The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Asherdan on April 22, 2008, 08:27:21 pm
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--k5m636Zb--/m5dvkzj95cd6xl0k4nnx.gif)
-
Ash hates those hippies, hates them to hell.
But it's OK, because he does all that good shit anyway. Earth Day seems silly to me, but if it's any part of what made it mainstream to properly dispose of used oil and such, I guess it's a good thing.
You know what I hate to hell? Those canvas shopping bags. I am sorry, I just do. I never throw away a plastic or paper shopping bag - it always gets reused and/or recycled. I refuse to feel guilty for not bringing my own damn bag to the store.
-
YES OMBA
as a dog owner, i need those plastic grocery bags very much thank you
what, am i supposed to re-use canvas bags for dogshit too? BZZT WRONG do not pass go do not collect a dollar get out my face afore i smack ya
-
They are not nearly as subject to my damn will and whims as they ought to be, the little hairballs.
-
Y'know, I see Earth Day as just another example of happy assholes taking the public forum to tell me how I should live their way and be happy to be a good little small footprint drone. Goddam if I need a day for the fug smuckers to rally around Mother Goddess Gaia Earth and ring up what a planet killer I am if I don't get right by Sweet Sol 3.
Well, I mean, the other 364 days or so are days for the assholes to tell you that it's their goddamn RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to fuck up the earth as much as they want and then die before things get really bad.
I mean, maybe I'm biased. A lot of my friends are hardcore into the environmental movement, and are not smug at all. And most of my high school was of the opinion that, you know, what I said above. My argument has always been... well, conveniently, the metaphor I use is something y'all just brought up. You are free to own a dog, but when your dog shits in my yard, it becomes MY PROBLEM and not an issue of your rights. And fuck*ng up the planet the way we are now is a way bigger problem than dog shit on your shoes.
-
Yeah, I got some free canvas bags when I got those free groceries and that is cool and all, but I use the plastic grocery bags for my trash can, instead of paying money for the same shit. If I use the canvas bags I get 10 cents off for each, though. I should bring in all 7 that we have between us for 2 or 3 things, wonder if you still get the discount?
Earth Day is bad because it gives people a false sense of doing something positive when they didn't do anything at all.
-
Well, I mean, the other 364 days or so are days for the assholes to tell you that it's their goddamn RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to fuck up the earth as much as they want and then die before things get really bad.
I, along with ash, find this unbelievable that there is a substantial non-high school age population that say things like this and mean it. And if they are saying it, they are not any where near as loud as the environmentalists trying to tell me how to live my life 365 days a year.
-
Yeah, ok, maybe a bad analogy due to private/public property distinctions. But when your (the general you, not You Asherdan) actions affect me, they stop being your Right. Your right to leave the faucet running ends where my kids start dying of thirst in 40 years.
I know it sounds bullshit and all, but the earth belongs to all of us, and when you pollute, you are fuck*ng up something that isn't yours to fuck up. Individual liberty ends when you're ruining something that isn't yours. RESPONSIBILITY.
I am inclined to think the college-from-highschool shift is also due to the fact that I went to high school with a bunch of entitled, conservative, rich white kids who got off on not giving a shit about anyone but themselves.
Now I go to college with a bunch of entitled, liberal, rich white kids who get off on pretending to give a shit about people other than themselves.
Which, I mean, I criticize, but at least the good impulse is there.
I don't mean that people literally say "I am going to ruin the earth and then die, it's my right." I mean that I have heard TONS of people argue that it's their right as an American to drive whatever car they want, waste as much water/electricity/whatever as they want, etc. Maybe only due to where I grew up, but I dont' think all those letters to the editor were written by high schoolers. They need to get the fuck over themselves and realize there are other people on the planet.
edit: changed an unnecessarily ambiguos pronoun which made it sound like I was yelling at y'all more than I meant to.
-
The right to swing a fist ends where your nose begins thing gets a lot of play around here. The analogy only goes so far. Drawing an end to the right to use my faucet because you think your hypothetical children will die of thirst in 40 years is just too much. Statements like that deduct credibility from otherwise legitimate arguments.
-
The right to swing a fist ends where your nose begins thing gets a lot of play around here. The analogy only goes so far. Drawing an end to the right to use my faucet because you think your hypothetical children will die of thirst in 40 years is just too much. Statements like that deduct credibility from otherwise legitimate arguments.
OK, not my hypothetical children. The children who will be alive in 40 years, then.
-
yeah, that is what a large group of my friends are really into. Environmental Engineering majors and such, they are intense.
The problem is, they do a presentation of "this is the minimum we can do and not completely kill off the human species in the next 2 generations-- we need to cut carbon emissions this much, which we can accomplish by doing X Y and Z, and we need to reduce water usage, here are some options for that." And people come away thinking that it's some crazy tree-hugging bend-no-blade-of-grass thing, when really it's a pretty pragmatic plan. On a more small-scale level, they are leading a campaign on campus called "Simple Steps" that encourages people to ride the metro instead of driving, take shorter showers, etc.
There is science being done, the problem is that people (in power and in general) don't take it seriously, at least a lot of them seem not to. Maybe it isn't getting out there enough.
On a side note, these friends of mine are vegetarians, but a month or so ago they agreed that they missed eating meat sometimes. So they drove out to the middle of Missouri somewhere to a free-range chicken farm, paid the farmer, and then cut the chicken's head off, plucked it, and cooked it. I enjoy that story a lot.
-
I mean, the problem is that we aren't on that long of a timescale for some of these things. We need to change things pretty drastically immediately. Not to the point of bend no blade of grass, but, pretty radical change.
-
Every generation has believed that their generation is in some absolutely pressing situation that only they can solve by acting radically and immediately.
-
I'm feeling like the odd one out, 'cause I love Earth Day and have since I was a kid. I don't really take it as a day to tell other people what to do with their lives though, unless they invite suggestions and discussion. I think of it more as a nice opportunity to examine my personal aesthetic of simplicity and self reliance, and think up new exciting ways to connect with the sense of inner peace I get from realizing I already have everything I need in life. I take a lot of pleasure in reducing my consumption, dependence and need for extraneous stuff, so I like having a day where I can talk about it with like-minded folks, hear their creative ideas, offer my own, maybe implement some nice changes. It's a positive, meditative day for me. I walked to and from the theatre today, which is about 5 miles of walking, and it was awesome - listening to good music, enjoying the spring sun. Weirding out random strangers by making eye contact and smiling like a dork. I really, really dug on the pregnancy test I saw squashed by traffic in the middle of a very busy intersection I was crossing, musing on how it might have gotten there (this is the second pregnancy test I've seen in strange, unlikely places in as many years while walking to work. Don't get me started on condoms, needles or other bodily fluids. I live in the hood yo'). Maybe it's cause I'm aboriginal, but for me, my personal earth connection is really important, not in an outward way related to what others should do, but in a personal way, as in "how I can do more and more and more to put things right, to let go of my desire for things that I actually don't need... " etc. In honour of this I wore my toad necklace (elder toad's the one who brought the earth to the back of the turtle, which Sky Woman uses to great the whole world in my favorite creation story..
The whole environmental movement can be really terrible though. Nothing like the mind-fuck of how every store is marketing a reusable bag now. Fuck that shit. Isn't that the "problem" they're implying you have to fix? That there are too many bags? How do we solve the problem of too many bags? More bags! Who the fuck doesn't have a bag? If a business really, actually, truly wants to reduce its waste creation, then they can give their customers fare warning and then stop providing them (maybe saving some shitty assed cardboard boxes that some stuff was shipped in in case you forget.) There are stores locally that have done this, but all the ones who are jumping on the "we now sell a reusable bag!" band wagon now? They're just marketing something new that looks like change, but isn't actually change. But maybe a cashier will guilt you, and you'll buy one of their bags, and it'll alleviate your guilt. And it's never enough. Like no matter what you do, it'll never be enough. The next big thing, if you buy it, you will solve all your problems. But next is the next new big thing that will solve all your problems, maybe save the fuck*ng planet! That's sort of a media/marketing thing, not true care for the earth, I think. Fear/shame based shit does no good, but it sells shit. The sort of action for the good that actually empowers people isn't exactly big business, or business at all in many cases. Self sufficient behavior isn't good customer behavior, ya' see.
Anyway, it's a good day. It can be a good day. Just sift out the bull shit and know that an invitation and opportunity for self examination is always positive. Assholes and their bullshit self serving come in 32 flavours: you got your hippie flavour and CEO flavour, and on and on - t'ain't related to the day for me, or my journey. Maybe take a few steps back from the hustle and see the opportunity? I mean you can stare at an ugly ass mole on your face all day, or you can get over the ugly and on with the attractive.
(edited because I'm shitty at posting while talking on the phone)
-
Yeah, the worst thing about the mainstreaming of environmentalism is the idea that we can keep buying more and more stuff, it just needs to be green stuff, when the idea should be that we should buy less stuff.
And yet... now I want to search the internet for a place where I can buy a toad necklace.
-
Oh, man... a political arguement where I ain't gotta be extreme because, while I got an opinion on the matter, that opinion is quite low on my list of axes to grind. This is new. I gotta go get some chips...
-
Every generation has believed that their generation is in some absolutely pressing situation that only they can solve by acting radically and immediately.
I tend to listen to scientists when they tell me how things work. And right now, they are telling me we are in a crappy place, and are heading down a crappy path.
-
Well, both. America uses a really disproportionate amount of resources per person in terms of water, electricity, oil products, etc. So we need to improve on that front a lot. At the same time, places like China and India are rapidly catching up as they modernize and quality of life improves. China and India have both signed the Kyoto Protocol, and we have not. I am not really up on my figures in terms of what the Kyoto Protocol is actually accomplishing. Some states (I believe California is one) are enacting laws which will reduce their emissions to essentially bring them in line with the protocol, but others are not.
One part of the treaty, which I think is rad, is that it differentiates between Developed and Developing nations-- the developed nations have to sign that they will reduce emissions, but developing ones do not. However, there is a system where, for instance, if Ghana wants to build a power plant, and they cannot afford an environmentally safe one, the UK or another Developed nation can help them build a better plant, and will be rewarded with credits towards their own carbon emission reduction. Or, as wikipedia says--
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment (called Annex 1 countries) to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. A crucial feature of an approved CDM carbon project is that it has established that the planned reductions would not occur without the additional incentive provided by emission reductions credits, a concept known as "additionality".
The CDM allows net global greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced at a much lower global cost by financing emissions reduction projects in developing countries where costs are lower than in industrialized countries.
In addition, there is a cool Credit system where if you can't meet your goal for reducing emissions, you can buy a Credit for that amount of emissions from a country which has overachieved.
This kind of system is also in place in the EU, I believe, for factories and the like, and is pretty successful so far-- the free market at work and all that.
Also, A-CAP, what are some examples of the fallacious assumptions of importance that previous generations have faced? I took that statement at face value, and then realized that I couldn't think of any.
Except things like beating the Nazis/Axis or communists?
-
Inev, I almost never think of you as a kidlet, but maybe here I do. Yes, scientists are basically at a consensus that there are huge, massive changes coming down the pipes and radical alterations of how we live might need to happen. Total turn around stuff. If you look at what scientists are telling us, a lot of it is actually stuff we as humans have dealt with before, within recent human memory. There are people all over this continent who remember and know how to function when the shit hits the fan. I've sat down and talked with many, many people who lived through the Depression and it was shitty ass times, yet at the same time, it is not the end of the world to have to relearn how to be self sufficient. It is not actually a tragedy that young people 40 years from now here in the Americas may not know what it's like to drink water flown in from Paris, but that they might know how to dig a well. It is not actually the end of the world if every grocery store closes down and we have to learn how to grow our own food. A life of luxury and ease is nice, but life goes on without it all over the world right now. And yes, we who won the lottery and got to be born where we are will be the lucky ones, and even if it means the mass extinction and reinvention of communities and cultures, that's actually part of the ebb and flow of how nature works. Yes, we may have brought it about ourselves, but so did so many civilizations before us.
I'm around kids all day, and I worry about them constantly, but to worry about if they're going to be thirsty, or hungry or disease ridden is moot. People are living in those conditions right now. Right now, while you read this sentence, there is a kid somewhere dying of a disease that one simple injection could have prevented. It's not okay, but maybe it's too far away for you to see that even in third and fourth world conditions kids still laugh and play and grow up and have babies of their own. In my experience, they even go so far as to make and create art and innovation. You talk of your peers as a weak and spindly stock, and maybe that's true. When you look at humans or trees, they don't grow strong roots unless they're blown by the wind. The imperative to survive is so fuck*ng strong you wouldn't believe it. The shit people survive - I don't wish bad things on anyone, but people survive shit that isn't talked about much in polite society. Some of your whiny ass buddies might just surprise the hell out of you by learning to milk a goat, carefully tending a stolen, fertilized egg from chick to egg producing hen, or by slitting the throat of some now unmedicated psychopath who was about to slit your throat.
Like I said, I worry about kids all the fuck*ng time. In classes I meet them at the moment they first meet each other, when all they are is monstrous little id egos running around, appetite and destruction and chaos. Little inconsiderate assholes. And that's how every group of kids, around the world and across time behaves without guidance. Selgiraffeness works for babies who need to demand to survive, but after say 6 or 7, that's not how it rolls. When we talk in vague ways about future generations, we neglect to see the real armour we can give kids has little to do with providing them with the luxuries we may have enjoyed. Real tools, timeless tools, relate to teaching creativity, resilience, stoicism and respect. 40 years from now could be heaven or hell on earth, and the real imperative is that we teach future generations how to process and function within what ever that world will be. And if it's back to living in caves and foraging, do you want your kid to be the kind who others like enough to teach to avoid the radioactive mutant berry bush, or do you want your kid to be the asshole who everyone snickers at and offers fists full of poisen berries to? And if it's halcyon days of luxury and tempura coated sex, do you want your kid to be the one with 50 Hover Porches who's hollow inside, or the one who loves his life and doesn't really care if he has 50 porches or not (coincidentally he has 80 hover Porches)?
-
I mean, obviously I am aware that people in other places in the world do not have our quality of living. The issue is that unless we start majorly changing the way we live -now-, we won't have time to change it in the future. We can't go back to growing our own food on family farms if there's no water to water our crops. We can't grow our own crops if acid rain kills them before they're ready to eat. I know that people are adaptable and are living in thirst and hunger and disease all over the world-- the issue is that if we can do something to prevent that being the default condition for the entire planet, we should.
But instead people complain that they should be able to live their lives however they want.
We're not talking about the roman empire falling and the barbarians moving in for 500 years. we're talking about massive scale changes-- flooding of every coastline, crops dying, lack of clean drinking water, and other massive changes in the basic way humans have to survive on earth. we haven't faced anything like this before.
-
Yeah, I mean. I don't know. I trust people who spend their lives studying something and then tell me something about it. I struggle a lot with trusting people when maybe I shouldn't. But everything I've read and everyone I've heard speak has been telling me the same thing in regards to where we're headed. On one side is a huge body of research with scientific explanations and hypotheses, and from the other side what I hear is basically "I don't think it's actually that bad."
And, I don't know. There's the whole "better safe than sorry" thing too.
-
I mean, where do you suggest I look?
In regards to what Smells said, I mean, yeah. I agree with most of that. i just don't see how it's relevant?
Edit: I'm sorry if anything I've said in this thread has come across as abrasive/rude/assholeish. I'm sure some of it has. This is an issue that gets me really riled up, and I am really stressed out about a bunch of other things going on (radio station getting majorly boned in a budget meeting right now which I'm listening to remotely, studying for a class which I am on the verge of not passing.) I think it would be a good idea for me to stop responding until tomorrow, at this point, as I am afraid I'm going to cross a line (if I haven't already) in how I phrase something. I do not want to be a dick to a non-stranger. Also... it would be a good idea for me to study in a more focused way at this point.
-
But instead people complain that they should be able to live their lives however they want.
Or conversly, they acknowledge their own selgiraffe natures and choose to enjoy what is before them because it is fleeting. The people at the top of the food chain are self serving. That is how they got there in most cases.
We're not talking about the roman empire falling and the barbarians moving in for 500 years. we're talking about massive scale changes-- flooding of every coastline, crops dying, lack of clean drinking water, and other massive changes in the basic way humans have to survive on earth. we haven't faced anything like this before.
Yes, of course I too have seen these sorts of predictions. I mean... I could quote myself, but I think I talk quite a bit about potential anihilation in my last post. The idea put forward that people are personally individually failing to do the things they need to do to cause a magical turn around it a tad arrogant. We aren't talking about people continuing to drive cars because they are assholes. As and example, we can consider talking about people continuting to drive cars because it is a way of life, and how no alternate reasonable solution to maintaining our way of life being put forward. Yes, being a person who lives and works in one place and who's loved ones are all within one city have given up my car. No, I don't think my SO is an asshole because he continues to drive his beater truck to visit his family in another town, and to get him to his place of work, which is otherwise inaccessable. There isn't a safe or affordable alternative for him. He knows his truck is polluting, but he also knows he loves his family and that they need his help, that he must have a job in order to pay the bills. People will and do follow what they belive to be the best practices if these practices are proven and accessable, and if they can't or don't, either social pressure and/or the rule of law usually sort of enforces. And as a person who really, really wants to do "what's best" I feel that there's a fairly blatent lack of clairity or access to what the "best practices" are at this point.
Also, I can't not remind you that actually we have faced these changes you describe here and elsewhere. When imperialism came to my area the main source of protein (buffalo) was driven to near extinction, the process of strip farming (where every piece of land had access to water) was legislated out of existance leading to total crop failure due to drought and soil errosion, introduction of several untreatable and fatal illnesses, and, as you so eloquently put it "massive changes in the basic way humans have to survive on earth." Yet somehow I am still here, clattering away on this keyboard. When I said "mass extinction and reinvention of communities and cultures" I, um, meant it.
I could go on, but I'm so tired I don't think I'm making any sense.
-
Damn, to think I was avoiding this thread because Earth-day and similar things bug the hell out of me... mainly for the reason already stated, symbolism without real action, smug ineffective gestures and knee jerk reactions to complex problems.
As usual I think Smells has got it right. We live in a world of limited resources and fairly finely balanced ecosystems and sooner or later we're going to use them up trash them all. This isn't the end of the world but it is the end of the world working in the way we are used to but as the bard herself said this has happened before a million times and we will get through it. Hell, us specifically living where we do may not even really notice, at least not in the way the rest of the world will.
I think, as Ash said, our values change more quickly than we think and we'll probably be able to avoid the worst of it for that reason but our values are really limited to our (relatively small) cultures and communicating the value of doing something the more expensive way for the sake of preserving the planet in it's current state is hard to communicate to people in other parts of the world where you have to work incredibly hard to achieve what you or I would consider a very meager living. Ash is right in pointing out that large developing countries like China and India are really going to be what decide our fate but the fact is they are going crazy just keeping up with their population growth let alone developing new technologies, if we just sit back and say 'we're not going to do shit because we're not the main offenders' then nothing is going to happen because no one else is in as good a position as we are to make things happen.
Anyway, it's not the end of the world but this mentality that things are always going to be ok really needs to be shaken out of us and one way or the other it will be. Spewing particulate matter and into our atmosphere has an effect, it's a slow one but it's also one that will take a long time to change, let alone reverse. We're going to figure this one out the same way we figured out that building dams can screw up river ecosystems and ruin your life if you rely on giraffeing, the same way we figured out that wholesale clearing of forests for farms works for a few generations until salinity increases and you have to clear even more land because the land you've got isn't arable anymore.
We will survive but that doesn't mean it's all going to be peaches and rose petals.
Also, Inev: I (unsurprisingly) agree with Ash that you should read as widely as you can, try searching some journal databases at your college library ('Web of Science' is a good general one). Basically ignore anything anyone on a blog or on a news report says because they always get it wrong. I'm more on your side than Ash's about what we're doing to the environment but most media is so polarized* these days and everyone just cares about reporting their side being right instead of what is true. Scientists don't care about that shit, they just want to publish the data they collected. Generally read the papers in journals with short names, the ones with really long names tend to have low impact factors which basically means the studies they publish generally aren't as high quality.
-
I just think it's hilarious that when I was a kid, we were being told that the earth was cooling and that we were heading toward an ice age. Just 30 years later or so, it's suddenly 180 degrees the other way! It's either a miracle of science, sheer force of will on the part of all those dirty hippies who started this goofy 'earth day' thing, or maybe, just maybe
THEY WERE WRONG!
BUT that's just as impossible as the possibility that those same people's kids and grandkids could be wrong now.
Ash, Wombat, Paul, August, you all, like me, are using the metric system exclusively now just as were all told in elementary school, right? It was going to be ALL METRIC pretty soon, back in 1980, so you better get your liters and meters straight. A whole new world...
I guess all those metric people froze to death during that ice age that was coming.
My point is this: we all live one moment at a time, and the most experience anyone gets is maybe 100 years, which is nothing against the fullness of time.
You may have theories about what MAY happen, and others will have evidence that you are wrong. So live with common sense and a certain amount of stewardship for the planet. Go overboard if you want...but don't preach it to the rest of us or judge us for using plastic, or taking daily showers, or having kids because you don't prove anything with your lectures or your sermons except that you are foolish enough to believe that A) there is only one answer and B) you know it.
Go metric! Beat the New Ice Age!
-
If you people HAD switched to metric then global warming would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
-
I mean... the entire world does use the metric system (specifically International System of Units) apart from Liberia, Myanmar and the United States. (It's true, I read it on Wikipedia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system))
You are right on the other though and most real scientists will chew off their own leg rather than say something is definitely going to happen, being uncertain and learning more is what science is. As soon as you get it into the public arena however any sliver of doubt will be inflated by any opportunist wandering by which is why we see this abso-fuck*ng-lutely stupid polarisation on just about every issue these days. Everyone is either 100% right or 100% wrong!
-
I use cloth diapers on my daughter but not my son (anymore). I don't pre-rinse my dishes, but I don't recycle regularly (since we moved into an area without curbside pickup). I repurpose as much as possible, make my own baby food from locally-grown produce, and briefly considered during a recent statewide water shortage using recycled bath water to flush my toilets. (Pedro declared this "too gross and extreme.") But I also drive a minivan, drink vats of Diet Coke in 2-liter bottles (which I don't recycle), and buy a lot of stuff online.
I am probably like most Americans in that I choose green when it's not terribly inconvenient. (Some might debate the convenience factor of cloth diapering and homemade baby food, but these things are less effort than, in our case, having a bin of recycling kicking around our kitchen all the time.) I choose green because it makes me feel good and because it's often more economical than not. (Where can you get produce cheaper and better than the farmer's market?) Maybe I'm having an impact on the environment, maybe not; I'm probably no worse than the average American, and I like to think I live at least a little greener. But maybe that's because it's trendy to do so. (We all know how I'm a slave to fashion, and all.)
Besides, being Christian, I'm pretty much counting on the apocalypse happening before the polar icecaps melt anyway.
-
Besides, being Christian, I'm pretty much counting on the apocalypse happening before the polar icecaps melt anyway.
Well that's fine, but what about the rest of us stuck down here while you guys are rapturing it up? 1000 years of rule by the anti-christ is going to suck enough without us having to give up our ill-gotten beach front condoes.
Actually from memory the rapture comes after the anti-christ and the 1000 year thing is Jesus ruling, but I couldn't get a joke out of that. This disregard for scriptural accuracy is one of the reasons I don't need to worry about my tan in the next life.
-
If you people HAD switched to metric then global warming would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
OK, now I feel guilty!
-
I'm sorry:
A Kilo is 1000 grams, it's easy to remember.
-
Finally, a reason that doing drugs would have been a career move.
Ash is right - it's having an intuitive feel for the numbers that's the problem. We are supposed to weigh our animals metrically. If I weigh an animal and the scale says 100 grams, I have no clue what that means. Is the scale broken, or is that a reasonable weight for the animal I'm looking at? I really have no idea.
-
I really don't want to make anyone mad here, but I really hate the prevailing attitude here.
Yes, Earth Day and similar things are irritating, because you do get self-righteous pricks etc. and I understand that viewpoint.
BUT the reason you are being 'told what to do 365 days a year' (no offence here but that's a ridiculous statement) is because there is pretty much scientifically undisputed (perhaps disputed in America?) evidence that inefficient human usage of cars etc. is a REALLY BAD THING. Which, like Daniel mentioned, will fuck up the planet and force humans to adapt, and kill a lot of people, most likely not in America.
I like you all, so I'm not mad at anyone here, and you've mentioned that you do things like recycle etc. But by passing it off as 'events this scale have happened before, no point trying to change my ways to stop it' is awful, yes things like this have happened before. And hundreds of thousands people died! Surely it's worth trying to alleviate the effects as we have the benefit of prediction that our ancestors didn't have? The attitude of 'we should live our lives as we want' is understandably human, but depressingly selgiraffe; even if in practice you are a 'good carbon footprint' (yes, silly concept) person, it's an attitude that encourages both yourself and others to act selgiraffely. And this leads me onto (rather poorly in terms of post structure):
People all over the planet die, have died and will die when others act inefficiently and selgiraffely. Been happening for millenia. Yes, this is one of those facts of life. But just because things have happened before does not mean it is okay to let them happen again because of individual greed
I am not accusing anyone here of selgiraffeness, greed or anything relating to those but the scornful attitude towards those who are trying to secure some sort of benefit for the future really scales my johnson.
I'm just worried I'm going to be dismissed here due to my age, or worse being told I'm being fed propaganda in some way. By the BBC?
Every generation has believed that their generation is in some absolutely pressing situation that only they can solve by acting radically and immediately.
Sorry but I have to take issue with that as well, unless you can provide numerous examples happening previous to the 1940's or so, before really really mass-media developed. Even if 'every generation' has convinced itself of some absolutely pressing situation, how does it make the current ones any less real?
-
Also, I can't not remind you that actually we have faced these changes you describe here and elsewhere. When imperialism came to my area the main source of protein (buffalo) was driven to near extinction, the process of strip farming (where every piece of land had access to water) was legislated out of existance leading to total crop failure due to drought and soil errosion, introduction of several untreatable and fatal illnesses, and, as you so eloquently put it "massive changes in the basic way humans have to survive on earth." Yet somehow I am still here, clattering away on this keyboard. When I said "mass extinction and reinvention of communities and cultures" I, um, meant it.
Yeah, see. Here's the thing.
I'm saying "hey, guys, maybe we should stop killing all these buffalo, the people who live here really need them to eat. Maybe we should be more careful about how many we kill."
and you're saying "there will still be descendants of the people who live here now writing awesome plays in 300 years, so, what's the problem? People are adaptive, cultures die out, it's the natural order."
and I'm saying "but... we can stop this from happening! we just have to stop killing the freaking buffalo!"
and Ash is saying "hey, I mean, we got to North America even though scientists said that we'd fall off the edge of the earth-- why should we trust you this time?"
and people are saying "it's my right to kill all these buffalo! stop telling me how to live my life, you arrogant asshole!"
I just don't understand the argument that because people have adapted to massive problems before means we shouldn't start adapting NOW rather than waiting for it to be unavoidable.
In terms of needing to cast my net wider... it seems like I'm being told that because you have a feeling that maybe scientists don't know what they're talking about, I/they must be wrong? I need to read more scientific studies because you think the ones I've read are wrong/distorted, but you get to dismiss them with your vague feelings about their validity?
You may have theories about what MAY happen, and others will have evidence that you are wrong. So live with common sense and a certain amount of stewardship for the planet. Go overboard if you want...but don't preach it to the rest of us or judge us for using plastic, or taking daily showers, or having kids because you don't prove anything with your lectures or your sermons except that you are foolish enough to believe that A) there is only one answer and B) you know it.
The thing is... in the end, someone is right. Maybe I'm wrong to think that I know the right answer, but there is one answer. Either we're heading in a horrible direction or we aren't. This just seems like a really strange argument to me-- this isn't religion or philosophy where there's no way to find a Real Answer. This isn't subjective. Either in 40 or 50 or 100 years the earth will be in horrible shape or it won't-- you and I will be dead (or maybe I'll be alive, if I'm lucky!) and forgotten as individuals except by our descendants if we're lucky, but our generation will be remembered as another generation of assholes who saw what was coming and didn't do anything about it.
Furthermore, the idea that because people have been wrong about things before they shouldn't be taken seriously now is fallacious-- this is how science works. Hypothesis, new data, new hypothesis, new data, etc. Back then, for whatever reason, a small number of scientists thought that the earth was cooling-- now the data that people cite in things I read and speeches I see say the opposite. The global cooling theory was advanced by a few scientists, and then seized upon by the media (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643). A lot of theories have been proven wrong in the history of science-- this means that science is working.
Also, I have never gotten a real feel for the non-metric system (imperial system?) at all. I know what a foot and an inch are, but none of those other things mean anything to me in terms of actually being able to measure them/eyeball them/whatever. But that isn't really the argument here at all. I don't see how being told that everyone should use the metric system (a public policy issue) is related to being told a scientific theory which has a hell of a lot of evidence behind it.
I really just don't get the whole attitude. When you go to the doctor and he says you have diabetes, do you say "well, 50 years ago doctors said it was perfectly fine to smoke cigarettes and they were wrong, why should I trust you now?" I think we all know what happens when you ignore your diabetes. (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=01082003)
And again, I feel like I'm being told "there are plenty of people in wheelchairs who get around just fine, they have pretty good quality of life, so, don't worry about it!" when I could be getting a dang insulin pump and saving myself a lot of problems down the road.
-
Yeah it doesn't help you much that 1 gram is about equal to one standard paper clip, so if you got 100 of them...
We don't have a feel for paper clips or walk around counting them.
On the other hand, everyone has hefted a potato and at least toyed with the hucking idea.
100 paperclips weigh 2.2 pounds? I have little boxes with more than 100 paperclips in them from office max, and I'm sure two of them don't weigh almost 5 pounds...
-
Furthermore, the idea that because people have been wrong about things before they shouldn't be taken seriously now is fallacious-- this is how science works. Hypothesis, new data, new hypothesis, new data, etc. Back then, for whatever reason, a small number of scientists thought that the earth was cooling-- now the data that people cite in things I read and speeches I see say the opposite. The global cooling theory was advanced by a few scientists, and then seized upon by the media (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643). A lot of theories have been proven wrong in the history of science-- this means that science is working.
Actually, it occurs to me that skepticism, waiting and going against the current thinking is working. So the world isn't flat, the sun is not revolving around it, we are not hurtling toward an ice age, etc. etc. etc.
I'll take my faith over science in many cases and in the rest I'll take it with science. In some cases it has it's problems but I see it working in me and others more than I see science working in me and others. Don't forget that in addition to an ultimate question of "how" in terms of the origins of the universe, there is still the question of "why?". The faithful care about the "why" and the "how". The scientists seem to think it ends at "how?".
-
ugh
faith and science don't have to conflict, it's that kind of thing that was discussed earlier in the thread - 100% right v 100% wrong
most of the disputes in ideology between faith & science could be reconciled with some simple polite debate and discussion, but those always degrade into religious wars
-
I do both as I mention. What I failed to say was that my faith allows me to not run around all chicken-little styles, or buy into all the dread and horror that science-only or rational humanism can bring us.
I really believe that we are the result of a caring and carefully planned creation and that we will all be just fine if we make the right choices both in our lifestyles, our day-to-day actions, and our beliefs.
Sorry for the incomplete thought.
-
there is still the question of "why?". The faithful care about the "why" and the "how". The scientists seem to think it ends at "how?".
Well, science eliminates the need for a 'why', I'm no scien-ma-tist but the prevailing philosophy seems to be things are because they are, and I can be happy with that. I'm just contending that both viewpoints are equally valid, and there's nothing wrong with accepting things don't always have a why, not looking to turn this into an issue (because it's a personal matter anyway). Basically: :D
Actually, it occurs to me that skepticism, waiting and going against the current thinking is working. So the world isn't flat, the sun is not revolving around it, we are not hurtling toward an ice age, etc. etc. etc.
A good point, but remember that science (there it is again) at the time was very limited, and a lot of the astronomical theories were based on man's sense of self-importance and guess work.
As far as I am aware, the environmental threats of today do not rely on such estimation and assumptions. Of course though, this all depends on whether A) You trust science in its present form (after all, Medieval Joe Scientist thought he knew it all when there was so much more) and B) You believe the verdicts given by the scientific community.
If B) is not the case, then we reach the point where a very basic belief within us collides, and we'll only debate until both of us are more entrenched in our beliefs than we were before.
-
I'll take my faith over science in many cases and in the rest I'll take it with science. In some cases it has it's problems but I see it working in me and others more than I see science working in me and others. Don't forget that in addition to an ultimate question of "how" in terms of the origins of the universe, there is still the question of "why?". The faithful care about the "why" and the "how". The scientists seem to think it ends at "how?".
I think that's a complete mischaracterization. Scientists know that it isn't their place to come up with answers as to Why the universe exists/was created. This isn't a question which can ever be addressed in an empirical way, and any time anyone comes close to trying it turns into a huge publicity nightmare where Science is once again cast as the enemy of Faith and Religion, which it doesn't need to be. Religion and Science address completely different questions about the universe and human existence, and any time they come into conflict, in my opinion, is a case where one of them is overstepping its bounds.
We need faith when there isn't an absolute, certifiable answer. We need science to find the absolute, certifiable answers there are-- maybe we don't always find them the first time, or the second time, but at least we're moving towards them.
Faith/belief says "there's a cat in that box" until you open the box and see whether there's one there or not.
Actually, it occurs to me that skepticism, waiting and going against the current thinking is working. So the world isn't flat, the sun is not revolving around it, we are not hurtling toward an ice age, etc. etc. etc.
Again, there is a difference between being critical and skeptical of current thinking and making sure it stays rigorous on the one hand, and assuming the current thinking is wrong at all times. Would you make the same argument against the theory of gravity, plate tectonics, etc? Sometimes theories stick around for a while because they have merit and are resilient against criticism.
And of course, the issue is, at some point waiting means we're sitting on our asses while the world goes to hell.
I really believe that we are the result of a caring and carefully planned creation and that we will all be just fine if we make the right choices both in our lifestyles, our day-to-day actions, and our beliefs.
This just... God gave us enough Reason and Intelligence and Creativity to solve our own damn problems, and to see the problems coming our way. Maybe, if there is a He or It or whoever up there, he's saying "WHY AREN'T THEY GETTING THE FREAKING HINT!?"
People talk about the death of common sense and ridiculous lawsuits and all of that-- should God have made us with little warning stickers that said "Warning: Brain is to be used for problem-solving?" If there is someone up there who created us according to a careful plan, it seems like he has provided us with the tools we need to solve this problem instead of assuming everything will work out alright.
God helps those who help themselves.
-
In my estimation, minimizing that period of societal dislocation (translated: human suffering) by letting the adoption process run at a more easily adjusted to pace is the appropriate balance at this time.
In this context however, what exactly is the societal dislocation/human suffering for a country forced to be more (for lack of a better word) 'green'?
Not a challenge, I'm just interested in hearing from different sides of this debate.
I am young and an asshole, after all.
-
Science eliminating the why is just the kind of rational humanism I'm talking about - things being the way they are because that's the way they are indicates that science has reached some level of essence - singularity of some kind.
But every thing seems to be made of something smaller, and science keeps finding another layer. Molecules. Atoms. Quarks. It keeps going.
Cosmology keeps readjusting when earlier events are revealed. Science hasn't found a shred of evidence that indicates anything is because it is. What's the point of science at all of that is the case?
I don't think it does end; I think that the realms of the very small (quarks and what makes them and what makes whatever makes them) and the very large (Cosmology, big bang, etc.) are the realm of the same Singularity.
The 'why' points to the Singularity.
And that is why the 'why' is important.
-
Science hasn't found a shred of evidence that indicates anything is because it is. What's the point of science at all if that is the case?
and
Science eliminating the why is just the kind of rational humanism I'm talking about - things being the way they are because that's the way they are indicates that science has reached some level of essence - singularity of some kind.
I... don't really understand what these mean. Could you explain?
-
I really just don't get the whole attitude. When you go to the doctor and he says you have diabetes, do you say "well, 50 years ago doctors said it was perfectly fine to smoke cigarettes and they were wrong, why should I trust you now?" I think we all know what happens when you ignore your diabetes.
Global warming, you are not invited to my pizza party.
-
ALSO: So are you offended by the sig or not?
A guy I know would say "I'm a hundred times more offended by the idea that you would be offended by that than you are offended by it."
And I'd say "dude, you can't just... you can't just declare yourself to be more offended, what does that even..."
"NO! Dude, stop being so PC all the time!"
And he's pretty young, and one of the biggest assholes I know, so.
I would say that in my experience all groups of people are assholes about equally.
-
Nothing happens for free. Countries, provinces, counties and municipalities, along with the business' they contain can only absorb so much fundamental change to retooling infrastructure in order to become 'more green' before it impacts, in governments case, services they can provide. [new sentence, enough commas] Business also has a short leash to additional overhead before it impacts jobs directly.
Cuts in social services and employment are a direct line to the suffering quotient.
My personal adoption timeline doesn't involve closing emergency medical services for the under served or adding to the UI rolls.
ALSO: So are you offended by the sig or not?
I agree that the disruption of medical or social well-being due to government and industry re-prioritising their funds is unacceptable. Which is why I would advocate the Government subsidising business... perhaps with a cut in a non-social Government department. See, I was going to suggest the military, as this does not affect the populace (as long as you don't cut soldiers wages). BUT then they would be less well-equipped for peacekeeping operations etc. in other countries, which is unfair on the people reliant on their presence for protection. Oof, my head.
See, I'm learning through application that things aren't all that easy and there are many things to consider, thank you for your continued debate. (though I still stand by my viewpoint)
As for the sig: Haha, I find it hard to take offence to something I agree with. I think many people my age are assholes and secretly suspect I may be one too.
-
Global warming is not undisputed, and no the position is not some american conspiracy many if not most of the scientists on the list are not in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming).
I'm not going to change the decisions you've already made about the world, so I won't waste my time trying. I can only say that it is my own rational conclusion that I as one man am not going to save or destroy the earth.
As for previous generations - Ever heard of A Modest Proposal?
-
Global warming is not undisputed, and no the position is not some american conspiracy many if not most of the scientists on the list are not in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming).
I'm not going to change the decisions you've already made about the world, so I won't waste my time trying. I can only say that it is my own rational conclusion that I as one man am not going to save or destroy the earth.
As for previous generations - Ever heard of A Modest Proposal?
Certainly, I wouldn't suggest that it is completely undisputed, I think it would have been more fair to say that it is not so much an issue here because the general consensus here is that it is a reality, and so there is not much platform for anti-global warming scientists.
I can happily accept your conclusions and apologise for flying off the handle a bit earlier, I don't think you're a bad person for the way you feel about the world at all and your viewpoint is about as rational as it can be. (about individuals meaning bugger all in the grand scheme of things)
Yes, I have read a Modest Proposal and am kicking myself for not thinking from the right angle, I even studied the concept of poor-relief and am annoyed I didn't think of such things, you've got me beat there. Now I think of it there are, indeed, numerous examples.
Still stand by the fact that these examples don't invalidate other attempts, but I think I've said all I need to regarding that and I won't attempt to force any more debating. (Unless others want to, I'm enjoying it)
-
Cool. You guys get it on the sig thing.
Our viewpoints aren't really very different. Our urgency is.
Judy, you're on a similar track of thinking. I'd give you and illustration about how low flow toilets and shower heads were implemented in this state but the short version is, long enough deadline compliance for manufacturer re-tooling expenses to be absorbed over a couple of fiscal years, mandated deadlines for new build work change over to the low flow stuff and a several year state backed consumer rebate program to alleviate the cost of replacement of old stuff.
A different program was instituted for 'energy star' low electric use appliances. Consumers who purchase new appliances in this category can apply to SCEdison for a bill credit subsidized by the state. Consumers buy the new appliances (money savings), manufacturers build 'em (sales incentive product) and the overall result is lowered electrical use and production needs.
These are good example of sustainable programs with a very tangible and immediate benefit.
If I was the King of Implementation I'd be prioritizing by change impact level and ease of implementation into an overall schedule so that the greatest amount of change could be implemented with the least amount of dislocation over the most sustainable duration.
That shit is hard
See, we are starting to converge here and I'm beginning to think I got the wrong end of the stick to begin with, so I owe you an apology as well.
And yes, this shit is hard. I'm just glad we've got the politicians to do all this for us in an efficient and sensible manner!
-
I really believe that we are the result of a caring and carefully planned creation and that we will all be just fine if we make the right choices both in our lifestyles, our day-to-day actions, and our beliefs.
I think the universe is a huge place that doesn't even have a consciousness to ignore us with. I think cause and effect govern our existence and if we want to be able to control our destinies we need to learn the rules.
That's my 'why', if it helps.
Ash: All the stuff about challenging current thinking I'm not sure I'm buying, up until a few years ago wasn't current thinking that we weren't doing any harm? I am 100% behind skepticism but it can't be the knee jerk kind (not that I think yours is) there needs to be more behind skepticism than 'I don't want this to be true' and that is what I hear from a lot of places disputing global warming.
I get where you're coming from on the urgency issue but I'd also put forward that there needs to be some urgency just to get people moving at a reasonable pace.
And yes, this shit is hard. I'm just glad we've got the politicians to do all this for us in an efficient and sensible manner!
At least we are all united in our skepticism of politicians.
-
I should note that the concept of Global Warming and Cooling phases is pretty undeniable. What I see as the debate, and what I'm not sold on is the argument that human produced CO2 is the main contributor to recent increases in surface temperature measurements. The great majority of atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanos, plant and animal decay, ocean absorption phases, etc. The human contribution to CO2 is fractional of total atmospheric CO2 and even less fractional of a half percentage of total greenhouse gases.
Im concerned that so much attention is paid to human produced carbon dioxide that it may ultimately turn out to be a red herring that is distracting us from greater environmental concerns.
-
And cow farts. Don't forget about the cow farts.
-
I just want to be able to drive my car to work and back every day without it hurting anyone. But I've come to the conclusion that that's not possible anymore. Cornfuel was going to solve the world's problems... now because of cornfuel, people in impoverished nations can't eat. Everyone talks about futurecars that run only on water... but the good water is already starting to run out. The problem isn't that our fuel is inefficient... it's that our system is inefficient. And I don't see a real solution to that. We can't all live in the cities anymore. There's too many of us.
I've mentioned to my wife before that there's a part of me that doesn't want any more children, because of the fear that in ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, I'll be apologizing to them for bringing them into the world they have to live in.
-
Right. But there's developing urgency then there's QUIT SCREAMING IN MY FACE CONSTANTLY AND BURNING SUV DEALERS YOU DIRTY FUCKERS. Just because I slam on the people doesn't effect the issue.
And I love me some easy targets.
No man, I was just a tyke when Iron Eyes Cody laid out to us how it really was.
(http://newyorkette.com/wp-content/ironeyescody_450.jpg)
And how old were you when you found out he was an Italian with a nice tan?
-
That was more traumatic for me than finding out there was no Santa Claus.
For serious.
-
I think many people my age are assholes and secretly suspect I may be one too.
Never you, Jude. But look on the bright side: People your age can still hope it's not a permanent condition. It's old assholes that are depressing.
-
Right. But there's developing urgency then there's QUIT SCREAMING IN MY FACE CONSTANTLY AND BURNING SUV DEALERS YOU DIRTY FUCKERS. Just because I slam on the people doesn't effect the issue.
Yeah I hate those guys too. But then I also hate people driving SUVs and people who people who sit on the aisle seat in buses with their bag in the window seat. I've got a lot of love to go around.
Edit: I just worked out why I hate those guys (the annoying hippies that is) it's because they are applying morals to something I feel is an entirely practical matter. Morality varies from person to person but given enough data we should all be able to agree that action x will lead to consequence y. As soon as people start clouding the water with morality folk get all uppity and start thinking their opinion is as valid as testable reality.
-
TLDR.
Also -- Ash, I think your sig would be equally accurate if you deleted the first word.
-
Edit: I just worked out why I hate those guys (the annoying hippies that is) it's because they are applying morals to something I feel is an entirely practical matter. Morality varies from person to person but given enough data we should all be able to agree that action x will lead to consequence y. As soon as people start clouding the water with morality folk get all uppity and start thinking their opinion is as valid as testable reality.
As a person who is friends with these people, I want to thank you for explaining what was bugging me about them.
-
Well, science eliminates the need for a 'why', I'm no scien-ma-tist but the prevailing philosophy seems to be things are because they are, and I can be happy with that. I'm just contending that both viewpoints are equally valid, and there's nothing wrong with accepting things don't always have a why, not looking to turn this into an issue (because it's a personal matter anyway).
.
Dan, that's what I was responding to with the "things are because they are".
As for the second: Science to too great a degree puts humans at the pinnacle of existence - yet the continuous search for answers invariably causes more questions in science - the 'how" questions, mainly. Rational Humanism, in my mind, is the absence of a conceptual "God"; placing logic and reason at the pinnacle of philosophical expression, and believing that we as humans are actually in charge of everything down here.
When I mention that 'essence' or 'singularity' I'm talking about the final thing you find. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, electrons. Protons, neutrons and electrons are made of up, down, right, left, charmed and strange quarks. Quarks are probably made of something. That something is probably made of something. Eventually you have to come to the end of that rope, to that essential substance or singularity that is the basic building block. Or do you?
The same applies in the very large. What force or energy or mass or object created/caused/energized the first big bang? And what powers that?
Science in these kinds of physics is all about how these things work, how they are described, how they behave, etc. I think this realm of study lends itself powerfully to the "why" question, with the question being asked (in my opinion) of the Creator who put all these things in place.
To me the more important question is the "why" questions. Because there is no end to the how; we will continue to find more and more in both the large and the small as we study them. The why is answerable; through faith. The how is not.
-
Yeah, OK. You find the answer to the Why question in your faith. So how is this a failure of science? Science's job is to look at the How. that's what it does. And I don't see how science is putting humans at the pinnacle of existence in any way-- my science classes have always been pretty hardcore about beating into my head that that is the opposite of the case.
-
Science is a temptation to let the mind and it's endeavors supplant faith in the very being that created humanity in the first place. Both can and should coexist, but not at each other's expense. I see the imprint of God on everything; I think that's a minority opinion.
-
Science is a temptation to let the mind and it's endeavors supplant faith in the very being that created humanity in the first place. Both can and should coexist, but not at each other's expense. I see the imprint of God on everything; I think that's a minority opinion.
yeah, I mean. There isn't anything to argue with here. This and other things you've said are so fundamentally opposite to the way I understand the world, at least in some of your basic beliefs/ways of understanding things/etc, that there really isn't any point to discussing this aspect.
But I'm going to do it anyway just to make this one point, because I hate that I feel like the ridiculous anti-faith anti-wonder person here. The thing that gets me, really REALLY gets me about a lot of public discussion of topics like this is the idea that Science somehow makes things less Wondrous. And this just... doesn't make any sense to me. Is a rainbow any less beautiful once you know how water droplets refract the light to make the pretty colors? If it does seem less beautiful to you, I'm sorry. The more I learn about the way things work in the natural world the more I find wonder in them-- I don't understand why this seems to be a minority opinion. I don't see how thinking that the Creator designed all of it would make me feel any differently about the beautiful, complex, amazing world we live in. Actually, I think that if I believed that things were the way they are because God made them that way, I would find them -less- amazing. Learning about how unguided things like erosion or natural selection can lead to incredibly complex, functional, and beautiful things will never get old to me, and will never stop amazing me. But, you know, I'm a big dork. I don't really know what I think about the idea of God, I've gone back and forth about it a lot so I'm sorry if I come across as inconsistent.
But what it all goes back to is the idea that, if you think there is a God who created all of us according to his master plan, he gave us brains to figure things out. And right now a lot of people are using their brains to study the environment, and what they're seeing is telling them there's a problem. Which... seems to me to mean that we will be OK if we make the right choices in our day to day lives and such, like you said.
The issue is, "running around chicken little style" refers to freaking out and saying the sky is falling when a rock or something falls on his head, yes? I forget what falls on his head.
This is more like... chicken little and thousands of other chicken friends measure how high the sky is every day for decades, and say "the sky is falling."
So yes, we do have these great brains, no matter where you think they came from, and we should use them.
Like I said before, God helps those who helps themselves.
-
Dan is the man with 200 cans because he gets it. The more I learn about the world the more beauty and wonder there is to see.
-
Maybe a decade later. Soured me a little. Probably is a hell of a lot more offensive to you maybe.
I'm not offended by Iron Eyes. In the end he portrayed a fictional stereotype that doesn't actually exist, so it's more silly and embarrassing for everyside of that story than offensive to me.
-
yeah, I mean. There isn't anything to argue with here. This and other things you've said are so fundamentally opposite to the way I understand the world, at least in some of your basic beliefs/ways of understanding things/etc, that there really isn't any point to discussing this aspect.
But I'm going to do it anyway just to make this one point, because I hate that I feel like the ridiculous anti-faith anti-wonder person here. The thing that gets me, really REALLY gets me about a lot of public discussion of topics like this is the idea that Science somehow makes things less Wondrous. And this just... doesn't make any sense to me. Is a rainbow any less beautiful once you know how water droplets refract the light to make the pretty colors? If it does seem less beautiful to you, I'm sorry. The more I learn about the way things work in the natural world the more I find wonder in them-- I don't understand why this seems to be a minority opinion. I don't see how thinking that the Creator designed all of it would make me feel any differently about the beautiful, complex, amazing world we live in. Actually, I think that if I believed that things were the way they are because God made them that way, I would find them -less- amazing. Learning about how unguided things like erosion or natural selection can lead to incredibly complex, functional, and beautiful things will never get old to me, and will never stop amazing me. But, you know, I'm a big dork. I don't really know what I think about the idea of God, I've gone back and forth about it a lot so I'm sorry if I come across as inconsistent.
But what it all goes back to is the idea that, if you think there is a God who created all of us according to his master plan, he gave us brains to figure things out. And right now a lot of people are using their brains to study the environment, and what they're seeing is telling them there's a problem. Which... seems to me to mean that we will be OK if we make the right choices in our day to day lives and such, like you said.
The issue is, "running around chicken little style" refers to freaking out and saying the sky is falling when a rock or something falls on his head, yes? I forget what falls on his head.
This is more like... chicken little and thousands of other chicken friends measure how high the sky is every day for decades, and say "the sky is falling."
So yes, we do have these great brains, no matter where you think they came from, and we should use them.
Like I said before, God helps those who helps themselves.
Good post, and sums up how I feel about such things very well, so thank you.
-
Turns out Wonderella already figured this one out (http://www.webcomicsnation.com/justinpie/wonderella/series.php?view=archive&chapter=29064) on it's own.
-
I think it's a bit late in the discussion for me to just jump in but I am finding some of this discussion interesting and I feel I should register my intention to keep a beady eye on it. (Also I have a sneaking suspicion that I disagree with a lot of it more than I think I do, so I thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt a while to teeter before jumping in.) Just one thing.
I just worked out why I hate those guys (the annoying hippies that is) it's because they are applying morals to something I feel is an entirely practical matter. Morality varies from person to person but given enough data we should all be able to agree that action x will lead to consequence y. As soon as people start clouding the water with morality folk get all uppity and start thinking their opinion is as valid as testable reality.
I don't really follow how you just throw morals out. If you (not you) proceed with action x in full knowledge that consequence y will very likely substantially increase the chances of some innocent party being shoved off this mortal coil, then I would have no problem saying that you (not you had behaved immorally. I understand that that's often not useful in discourse (though it's by no means never useful) but it seems to me that it's only "an entirely practical matter" in the sense that anything else we might choose to make a moral issue of is.
Of course I don't really know how properly to respond to all this talk of hate because nobody's been very clear about who these mysterious figures they hate really are.
-
you poked someone in the eye?
When I was a kid, my mom and dad taught me that hurting people who say things you don't like isn't something nice people do.
-
Sometimes, not nice is the right thing to do. I tell my daughters that if someone hits them once, remove yourself from that sitution and tell someone if you need to. If they follow you and hit you again, you can hit them just as hard as you want.
I can see getting pushed to that place by these self-righteous pricks, espcially when your kid is forcibly exposed to their crap. If they come too close or touch me or my kid, I'm gonna hit 'em too.
-
Sometimes, not nice is the right thing to do. I tell my daughters that if someone hits them once, remove yourself from that sitution and tell someone if you need to. If they follow you and hit you again, you can hit them just as hard as you want.
I can see getting pushed to that place by these self-righteous pricks, espcially when your kid is forcibly exposed to their crap. If they come too close or touch me or my kid, I'm gonna hit 'em too.
The difference here is that if someone is hitting you, they can cause you physical harm. you have a right to defend yourself. If someone is saying things to you, or even yelling them at you, the worst that happens is that you'll get your feelings hurt. And if your feelings are getting hurt so badly that you feel the need to physically attack them, well. I don't know what to say.
-
I don't really follow how you just throw morals out. If you (not you) proceed with action x in full knowledge that consequence y will very likely substantially increase the chances of some innocent party being shoved off this mortal coil, then I would have no problem saying that you (not you had behaved immorally. I understand that that's often not useful in discourse (though it's by no means never useful) but it seems to me that it's only "an entirely practical matter" in the sense that anything else we might choose to make a moral issue of is.
I'm not so much throwing morals out as I'm saying they are not necessarily helpful to the discourse. Morality is hugely variable from person to person but also hugely important to the individual so as soon as people decide on what is morally right confirmation bias shoots right up and their interest in what is accurate goes out the window. Given enough data we can make a fairly good guess at what a given outcome will be of a given action and what can be done to alter that outcome. It's in deciding how to apply this knowledge that morality comes into play, but people shouldn't try to use guilt or other moral pressure to get other people to agree with their version of the facts.
-
I kind of see Ash's situation being more like he was all "talk to the hand" and then the guy walked his eye into Ash's thumb.
Although it kind of funny to think he went haiyah (I don't know how to spell this thing) and just aimed his thumb at the dude's eye.
-
The difference here is that if someone is hitting you, they can cause you physical harm. you have a right to defend yourself. If someone is saying things to you, or even yelling them at you, the worst that happens is that you'll get your feelings hurt. And if your feelings are getting hurt so badly that you feel the need to physically attack them, well. I don't know what to say.
Based on Ash's post, I'm guessing the guy got too close. If I'm with my kid and guys get in our personal space, he may have to deal with some pain.
If it's just me, maybe I'll just say something. If my kids are threatened in any way, someone pays.
-
I'm not so much throwing morals out as I'm saying they are not necessarily helpful to the discourse. Morality is hugely variable from person to person but also hugely important to the individual so as soon as people decide on what is morally right confirmation bias shoots right up and their interest in what is accurate goes out the window. Given enough data we can make a fairly good guess at what a given outcome will be of a given action and what can be done to alter that outcome. It's in deciding how to apply this knowledge that morality comes into play, but people shouldn't try to use guilt or other moral pressure to get other people to agree with their version of the facts.
Ah, I thought you might mean that. I was thrown off by the "entirely practical matter" business. In that case I basically agree, although I think situation always makes a difference - sometimes (rarely) it's necessary or useful to moralise just as sometimes it's necessary to poke someone in the eye.
I'm not going to make any judgement on said eye-poking (though I'm sure it was justified), but if you've got to be violent there is something beautifully dismissive about poking someone in the eye. Probably more so with an index finger than a thumb, but you can't have everything.
-
I'm curious about what issue they were so excited about.
-
I don't know, what I get from your description is "they will keep making me uncomfortable until I sign their thing, until they are assholes," not "They are going to physically assault me."
Maybe because I just don't associate the environmental movement with people who are confident getting into fights.
-
Maybe because I just don't associate the environmental movement with people who are confident getting into fights.
Then you haven't been reading the news. They aren't all birkenstocks and hemp. Sometimes they are bombs and arson. I'm not saying I believe ash was threatened by terrorists, Im just saying that there is a side to this movement that is not afraid of violence.
Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism)
Also, I don't think Ash was unreasonable here.
-
ok, sorry, I don't associate "parking-lot assholes who yell at you" with eco-terrorism.
-
Why does anyone, no matter what cause they support, think that yelling at people in parking lots is a good way to win converts?
-
One time a lady yelled at me in a parking lot because, despite having had my blinker on and already waiting for the other car to pull out of the space before she even entered the lot from the other direction, she somehow became convinced that I had "stolen" "her" parking space. I was not a convert to her cause.
Last time I went to the grocery store, some ladies nicely offered me a copy of the local newspaper for $1, with the dollar going to the Food Bank. I declined, but went inside and spent $20 on canned goods, which I dropped in the donation bin on my way out. She was very polite.
Also: Jough would be so proud of this thread. I only wish he were here to see it.
-
I just found out that if everyone on the planet lived like me, we'd need 4.5 earths. Considering how frugally I do live, I think I will decline to work towards the lifestyle where only 1 earth would be required, as I suspect it involves cardboard boxes under the overpass and catching tadpoles to feed my kids.
-
I just found out that if everyone on the planet lived like me, we'd need 4.5 earths. Considering how frugally I do live, I think I will decline to work towards the lifestyle where only 1 earth would be required, as I suspect it involves cardboard boxes under the overpass and catching tadpoles to feed my kids.
I did that test and got 4.5, too. Then I redid it choosing the greenest option at every turn, and got 3. Then I did it as normal, but chose my home country as India, and got 2.5.
Not fair. True, but unfair.
-
I did that test and got 4.5, too. Then I redid it choosing the greenest option at every turn, and got 3. Then I did it as normal, but chose my home country as India, and got 2.5.
Thanks to JL's technique, I've discovered that all I need to do to live greener (0.53 Earths) is do exactly what I'm doing now1 while living in Burkina Faso2. I don't know if they have compact fluorescent bulbs there, though.
1Also: learn to speak French.
2
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/LocationBurkinaFaso.svg/250px-LocationBurkinaFaso.svg.png)
-
It's a tough place for moderation right now, especially in the religion vs. science debate (and though I really respect Dawg and realize he's not a part of The Problem, one of the main Problems with monotheistic religion is that by definition it believes that A) There is one answer and B) It belongs exclusively to that religion), but as long as people can back off and consider things, progress towards something can be made.
I don't like Earth Day. One day isn't going to change anything on this scale, at all, ever. The self-righteousness that pervades conversation from both sides of the issue is nauseating. From my examination of the evidence that's been presented, I believe that while humanity isn't the greatest source of atmospheric CO2 at the moment, slowing that growth would probably be a good thing before we get to that point. Truly catastrophic "reset button" events can happen with massive climate change, and while I don't necessarily believe the "Every city under water" predictions will come to pass, I can't feel that it's good to tempt fate if it's avoidable.
Like Asher, though, I believe that we're slowly coming around to a good place on a lot of this stuff. San Diego, for example, is running low on landfill space. The city's enacted some laws with the goal of recycling more of our trash and is making it easier to do so. Landfills are expensive and building a new one would cost everyone a lot of money, so recycling has a tangible benefit here. If that's good for the planet (sometimes debatable, especially with plastics) that's cool, too. If more places with landfill problems got together and started pressuring manufacturers to use less goddamn packaging (I'm sorry, my RAM doesn't need to be outweighed by the package it comes in just so it's harder to steal off the shelf) that'd be even better.
I use some compact fluorescent bulbs (and I want some LED bulbs because they come from the FUTURE) and don't run the air conditioning during the day because that helps keep me below the "penalty" threshold on my power bill. That saves me money. When I'm in the position to buy (or hopefully build) a house, I'm planning on incorporating heavy insulation, tinting windows (for lower insolation), high efficiency appliances, passive cooling, and even a set of solar panels if I can swing it. It's good for the planet and for a healthier power infrastructure, too, but mostly it saves me money. I like money.
I refill my water bottles from a pitcher filter. I don't need to pay for my water to be shipped from another damn continent, nor do I need to haul a batch of bottles to the recycling dumpster every week. My bottles I paid 20 cents apiece for (in bulk, on sale) a year ago are still serving me fine. Again, money.
I'm not able to give up my car due to, well, the fact that most American cities have been built for cars, not people, and so you now need them in order to work and live. I chose my apartment based on proximity to where I work and where I get my food, which means I only drive about 4500 miles a year. I've also found myself being conscious of the way I drive because of gas prices. If I try not to accelerate/brake so much when driving, my mileage goes up. If I'm stricter about my preventative maintenance, my mileage goes up. This saves me money. I like money. My car's 3 months from its ninth birthday, and when it finally gives up the ghost I'm going to pay much more attention to gas mileage on the next one.
CO2 capturing mechanisms exist and are being refined for use on the industrial scale -- they take the CO2 from large operations and use it as fuel for algae farms, which means a pollutant turns into a secondary profit opportunity. While this obviously won't work for all industries (the market for algae isn't that huge, probably), it's a step that can make some businesses money while reducing pollution. That's pretty cool, and it might get other smart people thinking about other smart ways to reduce pollution and make money at the same time. Stuff like that gives me hope.
Things are changing, and while policy changes could make things change faster, by and large attaching a monetary cost to hurting the planet will probably cause a lot less hurting of the planet. Now if only cities could start building up instead of out, and mass transit could become convenient because of that...
-
I ain't tryin' to be all political.
I just want to eat my "Happytown Farms - Chik'n* Tofu Nourishment Stick Product" in peace.
Can this be arranged?