Planet fujapdks;ad

[Stem]

The more I hear from and about people near and across the world, the more I am convinced that I am an alien.

Can anyone help get me home? Would you like to come with me?

[Elro]

Can't help you much, but I'll bum a ride if you actually manage a way to get off the planet.

[Geoff]

My cult is still being formed, but I will tell you when it is time to leave on the next Comet.

-Geoff

[jimkopelli]

ooh... can I help make the koolaid?

I'm good at making koolaid.

[songbird36]

I thought this thread was about the recent scientific view that our planet is "fucked" if we don't stop polluting it.

The advice is we have to stop NOW not in 10 years time. That includes third world countries AND requires the US to bite the bullet and sign up to the Kyoto Protocol.

[Serotonin]

I think now the general consensus is that the Kyoto Protocol is "symbolic" and its measures won't have much real effect on the environment.... its aim is to buoy countries into being aware of the effect their industry is having on the environment, and then let them make up their own mind.

I'm skeptical of the "this planet is fucked" red-alert hysteria over the environment. It's tough. It'll cope. Mind you, sustainable energy + not cutting down old-growth forests + less private transport sounds sensible to me. We don't want to do the Ann Coulter "take it, rape it, it's yours" thing.

[songbird36]

Deforestation is as big an issue as car emissions.

The burning of the Amazon rain forest etc. Those gauchos need to be stopped.

[Sackanaka]

I thought the thread was about how absurd this world is, at least the way it is interpreted by various media forms.

[ApeTheDog]

I think now the general consensus is that the Kyoto Protocol is "symbolic" and its measures won't have much real effect on the environment.... its aim is to buoy countries into being aware of the effect their industry is having on the environment, and then let them make up their own mind.

I'm skeptical of the "this planet is fucked" red-alert hysteria over the environment. It's tough. It'll cope. Mind you, sustainable energy + not cutting down old-growth forests + less private transport sounds sensible to me. We don't want to do the Ann Coulter "take it, rape it, it's yours" thing.
I in turn am very skeptical of the 'it's tough. It'll cope' attitude because it assumes that everything will be allright, without actually considering why or how. It's a religious belief that is founded on nothing, and that is actually only possible to take up this position because others are responsable, and do take up their intellectual responsabilities.

It is not at all a certainty that we will be allright. Like I said, this is blind faith, sprouting out of the knowledge that the human race has always, somehow, been able to find a solution for the problems that pop up, and has always been able to see the problems before they pose themselves. But this is not at all a certainty.

Look at what motivates people. It's quite obvious. Money means the rainforest gets cut down. Money is why we're digging up all the natural resources, and so forth. Money is why there is zero long-term planning - everything has to make way for greed. If anything, Bush refusing the sign the Kyoto treaty is proof of this.

How can you say that everything will be allright, when it is shown that everybody cares for their own wealth-gathering over the wellbeing of this planet (hence, we can realistically expect the human race to collectively only start giving a fuck when something threatens THEIR life (like a meteorite) - by which time it may very well be too late), and there is NO proof that we will be able to fixin the future whatever we fuck up right now.

Take the human race, what we are doing, and project it onto a person.

Would it be realistic to think that the person who, throughout his life has always used drugs and alcohol, and lived dangerously - will live to be 100. Or is it more realistic that at the age of 47 he'll suddently develop liver-cirrhosis and die from the effects of excessive drinking?

We are very much like this drunk: always indulging in our own greed/wants, and not considering at all the long-term effects. We therefor must, in my opinion, realistically expect to have the same fate to look forward to, too.

[j4ck]

Seems like I read from a credible source that several independent researchers agree a possible reason that global warming has not been more pronounced is because there is currently a tenuous balance between the greenhouse effect of chemicals in the atmosphere and the tendancy of some of those chemicals to reflect incoming sunlight.

This, of course, implies interesting things (if it's true).

Edit: Maybe I was thinking about this
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C3AAE-D82A-10F9-975883414B7F0000