Bingo!!!!! In fact, you get labelled with 'bleeding heart' or some such claptrap if you do care. That is for wimps Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a strong feeling of guilt, like I am somehow intruding, whenever I try to 'remind' people to consider consequences.
Yes, and removing people with your attitude is only an attempt at ensuring the survival of the present situation. It is not murder, it is competition for survival. Survival of the fittest, as it were. That excuse of yours, KitNyx, is the most sorry-ass BS for not being accountable I have ever seen, it is shallow and transparent. You might just as well say "I don't give a fuck about anything but me." To bad a mutagen didn't get to your zygote and life goes on blah blah. Hey? It is all just leading to entropic death anyways, so who cares about specifics, like our valueing life as it is. There is no intrinsic value to life in the cosmic scheme of things, right KtiNyx? No difference whatsoever if you are here or not.
Man, Dwayne, you had something going until the magnetic field bit, you really did LMAO. I find it sobering, in the extreme, eerie actually, when I read that at one point there were less than 2000 members of Homo Sapiens alive at one point. We easily could have succombed to an extinction then. Talk about a precarious journey to our present! BTW, I wear a tinfoil hat, so I am immune to the fluctuations of the earth's magnetic forces. This allows me to negotiate with extraterrestrials with a clear mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cosider the fact, that our 7 billion strong breething is a third of the whole human CO2 pollution. If population would grow three times, the fossil fuel emissions eliminated totally, we are back to the current CO2 rise rate. ONLY FOREST can deal with the situation, period. What a ridiculous idea is to send out people in space to ease overpopulation! How many millions a day would you send, and how much additional air pollution would it require? e Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! s
milkmilk - Do not misunderstand me...I believe what I said to be true, however I do not want it to be true...I fear change and I feel for all of the life that will not be continuing into the future...I do what is possible for me to do...recycle, made a point of buying a high mpg car, donate to green organizations, etc...but, tell me in your opinion what else should I also be doing? Should I refuse to drive because I believe the polluting emissions kill the environment? So how about it? Is "too green to drive to work" an option on an unemployment application? I highly doubt it...so (correct me if I am wrong) it appears your solution is to point fingers instead of doing what you can and being realistic about what is happening. Fine, to each their own... - KitNyx
You know this how? It doesn't make any one thing tougher to assault it, does it? The planet does not build 'defenses'. You make a person, animal, or plant sick eough and it dies. It doesn't get tougher. Pollution, over heating, and extinction are not viruses that the planet builds immunity to. Again: You know this how?
What does "to each their own" mean? I point out BS whenever I can, and let people know they are irrissponsable and full of it when they make excuses. I don't drive, so what. I do what I can. That is all we can do as individuals. If we act nonchalant and say "what difference does it make" and let others do it also, we are condoning it. Haven't you ever heard the quote "The only thing good need to do to let evil win is nothing" I am sick of excuses. Yes, that is 'my own', and it let's no one off the hook for theirs. Why do people seem to think that if they can spot a discrepency in someone else, they somehow alleviated of their own responsibilities? When you say you care, anyone says it, but you don't act like it, then you are lying when you say you care. No metter what I or anyone says, you are lying.
Oh, sorry by saying "to each their own" I meant that I guess we all deal with things our own way...So, you did not answer my question "what else can I do" that will make it so I am doing enough not to be only making excuses? - KitNyx
And has it done any good? And will it ever do any good? People have been doing that very thing since the early 60's ...and you think it's done any good in all that time? If so, what? (Other than just a lot more bullshit, a lot more talk, a lot more debate) And almost everyone I know SAYS they care .....yet they, like all their nieghbors, continue to pollute and degrade the world. Talk is cheap ...very, very cheap. Baron Max
The corrected link from the first post takes us to the <b>Millennium.org</b> website, and this ORG deserves a small comment. It is a notorious Malthusian organization trading in alarmism, fear and misinformation. While making huge profits from its activity. A walk through their pages show us a list with people as • Achim Steiner, Director General, IUCN-World Conservation Union • David Suzuki, Chair, David Suzuki Foundation, Canada • Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director, UNEP • Robert Watson, Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor ESSD, World Bank All those foundations and organizations are highly political, and their agenda is (as openly declared) Zero Growth, according to the Club of Rome prescriptions and Gospel, “Limits to Growth”. Their policies are markedly racist (they don’t care too much for dark skinned people), and they put animals. Plants, whales and malaria carrying mosquitoes before man. Robert Watson was “scientific advisor” to Clinton and Al Gore, and he earned that position thanks to his longstanding job of scaring people with warnings as the 1992 hoax: “This winter will open a ozone hole over Kennebunkport,” (Old G. Bush estate), scare that prompted the CFC ban by 1995. After Congress had passed the bill, they came out two weeks later with a press release stating something like. “Ooops! We goofed. We made a wrong prediction”, because ozone levels had never been so high over the US. Then Watson was appointed head of the IPCC, notorious for its lack of scientific seriousness, and for its highly political activity: after all those 2000 scientists had approved the report based on what they had surrendered and went home, the political bureaucrats corrected and erased from the report everything that did not support the idea that the slight observed warming was man-made. When baby Bush came into office kicked Watson out of his job as US representative in the IPCC, so that’s why Rajendra Pachauri was appointed head of the IPCC to keep going the scare and fear campaign, based on an autistic behaviour: they have lost total contact with reality. Facts do not count anymore, observed temperatures are no longer used and computerized models took their place. They totally ignore the increasing number of serious scientists in all fields that are strongly questioning the flawed science used by the IPCC and publicized worldwide by a complacent (or accomplice?) media. So there you have, a vanishing “consensus” on global warming, the growing evidence that the extinction rate are way, way out of proportion with the real facts, that all those chemicals like dioxin PCB and DDT were not as toxic and harmful as they wanted the people to believe. In fewer words, people is slowly (but faster every day) that the eco-pessimists, the catastrophists (and all those that jumped on the Apocalypse Bandwagon for making a fast buck) recognizing that we have been fooled, and cheated, and lied to, and embezzled, and driven to the verge of an irreversible neurosis; a psychosis pandemic. Most people feel guilty for the nice way they are living (especially in industrialized countries) and they try to redeem themselves by playing the “stop destroying the Earth” game, filling the arks of all those smart NGOs and “non profit foundations” with billions of dollars. But you can believe whatever you like, or whatever eases your eco-guilt.
Is “Man is destroying the Planet”?. I think <B>HE IS NOT</B>. Mankind has made it a much livable planet than the one our ancestors had. We are living much longer than they did, we are eating more, even in the Third World, still hungry, yes, but those horrible famines of the past are no longer seen. Famines were very common as near as 1911. I would like you to read an interesting article on the subject of famines, commenting on a <B>National Geographic article of 1917</B> on the “Fearful famines from the past”. You would learn about human meat markets in near east, people in Ireland eating their babies in the great famine of the 1840s, the cannibalistic practices that always occurred during famines, all over the world, and a table with the MILLIONS of people that died on EACH famine. Scary. <b><a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Polit/Famines.html>“Fearful Famines of the past”</a></b> We should be grateful for the way mankind has been dealing with Good Old Earth. It keeps us well fed and in good health, and this trend has not a sign of slowing down.
Hey! Nothing to worry about?! Cool! Modern agriculture (that thing thats let us go from 2 billion to 6.5 billion since 1950 . . . ), it in no way is built on oil right? Or I mean, even if it is . . . who care, because it will never run out right? GeeeeZHuuuus Chrrrriiist will make sure of that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, we'll run out of oil one day, but when that occurs, we'll also find something else to use in it's place .....the sweat off our balls, for example! Have we even tried that? ...LOL! Baron Max
Not enough energy density in hydrogen, solar or many other things . . . but ball sweat? Perhaps! But personally, I don't want to have anything to do with the harvesting of it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Gravity, you are not making yourself clear. Where does your sarcasm point to? And, what has oil to do with the future development of agriculture –besides of powering some machinery and being used in petrochemical uses that later go to agriculture? Oil usage as fuel has been decreasing in agriculture as efficiency increased, both in internal combustion engines and in agro-technology. I don’t know if you are aware that present tilling (as it is done here in Argentina, 2nd world producer of soybean) it is no longer plowing down the land by merely removing the surface (1 inch deep) so there is no wind erosion, and no more “’rhome’ plowing” before seeding. Most machines down here make the whole operation in one pass: removing the land in the front and planting the seeds in the rear. That way we are saving more than 60% of gas-oil used in conventional tilling. Then comes the matter of using biotech soybean varieties, most of them developed here by our government’s agency INTA (National Institute of Agro Technology) that is more resistant to pests and weeds (less pesticides used), more resistant to heat and drought (with the help of Mother Nature, of course, that provides plants with more CO2 than before, increasing yields astronomically). We are getting between 4,5 and 6 tons of soybean by hectare, and this year we have broken another production record –for the fifth consecutive year. And it has been calculated that next year the national crop (all grains, wheat, corn, etc) will break another record, but this time with about 10% less area tilled. That area is going back to cattle raising for exporting meat to Europe, US, China and other markets. Enough of the good news for now. But I didn’t say there is northing to worry about. Of course there is, and we must keep working to solve all problems (I mean, all REAL problems) that we find everyday, as it has been happening since the earliest days of History. Do you think that ancients men didn’t have problems that needed to be solved in order for mankind to keep striving? The difference is that now mankind has more technological power than ever before and can cope with any –(yes ANY) problem created by human activity. We cannot do much against earthquakes (besides making better buildings that can resist horizontal movements), or tsunamis (not very frequent, if I am allowed to say) other than installing an early warning system (already working), or a volcanic eruption (besides not building homes near them). But sitting down and crying like kids for “perceived” false dangers, requesting we abandon all the good things that technology and human ingenuity has conquered along history, is like sitting on a tree branch and sawing near the trunk. But I am optimistic. We have ALWAYS won our battles against problems, and will always find the cure for any illness that arise, or solve any problem related to feeding people, and whatever…It is just a matter of time, and will to take the bull by the horns. This is no place for sissies crying “Stop the world, I wanna get out”. Besides, oil is a "renewable resource" - didn't you get the news? All those wells that have been replensihing all over the world -don't they give you a clue?
Oil actually is a renewable resource. It can be made in vats from just about anything organic. The only problem is that its a hell of a lot less convenient than having half a billion years of pre-manufactured oil just sitting in lakes under the rock. In the wild, it would take another half billion years to get the free stuff back to pre-industrial levels though.
Huh? Besides the fact that that C.Salad you are eating has had compenents travel 3000 miles -- beside the massive gas dependant agri-business that grew it -- besides the fact that oil is cracked into everything from the fertilizers to the plastics that hold it at all stages - - - You think oil is a ''renewable resource? Huh? Thats nutcase territory. Well, I mean I guess you are right if talking millions of years when YOUR TV lobotimized lardass will be PART of the new oil! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Try to understand this (for a change): you must realize there are things you ignore, as this already accepted theory by Prof. Thomas Gold: <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/FossilFuels.html>Hydrocarbons are not Fossils!</a> If you are not convinced try a google with "Thomas Gold" - Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
