Today came to school and saw a group of students distributing pamflets with the title "Save the planet by consumming smartly" and when I saw this not to eco morons again. Now don't get me wrong we do need to consume smartly and reduce polution and blabla lost fo other things we do that we shouldn't do. But saving the planet is not what we need to do or what we should say we need to do. It's us that we need to save the planet will be fine. Before repling you should watch thsi movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUHNn3bmL8o
Agreed, save humanity from itself, according to a premier scientist as portayed by Jeff Goldblum "Life finds a way" lol.
if i understand you right than it is you that is arrogant. no, i dont want to offend you. let me explain:
they say "save the planet" meaning save not only the big ball we are living on but also the animals and vegetation, the diversity and beauty that exists.
but you reduce your wish to only save us. to save us we do not need to save whales nor most of the other things that other beg for. so who is has the arrogant statement?
p.s.maybe i misunderstood you somehow because i am not nativ english.tehn correct me please.
edit: in fact i care less if mankinde survives than if the rest of current lifeforms survieves because if we extinguish we deserve it due to our fault. but how did the rest of our planet deserve to be destroyed by us?
lolz. good movie. although... i think liberals are generally actually consernced about the planet... but they just focus their enegry in the absolute wrong way.
In sim city... for most of the series... you would start in the year 1900... and your city would be very crappy with smoke stacks, coal and oil power plants and such lovely stuff liberals hate... and as time goes on... you get more options to fuel your economy... natural gas, nuclear... and as your population becomes smarter the demand for higher tech industry starts to devlope... and since... partical accelerators generally generate less smog than a smog-o-matic... pollution would go down... and eventually, after enough smart, educated people, and enough time, and hightech industry, you could build the best and cleanest power planets of all... Mircowave* power planets and Fusion power planets.
Basicly... technology and innovation save the day. Humanity would eventually find a way to do better things... better.
the latest sim city (which prolly doomed the series)... was gay and hippy... and had horrible game play... and generally sucked. you could build these cute BP clean coal powerplants from the beginning... and get more power at less the cost than a standard coal powerplanet... its like... riiight... umm... whats the word... propaganda? for bp?
Instead of trying to kill the economies of every single country in europe by cap and trade (oops, too late) why not be like... ok, well... the planet is preety fracking good at fixing it self... (anyone remember dasiy world?)... and if thats not working ... lets see... we can spend 100 trillion fixing the causes of global warming... or we can spend 100 billion fixing the symptoms... remember al gores movie thing? ya... the one with the fake iceburg? well... look at all the problems he comes up with... those problems are much easier to solve than trying to remove the pencil width we have added to the football field sized atmosphere.
and even if all else freaking fails... technology will save us and the planet. You want to moderate the temperature of the planet? huh? put a large set of venetian blinds at lagrange point number 1. too hot, close them... too cold? woops...
we could prolly cool down venus to nice lovely temperatues with this system.
oh... and please... stop pitching your shit out your car's window... I pick it all up 4 times a year... and i am tired of all you hippys (you know how much shit there was on the ground after woodstock?!?) being such hypocrites... save the planet... cant find a trashcan... good for you.
I hate pollution as much as anyone... i cant stand cars with broken catallic converters (amazing how much NEW TECHNOLOGY has reduced emmisions...)... I cant stand garbage not in a land fill where it belongs... and i cant stand how it takes almost as much enegry to create biofuel... and almost as much energy to create a solar planel as we get out of it. .. whatever.
/rant
*geosyncronous solar satalites beam power via microwaves (or some other electromagmetic wave length) to a reciever on the ground
arogant = arrogant
pamflets = pamphlets
consumming = consuming
polution= pollution
repling= replying
Pbhead you and i are on the same page I feel.
I always thought the most arrogant thing anyone can say was "jesus loves me" or maybe "i am doing god's will" or "god is watching over us" or "god has a plan"
if there is a god (unlikely, but possible) then you.do.NOT.know.shit.
There is NO such thing as clean energy generation.
Simply look at the laws of thermodynamics. You can get VERY clean generators, but never cleaan enough to not harm the enviroment.
First LAW of thermodynamics implies that you must ALWAYS take energy from your enviroment.
Solarpower for instance takes solar energy away that could normaly go plants and animals.
Second law of thermodynamics says that the machines will ALWAYS emit heat. Maby we can cut down on gasses and such, but we will ALWAYS have waste, and it will ALWAYS be heat.
Only way to avoid harming the enviroment is to leave for space. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
@EvilTesla-RG
you heavaly missunderstood the definition of "clean" energy! clean means not that you dont take the energy from elsewhere but it means that you do it in a way without heavaly reducing the possiblity of living and surviving of nature and all of her "children". the point is the pollustion you produce. consuming energy is not harming when it can regenerate safty.
solar energy has indeed its problems: it consumes quite much space. but you can use space for that that is "wasted" anyway, e.g. roofs. hence this is a "clean" form of energy production. this does not hold for atomic plants.
burning trees is also a clean energy production IF and only if you do not burn more trees in a year than you can grow up in the same time. the co2 you produce by burning them is the same amount they absorbed while growing up.
But saving the planet is not what we need to do or what we should say we need to do. It's us that we need to save the planet will be fine.
In fact, people who say "save the planet" mean "save humanity"...
Actual CO2 problem is a danger for humanity... long time ago, the planet was with high level of CO2 and vegetal life have enjoy this periode...
Planet will always survive and adapt... but human fear any change... for almost any damage that we can make on the earth, nature have planned some species who will become the dominant species... Nuclear holocaust... and the next step of evolution will be a bunch of insect or animal with exoskeletton...
In fact, the earth have evolve during million of year... a lot of these time, the earth was unfriendly for any human... new species have appear and other dissappear...
When a guy say "save the planet", he mean "keep the planet like it is now, so we can remain the dominant specie"... any change ( artificial or natural one ) is a danger for the human race...
this is not true. sure many do that. but not all, not even the most. as i eplained in my first post, with saving the planet its ment the current balance, the current lifeforms. they are NOT safe! we already destroyed and killed many species on this planet that would not have died if we would not have been so reckless.
there are many people who try to safe that and they all know that we do not need this species for us to survive!
this is wrong again. it is true that long time bedore there was a much higher level of co2 but current lifeforms can not survive in that situation. you may think "so what, then it will turn back after mankind is dead". that either wrong. at the time where our planet was very yung we faced a totally different situation here. the planet was hotter, more energy to transform it to where it is today (there is much more to explain but my english makes it difficult for me).
what i basically want to say is that thinks like co2 that existed in the birth hourse of our planet are today much more dangerous. once they were the basic what was transformed into what we see today. today the situation has changed, it could simply destroy everything and make this planet to a dead end.
as i said, i dont care as much for mankind as for the other lifeforms as they are not responsible for the potential destruction!
you are wrong. some sort of damage could flip the coin totally. life is not possible under every kind of enviroment! there are quite some examples even in our solar system that impressivly show how a promising planet can turn into a dead place with no chance to evolve any life. you know mars was sometime a blue planet like the earth?
I disagree. People who ephasize "returning the planet to its natural state" or anything along those lines are self hating humans.
Technology and restraint will go far to keep us from overtly destroying the planet, but an over zealous approach will have us limiting our growth as well as limiting our development. renewable and reusable, mixed with progressive reasearch and devolopment will do us much better as a species and a planet than all the "save the whales" greenpeacers combined.
they would have mankind suffer so that the fire ants of colombia or some such would survive.
*sigh* you disagree by twisting the words in the mouth?
no one want to stop technolagy advancement. its about don't doing it at all costs. it's about doing it smart. but there are to many that are consuming the planets resources in a way that gives only short profit but much to bear afterwards!
you don't care about lets say the whales? fine. you dont care about what the lifeforms you destroy to drive your hammer? fine. others do. at least don't twist theire words arround. you don't need to feel the same. but neither you ahve to put things in there mouth that is not true!
I find it pretty arrogant to think humanity could destroy life on this planet. I've heard there are bacteria deep inside earth's crust, that could survive an asteroid impact, what hope do we have to sterilize this planet then? We can destroy ourselves, but this planet will go on living. If that happens (hopefully not), i hope the next sapient species has a little more common sense. Or maybe we'll prove that sapient beings are a bad idea, and they'll evolve to some sort of hive-mind thing
Anyone who calls someone who is trying to do something good because they believe that their children and other people's children are in danger of suffering the consequences of people's actions is 'arrogant' is a complete moron. Whether the pamphlets are right or not.
well, if we are able to destroy everything but this damn bacteria you think we may not say destroyed the planet?
it seems here are some people that want to split hairs to only make people that care about our planet redicules.
edit: most people here seem to don't even know what the word arrogant means.
technically i started writing before you had posted again.
and a lot of people are promoting the idea of limiting technology in the pursuit of "right now" eco friendliness. The use of pesticides, the labeling of genetically modified crops, the restriction and limitation of nuclear fission reactors. We are struggling to find alternative energy sources... and while we have found a lot of them we havent started to put them to use. The cheaper electricity available through fission would have put us miles ahead of where we and developing countries are presently.
with access to that technology, with refinements, africa could have a viable infrastructure. oil prices would be lower, and less needed. yes, waste is an issue, but then again, so is covering whole ecosystems for solar, or destroying whole species for windfarms, or creating a lake for hydro electric. or mass mining and drilling for oil/gas/coal. we have options at our disposal that we are not allowed to use due to the fear that anything "nuclear" must of course be dangerous and therefore eschewed for more traditional or less efficient power sources.
ok lets put it this way.
i am a rich person, i take a vacation to africa where i meet a tribe of africans, they are very poor but they have a rich tribal culture. i admire their culture and their strange mysticism. i make a grant to protect these people from the "dangers of the outside world". I do not take into account that these people perhaps would rather learn how to read than to lose 1 out of every 6 kids to disease.
that is arrogance, based on the good intentions that i am protecting a people. people praying for my salvation because i think evolution is more correct that ID, that is arrogance with good intentions. white suburbanites whole feel guilt over slavery and therefore go to extra lengths to treat our minority friends with kid gloves, that is arrogance with misguided good intentions.
good intentions are as often arrogant as self serving intentions.
lol, you really think this is the reason why afrika is at the point it currently is? you really think what you say would change anything for them? redicules.
no, a big one that makes his big money with the current state will try everything to hold this state. that's called lobbing! open your eyes and use your brains. ofcourse there are exagerations on both sides.
you don't know what technology we already had for centuries but got bought by big ones to somply not go on the market so that they can continue with their profit in current enterprises? you know they are promoting currently the 3litre car and tehre exists a patent of a 1litre car from the years 1955 ? it was bought to never get on the market.
solar energy and co are hindered to evolve and are kept in a state where they are not very efficient so that the ones that earn theire money with oil and co can do so in future. it is even nothing they hide. you can see what how they do it every day when they do their lobbism.
africa is in its present state due to a lot of factors, i was creating an example.
and yes, i know our technological growth has been stunted by both politics and fears. we are in a tech boom wherein most new developments are being put out there fast enough, or publically enough that it is showing us how far we could have gone. and presently it is abslotue death for companies to appear that they arent moving forward far enough or fast enough. a lot of the itme this means that people are getting lied to about how "healthy" "eco friendly" or "cost effective" things are.
lets be honest, there are three things that have ruined the world: christianity, politicians, and marketing departments.
Temporarily, but their survival makes possible for earth to return it's former state. Optimistically thinking, of course
haha... funny.
Christianity kept a hell of alot of the roman tradition alive... kept writing alive (in europe) throughout the dark ages... and a bazillion of the first people to get us our of the dark ages were christian.
The Byzantine empire (christian), the cathloics and the islamic empires kept eachother in check for about 700 years... if christiananity never existed... and islam kept on its path it was on before it smacked into christians... well... you would prolly be praying to mecca 5 times a day. Females couldnt go to school, and the only good technology is that which helps you kill the people who think that you should prey at 1:30 instead of 2:00. (or some other silly peety interdocturnal silly thing)
while the chinese were advanced... India was advanced... the americas were "advanced" in their own way (lovely calender, awesome architecture)... there was a reason there was a time where the sun never set in the british empire.
Ima not done with my post here... but Real Life calls for an hour or 2.
God is watching over us and He has a plan.
You know, republicans used to be called "conservative" because they supported the creation of national parks; they actually tried to protect nature for the benefit of future generations. Those men understood all to well the path we were walking down and if they were to hear you demeaning what the "liberals" are trying to achieve they'd have some choice words for you.
"Pride cometh before the fall"
God has a plan, yeah. But it involves a lot of burning.
followed by grammar and spelling lessons, LEARN THE LANGUAGE ALREADY!!!!
i just wrote a really ...rabid response. but decided you didnt need to be reamed.
christianity did the exact opposite of keeping the roman tradition alive. it erased it leaving only roman numerals, some history, and the knowledge of steel.
if christianity hadn't existed, millions of my people wouldnt have been murdered for papal greed and royal treachery. much less the millions of people who would have been saved by roman, jewish, or moorish medicine and hygeine during the bubonic plague.
it delayed the acceptance of arabic math and letters (what we use todays) invented a being called satan to scare the ignorant into being a afraid of them, bullied kings into wars of conquest and persecution. destroyed great works of art and achitecture to build cathedrals and palaces dripping with gold for men who had sworn to lives of poverty... thus depriving anyone else the chance to move up. it limited the education or people to the church. even aristocrats were illiterate... thats why stained glass windows ere created... to tell the story to people who couldnt read.
during the dark ages of europe (pre reformation... so only the catholic church) it was islam's golden age... which ended, surprisingly, when the christians invaded.
essentially what i am saying here is that without christianity, the roman empire would have survived, or the caliphate would have continued to make progress in the areas of poetry, science, art, mathematics and law, or the jews wouldn't be only .2% of the world population, with all their knowledge wasted on catholic kings. or the byzantine empire would have continued to create newer, fairer laws, that would only be forgotten until after secular governments were emplaced. the aztecs could have continued to advance and the native americans wouldnt have been slaughtered.
i can lay most of the evil done in the last thousand years to the arrogance and ignorance of the perverted christian relgion. and then i can turn around and say that most of the good done in the last 200 years was done by protestants (who rejected the catholic church's teachings).
ok, this still turned into a rant. im sorry.
jesus equals god, but the medieval christians equal the worst thing to happen to mankind... ever.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
