15levels Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) 27 May 2004 Climate change is the most serious environmental threat the human race has ever faced; perhaps the most serious threat of any kind. The dangers can hardly be exaggerated. Within 100 years, temperatures could rise by 6C worldwide. Much of the earth's surface could become uninhabitable, and most species could be wiped out. In the UK, over the next 50 years, we will experience hotter, drier summers, warmer, wetter winters and rising sea-levels. In most of our lifetimes, millions of British people will be at high risk from flooding; there will be thousands of deaths from excessive summer temperatures; diseases from warmer regions will become established; and patterns of agriculture and business will have to change for ever. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/enviro...sp?story=525198 We have to choose a better future. There is a lot more in the Independent article. Read it, it has practical advices what to do and not to. Edited May 27, 2004 by 15levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 So much can be said, more than the writers of that article have to say. BTW, what was the name of that upcoming movie whose fragment showed the Statue of Liberty covered in snow and ice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15levels Posted May 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) "The Day after tomorrow". We dont want that, do we? Edited May 27, 2004 by 15levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maral Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) It's called The Day After Tomorrow It's all too scary for me....you really think we can do anything to stop such destruction? Maybe it's just part of the process of the planet. Years ago George CArlin had some hillarious things to say about these end of the world theories,I'll see if I can dig it up Edited May 27, 2004 by Maral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 "The Day after tomorrow". We dont want that, do we? I don't see my imagination running that wild, but I have no reason to be optimistic, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 A future for the planet? Probably yes. A future for humans? Perhaps not. A future for our current civilisation? Almost certainly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 So much can be said, more than the writers of that article have to say. BTW, what was the name of that upcoming movie whose fragment showed the Statue of Liberty covered in snow and ice? If all the books or filmscripts that had the Statue of Liberty up to her boobs in snow or ice or water or sand were piled one on top of another then they would probably be high enough to reach that aformentioned bosum. A lot of authors seem to have a strange fetish for that bronze women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Western democracy brings humans to a social agreement ruled by a system, a mechanizm. Human decisions don't play any role in these systems. The decisions are made by the system itself. Say if Bush wants to pull out of Iraq the system will be against him, although his constituency may be for it. The system opimizes human behaviour to systematic profit maximization scheme, which is obviously harmful to the human race in general. Besides, the financial system that is in place galvanizes the tempo of life everyday, which leaves humans very little time to think out of the gains' schemes. There's always been one way to save humans from these self desructing vicious circles of mechanical rationality: human sacrifice. That's basically what Jesus did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/enviro...sp?story=525198 15 levels, The article is another hypocritical commercial. Like buy more recycled things. The world would be better off in terms of resource economy if e.g. Las Vegas was destroyed. That would save a lot of resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15levels Posted May 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 (edited) I think there is nothing wrong with buying recycled products. If I would be in favor of ANY advertising- it would be the ads promoting recycled products, paper, ecology-friendly products. And Las Vegas has little if anything to do with the topic. Unless the governments which make zero effort to fight the pollution (say US, Russia and many others) will be less greedy - the earth will face a catastrophe as the article clearly puts it. And I fail to see how distroying Las Vegas will save a lot of resources. (kicking Bush out of office for one thing most likely will) Edited May 28, 2004 by 15levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Western democracy brings humans to a social agreement ruled by a system, a mechanizm. Human decisions don't play any role in these systems. The decisions are made by the system itself. Say if Bush wants to pull out of Iraq the system will be against him, although his constituency may be for it. The system opimizes human behaviour to systematic profit maximization scheme, which is obviously harmful to the human race in general. Besides, the financial system that is in place galvanizes the tempo of life everyday, which leaves humans very little time to think out of the gains' schemes. There's always been one way to save humans from these self desructing vicious circles of mechanical rationality: human sacrifice. That's basically what Jesus did. This is not only true of western democracy but of all ideological systems. Systems alienate man by their very nature. All mechanical attempts at regulating/conditioning Life are satanic in essence. PS somehow related question, have you read Igor Shafarevich's socialist phenomenon? and Augustin Cochin's studies on the french revolution? The latter are extremely insightful and relevant (with a thorough analysis of the actual mechanisms of modern democracy and societies of thought (ie freemasonic societies) from a non-conspirationist point of view), alas only available in french (on the web). If you are interested, I can provide the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 And I fail to see how distroying Las Vegas will save a lot of resources. That would save an enormous amount of wasted electric power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 PS somehow related question, have you read Igor Shafarevich's socialist phenomenon? and Augustin Cochin's studies on the french revolution? The latter are extremely insightful and relevant (with a thorough analysis of the actual mechanisms of modern democracy and societies of thought (ie freemasonic societies) from a non-conspirationist point of view), alas only available in french (on the web). If you are interested, I can provide the link No I didn't read them. I'm interested but I don't speak French. What's are the mains points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 ArmenSarg, how is destroying a city which has million or more population is not hypothetical, and recycling would be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Both are hypothetical but I would rather deal with causes rather than effects. If human beings don't learn to deal with causes - even if the cost are high - this planet's future will be getting shorter every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 A large chunk of the southern Nevada electric power comes from the Hoover dam which is a renewable hydroelectric power source. There are a lot better things one can do as opposed to blowing up Vegas. For one, you can ask all the Armo's from Glendale to stop driving there every weekend in their gas guzzling luxury BMW's, cadilac SUV's, and Hummer H2's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Single most contributing nation to "green house effect" is USA, this is much more then China India and Pakistan combined, to say the list, changing "habits” or courses for turnaround would be fundamental requirements in US case, such as lifestyles and the way this is "subsidized" to this culture. For this reason I think scenario which I mentioned would be very hypothetical and unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Sip, the U.S. could use that renewable power and buy less oil. Clearly I used Las Vegas as an example where lot of resources are wasted to satisfy simple human illusion and greed. Most importantly, those who are not willing to give up the gambling as an unneccessary human activity cannot persuade other people to recycle more because they're basically asking other people to deal with the effects of their wrong activities. This is a big generalization but I think the logic still applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 You want to deal with the cause ... the cause is, as you said, US dependence on oil. Las Vegas and people driving to it is just the effect. You'll be amazed at how quickly people will stop wasting things as costs go up! Gas is at $2.50 in cali and everyone is bitching and complaining ... I wonder how many will continue to buy H2s when gas is $10 a gallon. In the end, I think this will also take care of itself. As we run out of oil the costs will go up and we'll switch over to other sources. I am not too concerned with single catastrophies destroying the globe either (ala Hollywood). Chances of that are waaaaaaaaaaay too low to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 We're speaking about the U.S. but it appiles to all developed countries and also to the developing ones because they seem to follow the existing examples. Let's go more deep into the cause. What's the cause of U.S. dependence on oil? Or, more importantly, are all resources utilized in an optimal and secure manner? Clearly not. Organochlorines are another example. After clorine became the basis of all chemical industry it was used to invent many cheap materials, which are now widely used. These materials are intensively used because of their low cost. Apparetly, different types of chlorine (like DDT: banned in many countries) is very harmful and causes gene mutation. It brings to feminization of male spieces if applied on several animals and is one of the main causes of breast cancer. Because it is low cost material industial interest groups lobby and block any phaze out until new secure types are invented. There one bad result in all of this. Industiralists halt any environmentalist effort until the science catches up. And we don't know what realy happens to our organism in these period. I believe in the last century our genes have already mutated a lot. My point is if we wait for oil prices to go up or for new inventions to be applied (and I believe they already exist) we may end up being very different creatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) No I didn't read them. I'm interested but I don't speak French. What's are the mains points? Shafarevich's book is a study of socialism throughout history from ancient societies, medieval sects/heresies to modern communism. His main argument is that socialism emerging in unrelated societies at different times in man history must imply that it follows from something deeper in man than mere rational development, that it corresponds to some profound instinct. The socialist system is a source of alienation but it itself derives from some instinct Man seems to be prisoner of. There are a number of other important ideas expressed and I do not recall each one of them as I read it a few years ago. You may find it in russian on the web (www.voskres.ru/shafarevich). I do not speak russian but I know the cyrillic alphabet and from what I could gather it is there together with other works Cochin not only studies the mechanism behind the revolution but its very nature, the nature of the ideas/conceptions that subtend it, modern democracy, reason left to itself, the ideological and sociological forces that work towards producing a new type of man with no understanding, no tradition, no moral tie... His ideas may easily be extrapolated to the boshevik revolution (he died in 1916). But it is far too rich and dense for me to summarize here. Here are a few quotes taken from one of his works I quickly translated. There are not that emblematic of his studies, yet may give a basic idea of his actual perspective "The general will, one believes, is that of the majority. It is not. The law, under this regime, rather expresses that against which the majority has not yet rebelled, that which was able to be done without her willing the contrary. The myth of the actual active will of all, imposing itself upon each only has a value of legal fiction, not any real one. What one means by the will of the all, is the will of some, formed, imposed, reigning in certain precise conditions due to the force of things and the nature of the regime" "Disaggregating the voting matter, isolating the individuals, so as to make them inorganic, what one refers to as liberty, indifferent and homogenous, what is called equality, nonetheless imposing them some mutual adherence one names fraternity, in one word, reducing them to some docile and perishable magma, such is the effect of machinism." "There is no such example in history of a more profound and complete social dissolution. Free thought killed society because it killed the human person. Dissociating man from any natural or moral tie, it gave him up as a wreck to the social tide. In his soul, it only left a ruin, egoism, it called reason and that will either be hate or fear..." PS: Sorry guys for interfering in your discussion Edited June 2, 2004 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) Apparetly, different types of chlorine (like DDT: banned in many countries) is very harmful and causes gene mutation. It brings to feminization of male spieces if applied on several animals Finally a scientifically-grounded explanation as to why we have so many "gay rights" sympathizers and "male feminists" on this board. Because it is low cost material industial interest groups lobby and block any phaze out I wouldn't be surprised that these include the infamous anilevian lobby... Edited June 2, 2004 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Finally a scientifically-grounded explanation as to why we have so many "gay rights" sympathizers and "male feminists" on this board. If masculinisation is your remedy, smoke tobacco - it has been proven to masculinise women and prevent breast cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 ArmenSarg, you seem pretty well-versed in this subject. I was wondering what you'd have to say about Kuznets (sp?) - he's on my list of must-read's, but I have a way to go before I come to him - this is very peripheral (understatement) to what I do at the moment. I was also wondering if you'd have other suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 If masculinisation is your remedy, smoke tobacco - it has been proven to masculinise women and prevent breast cancer. It seems you speak out of experience But I am not in favor of women masculinisation, dear. Genders are complementary. Women should remain feminine and men should remain virile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.