Print

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

[Drygioni]

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.

[Arachno-capitalist]

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.
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?

[Drygioni]

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.
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)

[Drygioni]

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!

[Doc]

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.

[Arachno-capitalist]

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.

[jaydub]

And cow farts.  Don't forget about the cow farts.

[Golfhaus]

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.

[side_show]

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.

And how old were you when you found out he was an Italian with a nice tan?

[jay-ell]

That was more traumatic for me than finding out there was no Santa Claus. 

For serious. 

[wombat]

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.

[Doc]

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.

[AugustWest]

TLDR.


Also -- Ash, I think your sig would be equally accurate if you deleted the first word.

[KeithHernandez]

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.

[AlohaDawg]

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.