtue of the fact humans are part of the system, and we are fallible. We are capable of mass irrationality.

But is even more likely if it is a more centralized control economy. As I have mentioned in the ice age thread, most "planners" lack necessary information (because there is an inherent overabundance) to properly manage something of such a big scale. Not without incurring unintended consequences. This is why it is smarter to break it down to a smaller level if you wish to govern. There has been historical examples of this failure (I think you already know what I am talking about).

America does not have much of a capitalist system anyways. The most basic requirement is a type of fair and honest currency to trade on. Even if you eliminate this, America is not the most "capitalistic" in the world, that goes to Hong Kong and Singapore.

At least if resources become scarce (capital and unemployment) in a capitalist-esque society, lots of people start to ration on their own, and avoid having a child. This is precisely what is happening right now. This is why money velocity is gridlocked and people are so much more thrifty. They are making the correct rational choice, but the government is hell bent on getting them spend despite their risk position.... see what I mean by economically induced?

We are likely to cull ourselves sooner with poor economics, than with horrible treatment of the environment.

your arguement is precicesly why I support a slow and gradual move towards communism instead of a drastic seizing of the state. we gotta take it one day at a time and be very careful. first how to figure out how to make our economy very efficent, get a little practice managing this kind of thing with universal health care. get our economy simple and efficent so there aren't so many things to deal with. In order to do that technology has to come a long way.

Without money motivating the guy to do it, why would anybody bother to pick up a mop or a spatula? Or not call in sick every monday? As of right now we need capitalism, with heavy regulation of course, assuming the heavy regulation is smart regulation. But we also need some elements of communism. Most we've already had for decades such as publicly run roads, publicly run schools, publicly run medicare, publicly owned NASA.

most people who claim they oppose communism have no idea what communism even is. They don't even realize that they actually support a lot of programs which are communism.

 

[A&W]

who here pedicts that even 10 years from now conservatives and republicans will still claim that global warming is a myth.

 

[The Battousai]

I dunno how much relevance this has here, but since we're apparently going to suffer an ice age within the next billion years, I figured I'd bring it up here:

My brother said he recently saw or read something, saying that apparently some scientists believe that we're not the first "round" of humanity- that apparently humans have started out five or six times before us, achieved our level of civilization and technology or higher, and killed itself off, either due to mistreatment of the planet, or to apocalyptic prophecy (I believe he was referring to the 2012 thing). He also said something about humanity being due for one more wipe-out, or something.

I don't believe the world will end in 2012 by any means, but I thought the whole "impending doom by cold snap" would tie in here. Just tossin' it out there.

From what I'm aware, there is no evidence of past civilizations reaching a greater level of technology than the Greeks and Romans managed to prior to the Dark Ages (which was actually more impressive than most are aware - the unfortunate reality is that most of their knowledge was lost when religious fanatics burned down the Library of Alexandria where a majority was housed).

The civilization framework that is understood from archaeology and history is mostly a slow, upward curve - starting about 12,000 years ago with early agriculture in the middle and far east - and then plummeting around 500 CE with the Dark Ages. It then resumed its upward climb towards the end of the Medieval period prior to the time of the Renaissance, which then began an ever-sharpening curve until it reached what we see today.

There were anomalies in different parts of the world such as the Aztecs and Mayans, but nothing has been discovered that would drastically alter this view.

I think a lot of people on a subconcious level like to think that human beings are powerful enough that we can control the weather, to the point that nature would see us as such a threat it'd try to wipe us out to save itself, but you really do have to buy into a lot of baloney to believe it. First of all, you have to believe that humans can control the weather-- we can't. Global warming and cooling are part of the earth's natural cycle, not the result of damage being done to the environment. Secondly, you have to at least somewhat believe that nature has conciseness, and that it sees human beings as a threat that it will eliminate if necessary. Nature, as a collective is a concept created by man, not an actual tangible thing. It is our way of describing all of the natural life cycles that form an eco system, the planet is not a god (even though some people treat it like one).

I think you're confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one.

Also, it depends on what you mean by "damage".

We know that it can be caused naturally, but we don't know what the natural threshold for this change is - or even what processes would normally cause it. What we do know is that the readings we have are not consistent with what we'd expect for a natural climate change cycle; that is, that the rise in global temperatures has been far more consistent with the sharp increase in human-produced greenhouse gases from the Industrial Revolution onward.

If global climate change we're experiencing were not encouraged by our effects on the planet, then why would the data show the opposite?

 

[Handsome Rob]

your arguement is precicesly why I support a slow and gradual move towards communism instead of a drastic seizing of the state. we gotta take it one day at a time and be very careful. first how to figure out how to make our economy very efficent, get a little practice managing this kind of thing with universal health care. get our economy simple and efficent so there aren't so many things to deal with. In order to do that technology has to come a long way.

1. Communism doesn't work.

2. The way to make the economy very efficient cannot by definition involve heavy regulation. If you believe otherwise, I suspect you've never worked in a business environment in any sort of white collar capacity.

3. Universal health care is not cost-effective.

Without money motivating the guy to do it, why would anybody bother to pick up a mop or a spatula? Or not call in sick every monday? As of right now we need capitalism, with heavy regulation of course, assuming the heavy regulation is smart regulation. But we also need some elements of communism. Most we've already had for decades such as publicly run roads, publicly run schools, publicly run medicare, publicly owned NASA.

1. Those parts of humanity (the desire to make money and the desire to do better to make more money) do not die . . . well, they do die, but only in the communist's mental fantasy-world. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" falls apart when people realize that there's no reason for them to work hard in a communist system. As a result, everyone suffers. That's reality.

2. See what I said above about heavy regulation. Hey, there's even an article in the Wall Street Journal today about the oppressive costs that Sarbanes-Oxley has put on business . . . so much so that Congress may pass a law exempting smaller corporations from having to deal with all of it. And do you know what SarbOx is? Moar regulation!

3. There is a lot to complain about when it comes to our roads systems. Good teachers like I'm sure Kel is aside, our public school students are behind those of a lot of other countries. Our Medicare is running at an unbelievable deficit--in the trillions and trillions of dollars. As for NASA . . . well, they do a lot of contracting with (evil!) corporations to build their equipment. Rockwell International and Boeing built the Space Shuttle. It's transported on a plane built by Boeing. At least part of the Hubble telescope was built by Eastman Kodak. The AIM scientific satellite launched by NASA was built by Orbital Sciences Corporation. Corporations like Pratt&Whitney Rocketdyne and Alliant TechSystems build rockets for NASA. I could go on, but I think you catch my drift.

most people who claim they oppose communism have no idea what communism even is. They don't even realize that they actually support a lot of programs which are communism.

I oppose communism. I know exactly what it is (that's why I oppose it!).

 

[A&W]

1. Communism doesn't work.

that's not true. a stupid communist plan wouldn't work. NASA works. Public schools work. Social Security works. Medicare works. Garbage pick up works. public roads work. Public transportation works. The public option in health care would work. Universal health care does work in other countries. Publicly owned colleges work. The recycling center down the block works. The bail out worked.

yeah you can point to short comings in these but that is just like you said, the result of imperfect humans. NO corporation gets everything perfect all the time either.

2. The way to make the economy very efficient cannot by definition involve heavy regulation. If you believe otherwise, I suspect you've never worked in a business environment in any sort of white collar capacity.

hmmm, My economics professor disagrees. He believes it all comes down to whether it's good regulation or bad regulation.

To say you suspect I've never done this or that is stupid. There are plenty of people who have worked in business environments who agree with me. Many of them don't want the regulations because they are aimed at helping the overall economy and most investors only want to help themselves.

3. Universal health care is not cost-effective.

tell that to all the people who have better, yet cheaper health care than we do. I don't really want a specific debate on universal health care at the moment, but it has been proven in other countries that if doen right it can work. If done wrong? Then yeah it wont work.

1. Those parts of humanity (the desire to make money and the desire to do better to make more money) do not die . . . well, they do die, but only in the communist's mental fantasy-world. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" falls apart when people realize that there's no reason for them to work hard in a communist system. As a result, everyone suffers. That's reality.

I somewhat agree with this, which is why technology and social reforms have to come a long way before we could ever have a completely communist world. We have to reform our "public schools " so that we install the values of hard work into future generations. and we have to get technology up to par to take care of all the meaningless and unfullfilling work.

If you eliminate money, then you eliminate the desire for more money. If wealth is unlimited than it becomes worthless. The acumulation of wealth is worthless if you don't need wealth to get what you want. It is possible that this could be what the world is like a hundred or two hunrdred years from now. Hell if automated machines are building the roads and the houses and we all got replicators built by other replicators and free health care and things like slavery are illegal, than what are people going to need money for?

I'm not guranteeing that money would be obsolete, but it is possible. It will be determined by future generations really. I'm just saying the possiblities are endless when it comes to just about anything. Whether it's technology, phychology, economics, space travel ect. The possiblities are really endless as far as me and you are concerned and if future economists can figure out details that me and you can't, than they might be able to create a utopian economy.

2

. See what I said above about heavy regulation. Hey, there's even an article in the Wall Street Journal today about the oppressive costs that Sarbanes-Oxley has put on business . . . so much so that Congress may pass a law exempting smaller corporations from having to deal with all of it. And do you know what SarbOx is? Moar regulation!

so... even if Sarbox sucks that doesn't mean all regulation sucks. Hell I'm pretty damn grateful for that rescent minimum wage hike. You know what sucks about my insurance I get through work though? They are legally allowed to deny you based on pre existing conditions! We need some regulation right about now!! How about some energy efficency standards? I'm no expert on cap and trade so I dont' want to try and debate it because I don't like talking out of my ass, but obviously some heavy regulation could help us get off of oil, assuming the regulation is well thought out with the help of economists.

you know what else is funny about my job? We work together as a group to make the group as efficent as possible. Imgaine if we all worked alone on being as independently efficent as we could be? Overall my company would be a lot less efficent! That's the benefit of working together as a group under guided direction.

3. There is a lot to complain about when it comes to our roads systems. Good teachers like I'm sure Kel is aside, our public school students are behind those of a lot of other countries.

Is china one of them? Are you suggesting that we close our public schools? Do you think we should have publicly run schools? I understand there is much room for improvement, but them being run by the government is not the problem. Out of all those countries who's students are doing better than ours how many come from schools run by the government?

Our Medicare is running at an unbelievable deficit--in the trillions and trillions of dollars.

because of capitalists charging more and more for medications and procedures. The costs are sky rocketing. we need regulations telling them you just can't do it! You can't charge an arm and a leg to fix a toe nail anymore. Good example!

As for NASA . . . well, they do a lot of contracting with (evil!) corporations to build their equipment.

As I was saying we have a balance between communism and capitalism in the U.S. and that is how it should be for the time being.

I oppose communism. I know exactly what it is (that's why I oppose it!).

At the moment I'm not denying that you know what communism is. In my ideology class I did learn that according to rescent polls the vast majority of those who oppose communism can not define it. I don't know the exact number.

Part of this is because of the almost faith guided religous hatred for it that has risen in america during the last century. Remember what Raegen said about medicare decades ago? Isn't my grandpa supposed to be telling me about the good old days when men were free by now? Oh wait, my grandpa would be either dead or homeless if not for that evil medicare. yeah Marx was an atheist. so what? that doesn't justify opposing communism. I'm not saying that's why you oppose it, but it was a big factor in Americans becoming so anti-communism. Most even consider communism an atheist ideology, even though it's not.

I'm not opposed to communism or capitalism. Why do we care which "ism" something falls into? All that matter is results! I don't care what you call it. I'm not going to judge a program with preconceived notions about big government or small government. I will independently judge each program by itself without bias in favor of or against communism or capitalism. I will approach it with an open mind. There are those with a natural built in biased against the "c" word as well as for it. Those are called partisan hacks

And seeing as the stock market went real sour during this recession, it's a pretty good thing for social security. Imagine if we had Bush's plan for privatization in place. All those people would have had nothing to live off. communism once again saved the day.

 

[A&W]

I was wondering just to make our debates easier to understand and make sure were on the same page, what exactly do you think Communism and Socialism are?

I am curious what you think about my previous post. I really tried to word it in a way to get you to look at it with an open mind so when you look at things in the future you wont have a biased in favor of or opposed to big government or small government. That really is the best way to assess things.

 

[Carcharodon]

First of all, you have to believe that humans can control the weather-- we can't.

Actually, nobody believes that. The debate is over the effect on climate, which is definitely NOT the same thing as "weather."

Secondly, you have to at least somewhat believe that nature has conciseness, and that it sees human beings as a threat that it will eliminate if necessary.

I read this and really wanted to respond in a respectful manner, but I can't. This is just ******ed. Such a belief isn't required by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't even want to know where you got this. This little bit alone gave me a headache. JESUS....I mean....really? Really???

 

[The Battousai]

In terms of creating a straw man argument it's along the lines of Burning Man

 

[-Arya-]

I read this and really wanted to respond in a respectful manner, but I can't. This is just ******ed. Such a belief isn't required by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't even want to know where you got this. This little bit alone gave me a headache. JESUS....I mean....really? Really???

Im confused myself. I have no idea where he got this from.