|
|
Go to page 1~2~3..15~16~17 [Next] | ||||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
1) Debt-based banking and economic systems
What's the solution? This first one I actually agree with. We've got to stop our government from continuing to borrow and spend us into debt. I think the current Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is stepping up and at least trying to change. Democrats, not so much. 2) Conventional agriculture and "rape the planet" farming What's the solution? I guess we're supposed to stop producing food for people. All you farmers who sell your food to other people, you're out of a job. 3) Mass-consumption economies based on buy-it-and-trash-it behavior What's the solution? I guess we're supposed to stop producing products and services that people want, need, and desire. All you designers and engineers and builders and office staff who help people every day, you're out of a job. 4) The accelerating loss of farming soils What's the solution? Well, since we're supposed to stop farming in the first place, this is not going to be a problem anymore. 5) The mass poisoning of the oceans and aggressive over-fishing What's the solution? Okay, so we can't produce food through farming anymore, so we've gotta stop finding it in the oceans for people, too. All you fishermen, you're now out of a job. 6) Mass genetic pollution of the planet through GMOs What's the solution? I guess we're supposed to stop all scientific exploration of how to make the plants and animals we cultivate better. We're not creating Godzilla or three-eyed fish here, people. Well, since we're supposed to stop planting and raising animals, and stop fishing altogether, this should be easy enough. All you scientists, you're out of a job. 7) The drugs-and-surgery conventional medical system What's the solution? I guess we're supposed to stop all scientific exploration of how to cure diseases and keep people healthy. Everything the medical arts have brought us with regard to increased life span and quality of life is killing the planet, so … sorry, people. All you surgeons and pharmacists and drug store employees, you're out of a job. 8) Widespread pharmaceutical contamination of the human population and the environment What's the solution? See answer to Number 7. 9) Runaway human population growth What's the solution? “Well-considered parenthood.” That's code for “don't have more than one child per family, and you know, maybe there are a lot of people who shouldn't have them at all.” How does he propose to stop people from having what he considers too many children? Predicting his answer: "Education." Yeah, that's helped a lot. NOTE: The entire population of the world could fit nicely within the borders of the state of Texas, but in order to avoid the logistical problems of everyone living there, we've spread out across the world. The world is not overpopulated, people. Learn that first. 10) Fossil water consumption for agriculture What's the solution? Stop drinking? “Fossil water” is a new term for me. Water continually recycles itself on this planet through the hydrologic system. “Fresh water” is simply water that has been purified through natural means, but it could at one time have been acid rain, or snow, or carried to land from the oceans in clouds. We're not running out of water. By the way, all you water well drillers, you're out of a job. 11) Fossil fuel consumption What's the solution? I guess we're supposed to stop driving, stop heating and cooling our homes, stop bringing produce and goods to the people who need it – oh, sorry, I forget, we're supposed to stop farming and raising crops and fishing and making medicines and having babies in the first place. Sorry. All you oil workers and truckers and gas station owners and airline employees, you're out of a job. NOTE: We have massive untapped reserves of so-called fossil fuels in America that we just can't go get because of government prohibitions of one sort or another. Regulations keep companies from obtaining our energy in a way that allows them to make money. Why should they be kept from trying? Why are liberals opposed to trying? They LIKE the price of gas going so high. They WANT to drive down demand by stopping progress and slowing the economy. 12) The widespread destruction of animal habitat What's the solution? All you loggers and construction people, you're out of a job. Well, since we're supposed to stop farming and raising crops and fishing and making medicines and having babies in the first place, life will find a way back, once humans are no longer the dominant force on the planet. And then the authors of this article will be happy. They'll be dead, but they'll be happy. They think. Carrie |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
The first thing I thought when I saw the headline was "People?"
Looks like they had it covered. "9) Runaway human population growth"
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-14 10:33, Carrie Sue wrote: Cut out a big chunk of the military budget and we're on our way. There's at least a few military programs almost nobody wants that we could start with (a certain fighter jet comes to mind.) Nice political dig in there, thanks. Quote: Hydroponics?
2) Conventional agriculture and "rape the planet" farming Quote: I have never seen the point of all those "Swiffer" mops. And- do we really need a Del Monte single serving banana, wrapped in plastic?
3) Mass-consumption economies based on buy-it-and-trash-it behavior Quote: Actually, hydroponics works quite well for crops like lettuce and cabbage.4) The accelerating loss of farming soils Quote: Farm fishing.
5) The mass poisoning of the oceans and aggressive over-fishing Quote: Dunno, but Monsanto's "terminator seeds" serve no purpose except to line the pockets of Monsanto.
6) Mass genetic pollution of the planet through GMOs Quote: Some people will always need pharmecuticals to survive. However, there are a lot of others who could do just as well with exercise and a better diet; taking drugs as a shortcut for diet and exercise only serves to subject them to the hazardous side effects. And it increases the cost of health care for everyone else.
7) The drugs-and-surgery conventional medical system Quote: As above.
8) Widespread pharmaceutical contamination of the human population and the environment Quote: Yeah, not sure this is a problem either, provided we can deal with the logistics of getting resources to the people that need them. In places like south Africa, it's obvious we can't.
9) Runaway human population growth Quote: Hadn't head this term either, so I looked it up. "Fossil water" is sequestered from the usual water cycle, and would only regenerate slowly, as it would take thousands of years for water to filter through the materials that sequester it. Most usual wells don't access this water anyway, but instead tap into the local aquifer, which is regenerated constantly.
10) Fossil water consumption for agriculture Quote: Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Tidal and hydroelectric? Better batteries? (Gas station owners will adapt to that one.)
11) Fossil fuel consumption Quote: Not going here. Yeah, it's all the "liberals'" fault.
NOTE: We have massive untapped reserves of so-called fossil fuels in America that we just can't go get because of government prohibitions of one sort or another. Regulations keep companies from obtaining our energy in a way that allows them to make money. Why should they be kept from trying? Why are liberals opposed to trying? They LIKE the price of gas going so high. They WANT to drive down demand by stopping progress and slowing the economy. Quote: Considering we refine most of our medicines from natural resources anyway- and considering we all could fit in Texas- why are we destroying all this habitat?
Sorry, I'm just posting to be contrary.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
GlenD Inner circle LosAngeles, Ca 1293 Posts |
If the collapse of any of these 12 systems would have devastating consequences why are there so many advocates out there that are intentionally trying to collapse many if not most of them??? Anyways just more alarmist propaganda, consider the source "Natural News".
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin
"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!) |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Let's see you make a cross-country or cross-oceanic trip on solar power or wind power. It simply does not have the energy output of oil and gas. Not by a long shot. Geothermal? Geographically limited. Tidal and hydroelectric? Same problem. Better batteries? This doesn't solve a problem; it just transfers it like the current Democratic push for electric cars. Where do you get the electrical power to charge the batteries in the first place?
By the way, on today's Rush Limbaugh show he had an interesting statistic: Number of people killed by the nuclear power industry in the last 10 years: 7. Number of people killed by the wind power industry in the last 10 years: 44. "And that's not even counting the birds." Now that's green energy for ya. Carrie |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Carrie, you've reminded me why I hate Rush Limbaugh.
It's just irresponsible to make fecetious comparisons at a time like this. Right now, at this moment, we could say: Number of windparks on the verge of meltdown: none Number of lives destroyed should a windpark blow up: few Number of plants, animals, fish, people contaminated after such an explosion: none Number of mutations, cancer patients, people who will NEVER be able to return to their homes: none The level of human suffering is potentially too immense to speak of it trivially. |
|||||||||
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts |
Quote:
Let's see you make a cross-country or cross-oceanic trip on solar power or wind power. Isn't that how we got here in the first place. When I say we I mean all you white & black people.
You know why don't act naive.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
The fallacy that keeps rearing its ugly head is that all of our choices are all-or-nothing. Until we get it through our thick skulls that we need to constantly evaluate and improve our practices, we will make things worse.
A case in point is carbon emissions. The choice isn't between shutting down all industry and continuing to emit as much as we can generate into cash. There are reasonable positions in between those extremes that protect the environmnet and do not threaten economic chaos. These don't make their way into most discussions because they are harder to understand. Moral and intellectual laziness could very well prove the death of us all. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-14 13:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: That's absolutely right. Why can't we use friendlier farming methods, avoid waste, be stewardly with regard to our resources, and in general err on the side of caution? Why must moderation be some kind of liberal plot? |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-14 12:48, stoneunhinged wrote: Fearmonger. Nuclear power is one of the safest industries around, and it produces boatloads of energy for lots and lots of people. Nuclear power is designed to the hilt, with multiple independent safety systems. Chernobyl was poorly designed and poorly run, which is why it failed. Even Three Mile Island was an emergency that was contained just the way it was designed to be. No one ever got hurt in the Western world from nuclear power. Why shouldn't we use it? Carrie |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
I'm a fearmonger?
Oh, come off it! You know I'm not. I don't think nuclear power is particular dangerous in 99.99% of earthly situations. The problem is that when things go wrong, they go wronger than with other forms of energy. That was my point, not fearmonging. And you like to always talk about facts: well, point out the flaw in my logic of saying B is more dangerous than A. Rush's embicilic statistical comparison aside, nuclear power is more dangerous than wind power. Period It carries moer inherent risks for humanity and the environment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but to deny the danger is simply idiotic. Jeff: "Cars are more dangerous than bicycles." Carrie Sue: "FEARMONGER!" I deserve better than that, and you know it. |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Okay, I apologize.
What I didn't see in your post was that while there is a risk with nuclear power that is serious, we should still use it -- and perhaps use it a lot more -- because of the benefits it brings to humanity. That's what I think, anyway. Rush just said it again: Life is built on two things, risk and compromise. We compromise with the various risks we face every day. How many people are killed in car accidents every day? Nevertheless, I've driven my car on a trip to the bank today, and I will drive it to the next town this evening. It's not that your logic was flawed. It was incomplete. People like the writer of the article above are trying to tell us that progress is destroying the planet. Whether it be medical progress, farming progress, progress in building products people want, energy progress, even the progress of human beings ourselves (population growth), it's so dangerous that we've got to stop it soon! Aaaaahhhh! Sorry, wrong number. I'm not buying it. Carrie |
|||||||||
GlenD Inner circle LosAngeles, Ca 1293 Posts |
It may turn out that we need more carbon emissions, our understanding of the climate system is still inadequate to be making far reaching policies and bans of one sort or another. Knee jerk reactions to alarmist "what if science" combined with brain washing media barrages may also prove to be the death of civilization as we know it. And I would bet the planet will still be here and sustaining the same level of life as it always has. We really do need to have a lot more open and honest dialogue on these issues. There is so much more to learn and study before anyone makes statements like "the debate is over, it's a fact" when everyone doesn't get in line with whatever line of thinking is being promoted. It's really kind of frightening and it happens again and again. Let's not forget Al Gore's warning that we only have 10 years left, we got to make changes or the planet will be scorched!... Let's see that was 6 years ago and that is just an example of the kind of unscientific hype that doesn't seem to get the criticism it deserves (and lack of credibility to the one making claims like that).
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin
"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!) |
|||||||||
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-14 12:49, HerbLarry wrote: This is pure posted gold here people. Total Win.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts |
Rush is a fat head, and should keep it shut.
No one ever got hurt in the western world from nuclear power? How about the world? Why does the west matter, just cause you are in it?
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
[quote]On 2011-03-14 14:18, GlenD wrote:
It may turn out that we need more carbon emissions, our understanding of the climate system is still inadequate to be making far reaching policies and bans of one sort or another. [quote] We should act on the best inferences based on the best data. We could be wrong. It could turn out that ignoring the best evidence is the best course. But do really advocate going opposite to the best data and inferences as a general policy? Quote:
Knee jerk reactions to alarmist "what if science" combined with brain washing media barrages may also prove to be the death of civilization as we know it. And I would bet the planet will still be here and sustaining the same level of life as it always has. We really do need to have a lot more open and honest dialogue on these issues. There is so much more to learn and study before anyone makes statements like "the debate is over, it's a fact" when everyone doesn't get in line with whatever line of thinking is being promoted. It's really kind of frightening and it happens again and again. Let's not forget Al Gore's warning that we only have 10 years left, we got to make changes or the planet will be scorched!... Let's see that was 6 years ago and that is just an example of the kind of unscientific hype that doesn't seem to get the criticism it deserves (and lack of credibility to the one making claims like that). I think you are begging the question. Is it "knee jerk" to respond to the best evidence on carbon emissions? Or is it "knee jerk" to ignore the evidence on political grounds? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
GlenD is quite correct, and has a much more reasoned view.
Check out this article: You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster In Japan -- Here's Why http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-rea......k-2011-3 Carrie |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-14 17:09, Carrie Sue wrote: Let's hope the Josef Oehmen is right. It's not clear to me why the internet suddently believes Dr. Oehmen--an economist at MIT--is an expert in nuclear safety. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Magnus,
Dr. Oehmen isn't the only one saying such things. I brought up a similar comment, worrying about nuclear power, on a different board and was taken to task over it by multiple people. Fortunately, one of them was kind enough to post a link to educate me instead of just calling me ignorant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p......11-03-12 It seems on the up-and-up, but yes, take everything with a grain of salt. This guy isn't a scientist either.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 12 unsustainable things that will soon come to an end on our planet (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3..15~16~17 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |