INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: jman on April 14, 2006, 07:04:15 AM
-
Since we're here for the endless pursuit the truth I want to know what you guys think of this trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE
-
God I hate this hollywood treatment of a very serious issue, over dramatic.
Jman you need to read this bool
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/104-7911931-1401569?v=glance&n=283155
-
Funny trailer but it's good to see this issue get more exposure and hopefully it will finally get taken more seriously by the mainstream and world governments, and i dont just mean reducing carbon emmisions by 20% in the next decade. We need to take drastic action now. Even then im sure all we can do is significantly delay the changes to the planet. We will all become extinct in the next thousand years or so is my guess.
-
To address the issue instead of the trailer, let's say humans are in fact causing global warming.
We clearly don't have a full picture of the subject. We have never taken drastic steps on an issue like this in the history of humanity. An ecosystem is such a complex system that to effectively manipulate it you have to be able to track down every factor. We don't have a very good track record of mass bureaucratic intervention actually solving issues instead of making them worse.
Therefore I would say even if global warming is happening, we would just fuck ourselves up worse and more dangerously if we try to do something about it.
-
If you love your planet...
If you love your children...
You have to see this film
Wow what unbelievably schlocky self-serving bullshit.
I am going to not watch that film and start polluting more on general principle because of that trailer
-
You know, who ever produced that film has already wasted some of the planet's precious energy resources -- it was shit.
Can you say, "hypocrite"? :p
-
Therefore I would say even if global warming is happening, we would just fuck ourselves up worse and more dangerously if we try to do something about it.
I think alternative energy sources, etc. are a good thing to explore...
But ultimately overpopulation is a much greater and more immediate danger to our way of life than global warming could ever be.
And while we could make some futile effort to control the birthrate, the only real lasting solution to that problem that I can see is space colonization of some sort.
-
You know, who ever produced that film has already wasted some of the planet's precious energy resources -- it was shit.
Can you say, "hypocrite"? :p
Holy fucking shit I agree with peegai on something
-
i am not sure what to think.
my gut tells me its probably more of a political brainwash than anything else. the dems. are scrambling and they have been defining themselves as the environmental party.
i also must respectfully disagree with pyraxis. i believe in the most basic instinct which is survival. look around you. i believe that mankinds potential is limitless. if forced into a corner, we will do what is necessary to survive. but i am not thouroughly convincing , even myself of this statement.
this is something that should be a concern for everybody. not quite sure of the solution or if the elite controllers of everything will even allow for change if it cuts into their bottom line profit margins.
evolution would dictate that the overpopulation concern will correct itself; more people being born without the ability to reproduce, for example.
who knows, interesting topic. debateable from all positions.
-
evolution would dictate that the overpopulation concern will correct itself; more people being born without the ability to reproduce, for example.
:-\
Evolution takes a long fucking time dude
It doesn't just happen spontaneously when some species hits a hurdle in its development.
Random mutations occur in birth and over millions of years certain mutations are favored by the ecosystem and live on.
People have said that the current rise in homosexuality might be a natural reaction to overpopulation, but AFAIK there's no credible evidence for this theory
-
yes it does.
however certain phases of evolution move rapidly, due to necessity.
for instance;
you need to drive 1000 miles and you are diving at 1 mph. during certain portions of the trip you may have 5 minutes where you drive 100 miles per hour.
evolution.
-
Is it just me, or did that last post read like complete bollocks? ???
-
If I lived in the UK or Europe, I'd want global warming.
-
I guess drizzle is an acquired taste...
And southern europe is warm temperate, hotter and drier, i.e. mediterranean - a lot like southern australia.
-
If I lived in the UK or Europe, I'd want global warming.
Cold blooded lizards like the californians aye
-
Is it just me, or did that last post read like complete bollocks? ???
Yes and no. Although it does seem rather arm-wavy, it seems to allude to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, where species remain relatively stable in a niche until their environment (the evolutionary, not climatic meaning) changes, at which point they either suffer a decrease in their range, go extinct or undergo a period of realitively rapid evolutionary development as they hill-climb to a new local optima. 'Rapid' in this context can mean 10K -100K years for the spread of a single beneficial gene through >90% of the population, for a long-lived and scarce (for most of our history) population like humans (for bacteria, this could occur in 10 hours or less, and does).
If you examine gene allele-frequencies for grain-eating adaptations, 70-90% of the population in the middle east, where grain cultivation has been of great importance for 10K years, carry specific genes for the metabolisation of grains, which historically grain-naiive people such as Eskimos almost entirely lack (and thus are succeptable to diabetes and heart disease when introduced to these foods).
evolution would dictate that the overpopulation concern will correct itself; more people being born without the ability to reproduce, for example.
This is pretty bull-shitty however. Evolution dictates no such thing, and when the conditions are right, any species will undergo a population explosion (except giant pandas, who'd whine that it wasn't the right type of bamboo, fuck each other in the ass trying to breed and then keel over from a slight draft), followed by a population crash as they exhaust a critical resource. Evolution will actually favour the *most* reproductively successful individuals in such a situation, as their offspring will compose a higher proportion of the survivors than their less promiscuous rivals (all other things being equal).
To say that evolution will solve overpopulation is to engage in the same magical thinking that leads people to believe that global warming is Gaia trying to rid itself of humanity, or that 9/11 is God telling the US to pray more. Evolution is a blind, statistical force that drives a huge number of species up evolutionary dead ends and on to extinction because it lacks the slightest bit of foresight. It can't prepare in advance for a population crash, beyond what it's furnished us with already in our ability to make war, survive famine and generally be more adaptable and harder to kill than cockroaches.
-
really.
i thought dunc was right.
my second answer was more bullshit than the first. although i must admit that they were both based on the toradoro's rivals waste.