@oldefoxx - Unless someone can tell me geo coordinates where I can take up residencey to not be in the way when the s#it hits the fan, I doulbt seriously anyone can inform me of anything that would benefit me, and would thus not be worth my time.
It's happening. It's aleardy gone too far. People aren't willing to abandon the technology causing it and it's futile to engage in debates or discussion on either side. The numbers speak for themselves. I just happened across your post and thought I would toss in the bit about 1000 hiroshimas per day. Not a fixed number of couse. It increases daily so we'll likely exceed 500,000 hiroshimas over the course of this current year. That's a lot of BTUs.
With emphasis on my point about futility, what pecentage of the people burning the gas could begin to relate to the thermal discharge of a single hiroshima bomb ... much less 1000 hiroshimas? It's beyond their grasp, hence, they will continue to increase their consumption each day as they always have.
Off The Sholder Stuff
-
Randy Walker
- Addict
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:21 pm
- Location: USoA
Global warming is nothing new. Its happened over and over again thru history, and has happened naturally. How do you think that conditions got right for human kind to flourish in the first place...yep...thats right...global warming. Why do you think that we developed skin like we have today instead of being furry like other animals? Yep thats right, because the ideal temperature for man kind is around 72 degrees (F) and evolution decided that we didn't need a fur covering. Evolution was just selective, thats all, and we got rid of the fur while other animals kept it. Man kind presence may have helped in some way, but if there were no humans, just the birds and bees - lions and tigers and bears (oh My!), global warming would still happen. The same is true of global 'freezing' (or the ice age thing) as its happened naturally also.
-
Randy Walker
- Addict
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:21 pm
- Location: USoA
Now that you got me stirred again, I went out and found this:
EIA: "Oil accounts for 40 percent of the world's energy consumption, and it will continue to do so for the next 20 years, the analysts project. World oil use is projected to increase from 75 million barrels per day in 1999 to 120 million barrels per day in 2020."
http://www.kwikpower.com/AREAS/GC/gc05.htm
So, 40 percent of the man made heat cast into the atmosphere comes from burning gasoline. That means add another 150 percent to my hiroshima calculation and now we're stewing the planet at a rate of 2500 hirochimas per day ...
... and climing. 
On the up side, even given the best of days, I don't expect to last another 20 years anyway. And, for those that enjoy a good bout with futilitly, 1500 more coals to throw in the fire.
EIA: "Oil accounts for 40 percent of the world's energy consumption, and it will continue to do so for the next 20 years, the analysts project. World oil use is projected to increase from 75 million barrels per day in 1999 to 120 million barrels per day in 2020."
http://www.kwikpower.com/AREAS/GC/gc05.htm
So, 40 percent of the man made heat cast into the atmosphere comes from burning gasoline. That means add another 150 percent to my hiroshima calculation and now we're stewing the planet at a rate of 2500 hirochimas per day ...
... and climing. On the up side, even given the best of days, I don't expect to last another 20 years anyway. And, for those that enjoy a good bout with futilitly, 1500 more coals to throw in the fire.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Randy
I *never* claimed to be a programmer.
Randy
I *never* claimed to be a programmer.
There are no special villains for the situation today.
Everyone posting on this board is adding to the energy use one way or another.
So, who is going to be the first to give up their computer, or their job because it uses energy?
Who is going to be the first to walk everywhere?
Who will huddle in blankets in mid-winter beside the dying embers of a fire? Where did those blankets come from, what was their energy cost?
And, in truth, whoever will rough it to "save the planet" should consider if that is really helping.
Remember that what is good for us is what is what is good for the planet, not vice-versa. That is, we need to make the planet suitable (long term) for ourselves. A nice natural planet with humans living shorter and more painful lives is not good. One lush and flourishing without humans is meaningless to us. One where the vegetation is pre-cambrian and inedible is pointless. Nice planet, but we can't live there.
We need to make this planet continue to be suitable for us. That means moving on.
We can't go back because even a few centuries ago we were per-capita more destructive to the planet, just through being less efficient, having less efficient methods available. Extrapolate then with now (in terms of population) and panic.
Increased livestock (for transport, engines for machines, etc, as well as food) = increased livestock emissions (farts) and these are very bad for the atmosphere. Less efficient (non-existent) power means felling forests to build, to make goods, to cook, to provide heat. Fewer forests doing us good, more unlocked carbon monoxide (from burning, etc).
And when was Europe stripped of most of her forests? Pre-industrial age? Early industrial? Certainly there is no need to rip down a European-sized forest now for Europe to be highly industrialised.
So, we can't go back, so we have to go forward and become more efficient. We must look ahead to when we have cleaner power, greater yields, and etc.
There will come a time when we are not sucking oil from the ground, etc etc. Not because we are wise custodians of the planet, but because we want to live the good life. We will find cheaper, cleaner, better and more replenishable resources.
Everyone posting on this board is adding to the energy use one way or another.
So, who is going to be the first to give up their computer, or their job because it uses energy?
Who is going to be the first to walk everywhere?
Who will huddle in blankets in mid-winter beside the dying embers of a fire? Where did those blankets come from, what was their energy cost?
And, in truth, whoever will rough it to "save the planet" should consider if that is really helping.
Remember that what is good for us is what is what is good for the planet, not vice-versa. That is, we need to make the planet suitable (long term) for ourselves. A nice natural planet with humans living shorter and more painful lives is not good. One lush and flourishing without humans is meaningless to us. One where the vegetation is pre-cambrian and inedible is pointless. Nice planet, but we can't live there.
We need to make this planet continue to be suitable for us. That means moving on.
We can't go back because even a few centuries ago we were per-capita more destructive to the planet, just through being less efficient, having less efficient methods available. Extrapolate then with now (in terms of population) and panic.
Increased livestock (for transport, engines for machines, etc, as well as food) = increased livestock emissions (farts) and these are very bad for the atmosphere. Less efficient (non-existent) power means felling forests to build, to make goods, to cook, to provide heat. Fewer forests doing us good, more unlocked carbon monoxide (from burning, etc).
And when was Europe stripped of most of her forests? Pre-industrial age? Early industrial? Certainly there is no need to rip down a European-sized forest now for Europe to be highly industrialised.
So, we can't go back, so we have to go forward and become more efficient. We must look ahead to when we have cleaner power, greater yields, and etc.
There will come a time when we are not sucking oil from the ground, etc etc. Not because we are wise custodians of the planet, but because we want to live the good life. We will find cheaper, cleaner, better and more replenishable resources.
Dare2 cut down to size
Pretty rhetoric. Possibly a future in politics. But pointedly ignores that
we are altering the face of the planet in ways that are not beneficial to man nor to any species. Targeting heat as a byproduct shows one reason why temeratures are rising around the world, changing the weather, and putting much of life at risk.
We are also producing huge amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide that is going into the atmosphere, and we are now finding that natural traps ans sinks, like the tundra and hydrates under the ocean, are increasinly likely to thaw out and release untold tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as well.
Taken together, there seems to be a real risk of temperatures around the world rising uncontrollably and to the point that many species will go extinct, and so rapidly that few will be able to adapt. Since man is a top preditor, and abounds in huge numbers around the world, the decline in crops and various foodchains, such as taken from the sea or from cultivated livestock, mass starvation will be the fate of many.
If the temperatures keep rising uncontrollably, then the melting icecaps and glaciers will cause the oceans to rize, flooding out 90 percent of the habitation we occupy - homes, cities, industries, you name it. All these are generally concentrated along the shorelines around the world.
Of course some scientist think that rising temperatures could trigger another ice age in parts of Europe by alterning the way the Atlantic Conveyor works. There are going to be many places where the weather
just becomes more extreme and unpredicatable - a bad situation when it comes to trying to grow crops, because sudden droughts, excessive rain, or frost can spoil any growing season. If our supply network breaks down,
so does social order, and there will be food riots, rampent crime, and
martial law.
Then there is the matter of disease, the continued and growing risk of a
pandemic, the threat that any outbreak of a new and deadly flu or virus
could be spread worldwide in a matter a few days, a result of our ability to
travel by plane to any point of the world without effective checks in place.
So I guess I'm not inclined to believe that the future is going to be all rosey and lead us to a Utopia where man holds full sway over the world,
I don't believe in the Dreamer's Paradise.
we are altering the face of the planet in ways that are not beneficial to man nor to any species. Targeting heat as a byproduct shows one reason why temeratures are rising around the world, changing the weather, and putting much of life at risk.
We are also producing huge amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide that is going into the atmosphere, and we are now finding that natural traps ans sinks, like the tundra and hydrates under the ocean, are increasinly likely to thaw out and release untold tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as well.
Taken together, there seems to be a real risk of temperatures around the world rising uncontrollably and to the point that many species will go extinct, and so rapidly that few will be able to adapt. Since man is a top preditor, and abounds in huge numbers around the world, the decline in crops and various foodchains, such as taken from the sea or from cultivated livestock, mass starvation will be the fate of many.
If the temperatures keep rising uncontrollably, then the melting icecaps and glaciers will cause the oceans to rize, flooding out 90 percent of the habitation we occupy - homes, cities, industries, you name it. All these are generally concentrated along the shorelines around the world.
Of course some scientist think that rising temperatures could trigger another ice age in parts of Europe by alterning the way the Atlantic Conveyor works. There are going to be many places where the weather
just becomes more extreme and unpredicatable - a bad situation when it comes to trying to grow crops, because sudden droughts, excessive rain, or frost can spoil any growing season. If our supply network breaks down,
so does social order, and there will be food riots, rampent crime, and
martial law.
Then there is the matter of disease, the continued and growing risk of a
pandemic, the threat that any outbreak of a new and deadly flu or virus
could be spread worldwide in a matter a few days, a result of our ability to
travel by plane to any point of the world without effective checks in place.
So I guess I'm not inclined to believe that the future is going to be all rosey and lead us to a Utopia where man holds full sway over the world,
I don't believe in the Dreamer's Paradise.
has-been wanna-be (You may not agree with what I say, but it will make you think).
Everything you say is possible. Other outcomes are also possible.
I am not saying we have a good situation.
I am saying we have a situation were we can't go back. And going back (for example magically disabling electricity everywhere and forcing a "simpler" life) would be worse for the planet right now.
So we have to go forward. We have no choice. We can't undo.
That was my (attempted) main point.
One thing we have going for us is that we are "smart" enough (maybe not wise enough) to get this technologically proficient and so we are smart enough to get more technologically proficient and more planet (human) friendly.
Another thing we have going for us is that we are not altruistic. We will make things improve only because it makes it better for us. So if we found a way to survive comfortably on this planet by making it barren and devoid of all "non-essential" diversity of life, that is what we would do.
I don't condone it. I do accept it. I do understand it. Nobody (or very very few) and probably not you, certainly not I, I doubt it of anyone else here, will sacrifice homes and creature comfort for the sake of endangered species, etc.
So, no specific villains. Or perhaps we are all villains. But nobody we can really point a finger at without having fingers pointed back at us.
BTW, politics, no thanks, but thanks for the, um, compliment.
I am not saying we have a good situation.
I am saying we have a situation were we can't go back. And going back (for example magically disabling electricity everywhere and forcing a "simpler" life) would be worse for the planet right now.
So we have to go forward. We have no choice. We can't undo.
That was my (attempted) main point.
One thing we have going for us is that we are "smart" enough (maybe not wise enough) to get this technologically proficient and so we are smart enough to get more technologically proficient and more planet (human) friendly.
Another thing we have going for us is that we are not altruistic. We will make things improve only because it makes it better for us. So if we found a way to survive comfortably on this planet by making it barren and devoid of all "non-essential" diversity of life, that is what we would do.
I don't condone it. I do accept it. I do understand it. Nobody (or very very few) and probably not you, certainly not I, I doubt it of anyone else here, will sacrifice homes and creature comfort for the sake of endangered species, etc.
So, no specific villains. Or perhaps we are all villains. But nobody we can really point a finger at without having fingers pointed back at us.
BTW, politics, no thanks, but thanks for the, um, compliment.
Dare2 cut down to size
So in a sence, you are a fatalist. Or realist, depending upon your take on those terms. But the fact is, we cannot survive on a barren planet, nor anything close to it. And we are on the verge of wiping out life in the seas by overfishing, pollution, cross-contamination (introducing foreign species into areas where they have no natural preditors), and accelerating the rise in world temperatures, destroying the habitat for plankton and kelp to florish.
You seem to assume that somehow we are in control of all aspects of life on this planet, and it will be by choice how we proceed into the future. I rather think that we are increasingly the victums of our success, and unable to control or regulate our excesses. Many people, an increasing number in fact, are falling prey to technology which has abolished traditional jobs, trades, social, religious, and cultural structures, and left many with little hope for the future.
Many people are finding that their lives are increasingly impacted by technology out of control - the efforts to sell you things you have no interest in, the effort to create whole nitches in social consciousness concerning the right foods, the right music, the right clothes, the right car, and so on. The idea of a throw-away technology is somehow ethically or morally wrong, but it is the technology of today.
How many applaud the fact that TV has become the defacto baby sitter in many homes, and children are growing up knowing too much too soon, and gaining very little moral guidance, while at the same time becoming
adept at computer games, entranced with shows involving extreme violence, and believing somehow that what they see is real life - you can survive almost anything, because the movie hero somehow always does.
While there are more creature comforts, perhaps, I don't see a quality of life index that would be superior to that of the last century. There may be fewer racial and ethnic barriers, but there are probably a lot more hate
groups armed with military hardware and gang violence than in the past.
Warfare does not seem to be on the decline either. Fact is, it is moving off the battle field and into our streets and homes. And drug culture? That has grown at an uprecidented rate. Fact is, we have less to believe in, and
the loss of faith in something means a void that creature comforts alone will not fill,
You seem to see a force of MAN acting in concert to remake this world into
something better suited to his needs or interests. I see man at war with nature and striving to bring change, but not necessarily to the betterment of mankind, but to secure his own individual place in the scheme of things.
You seem to assume that somehow we are in control of all aspects of life on this planet, and it will be by choice how we proceed into the future. I rather think that we are increasingly the victums of our success, and unable to control or regulate our excesses. Many people, an increasing number in fact, are falling prey to technology which has abolished traditional jobs, trades, social, religious, and cultural structures, and left many with little hope for the future.
Many people are finding that their lives are increasingly impacted by technology out of control - the efforts to sell you things you have no interest in, the effort to create whole nitches in social consciousness concerning the right foods, the right music, the right clothes, the right car, and so on. The idea of a throw-away technology is somehow ethically or morally wrong, but it is the technology of today.
How many applaud the fact that TV has become the defacto baby sitter in many homes, and children are growing up knowing too much too soon, and gaining very little moral guidance, while at the same time becoming
adept at computer games, entranced with shows involving extreme violence, and believing somehow that what they see is real life - you can survive almost anything, because the movie hero somehow always does.
While there are more creature comforts, perhaps, I don't see a quality of life index that would be superior to that of the last century. There may be fewer racial and ethnic barriers, but there are probably a lot more hate
groups armed with military hardware and gang violence than in the past.
Warfare does not seem to be on the decline either. Fact is, it is moving off the battle field and into our streets and homes. And drug culture? That has grown at an uprecidented rate. Fact is, we have less to believe in, and
the loss of faith in something means a void that creature comforts alone will not fill,
You seem to see a force of MAN acting in concert to remake this world into
something better suited to his needs or interests. I see man at war with nature and striving to bring change, but not necessarily to the betterment of mankind, but to secure his own individual place in the scheme of things.
has-been wanna-be (You may not agree with what I say, but it will make you think).
-
utopiomania
- Addict
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:00 pm
- Location: Norway
This is too pessimistic for my taste. Global warming IS a problem now, and so is consumtion, but things are
changing as we speak.
Almost every day sees some new law forbidding old technology, like two stroke carburated engines, or open city
dumps, chemicals, unsafe cars or manufacturing practices or whatever, and thinking of mother natures own slow way
of changing things, I think we'll get on the right track soon enough.
And drug culture is not growing at all, it has been here from day one, and was a much bigger problem 200 years ago.
And violence? Try landing your time machine in any city in old Europe 500 - 700 years ago, and you'll find the number of
murders in any of them will put even New York 15 years ago to shame.
And none of them had 12 million citizens at that time.
changing as we speak.
Almost every day sees some new law forbidding old technology, like two stroke carburated engines, or open city
dumps, chemicals, unsafe cars or manufacturing practices or whatever, and thinking of mother natures own slow way
of changing things, I think we'll get on the right track soon enough.
And drug culture is not growing at all, it has been here from day one, and was a much bigger problem 200 years ago.
And violence? Try landing your time machine in any city in old Europe 500 - 700 years ago, and you'll find the number of
murders in any of them will put even New York 15 years ago to shame.
And none of them had 12 million citizens at that time.
Too optimistic for me. The sheer magnitude of violence today has it where
a mere 19 individuals working on concert brought down two major structures,
killed over 3,000 individuals, brought harm to a whole nation, costing it
billions of dollars, and charged the political climate to such an extend that
we've developed a nation-under-attack mentality, plus distracting our
government from dealing with domestic issues and focusing on issues
abroad, and further entanglement in foreign affairs. How's that for altering
the course of world history? And that is not even in a positive vein towards
the world of harmony and balance that you seem to see coming.
a mere 19 individuals working on concert brought down two major structures,
killed over 3,000 individuals, brought harm to a whole nation, costing it
billions of dollars, and charged the political climate to such an extend that
we've developed a nation-under-attack mentality, plus distracting our
government from dealing with domestic issues and focusing on issues
abroad, and further entanglement in foreign affairs. How's that for altering
the course of world history? And that is not even in a positive vein towards
the world of harmony and balance that you seem to see coming.
has-been wanna-be (You may not agree with what I say, but it will make you think).
lol, oldefoxx.
You give me (or my posts) far to much depth of meaning.
Okay, can you explain how we can, at this point, can go back to the good old days? And have a better (longer, safer, less-painful) life?
If we can't go back, and if standing still means continuing to do more of the same (damage we do now) then is it safe to say that only forward is left?
If forwards, then it would be expected we would try to make things better. Not so?
And, knowing mankind as well as you obviously do, would you say that mankind's take on "better" is what we consider better for us? Not for the two-toed tiny tree frog in lower somnabula?
I still think there are no villains. Just us, the current human inhabitants of the planet, born into and living in a culture of "technological progress".
The "they" who cause it all are highly visible each day, we just need to look in the mirror.
Or do you consider yourself above it all? Are you somehow holier than the rest of us, somehow exonorated from our corporate responsibility, without actually missing out on the mod-cons (like having the ability to post your opinions here)?
You give me (or my posts) far to much depth of meaning.
Okay, can you explain how we can, at this point, can go back to the good old days? And have a better (longer, safer, less-painful) life?
If we can't go back, and if standing still means continuing to do more of the same (damage we do now) then is it safe to say that only forward is left?
If forwards, then it would be expected we would try to make things better. Not so?
And, knowing mankind as well as you obviously do, would you say that mankind's take on "better" is what we consider better for us? Not for the two-toed tiny tree frog in lower somnabula?
I still think there are no villains. Just us, the current human inhabitants of the planet, born into and living in a culture of "technological progress".
The "they" who cause it all are highly visible each day, we just need to look in the mirror.
Or do you consider yourself above it all? Are you somehow holier than the rest of us, somehow exonorated from our corporate responsibility, without actually missing out on the mod-cons (like having the ability to post your opinions here)?
Dare2 cut down to size
-
Randy Walker
- Addict
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:21 pm
- Location: USoA
Started out simple personal commentary on global warming, and as common social perversions would have it, it's now turned into a holy war.
Yeah verily and for sooth. Can we get some haveth, wanteth and takeths in here too? Maybe a couple thee's and thy's?
Boyyy, do I know how to stir 'em up or what?!
Yeah verily and for sooth. Can we get some haveth, wanteth and takeths in here too? Maybe a couple thee's and thy's?
Boyyy, do I know how to stir 'em up or what?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Randy
I *never* claimed to be a programmer.
Randy
I *never* claimed to be a programmer.
And Lo! Randy Walker looked on what he had wrought, and he waxed wroth. And he typeth: For verily, I say unto thee, thou hast perverted the course of this discourse and in thine error thou raiseth the fire and brimstone of flamewar upon thyself and thy community! So harken now, brothers! Lay down your keyboards, and break bread together, not heads!
Dare2 cut down to size
