Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KeithHernandez]

I'm sorry:

A Kilo is 1000 grams, it's easy to remember.

[wombat]

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.

[Drygioni]

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?

[theinevitable]

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. 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.
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.

[AlohaDawg]

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...

[AlohaDawg]

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. 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?".

[Choop]

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

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[Drygioni]

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:   

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.

[theinevitable]

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.

[Drygioni]

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.

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[theinevitable]

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?

[Victoria Waterfield]

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.

[theinevitable]

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.