Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on March 30, 2005, 11:40:57 AM
-
Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up'
Tim Radford, science editor
Wednesday March 30, 2005
The Guardian
The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure.
The study contains what its authors call "a stark warning" for the entire world. The wetlands, forests, savannahs, estuaries, coastal fisheries and other habitats that recycle air, water and nutrients for all living creatures are being irretrievably damaged. In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself.
"Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says.
The report, prepared in Washington under the supervision of a board chaired by Robert Watson, the British-born chief scientist at the World Bank and a former scientific adviser to the White House, will be launched today at the Royal Society in London. It warns that:
· Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.
· An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated.
· Water withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land.
· At least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing.
· Since 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded.
· Deforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge.
In 1997, a team of biologists and economists tried to put a value on the "business services" provided by nature - the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided by wild plants, the recycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33 trillion, almost twice the global gross national product for that year. But after what today's report, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, calls "an unprecedented period of spending Earth's natural bounty" it was time to check the accounts.
"That is what this assessment has done, and it is a sobering statement with much more red than black on the balance sheet," the scientists warn. "In many cases, it is literally a matter of living on borrowed time. By using up supplies of fresh groundwater faster than they can be recharged, for example, we are depleting assets at the expense of our children."
Flow from rivers has been reduced dramatically. For parts of the year, the Yellow River in China, the Nile in Africa and the Colorado in North America dry up before they reach the ocean. An estimated 90% of the total weight of the ocean's large predators - tuna, swordfish and sharks - has disappeared in recent years. An estimated 12% of bird species, 25% of mammals and more than 30% of all amphibians are threatened with extinction within the next century. Some of them are threatened by invaders.
The Baltic Sea is now home to 100 creatures from other parts of the world, a third of them native to the Great Lakes of America. Conversely, a third of the 170 alien species in the Great Lakes are originally from the Baltic.
Invaders can make dramatic changes: the arrival of the American comb jellyfish in the Black Sea led to the destruction of 26 commercially important stocks of fish. Global warming and climate change, could make it increasingly difficult for surviving species to adapt.
A growing proportion of the world lives in cities, exploiting advanced technology. But nature, the scientists warn, is not something to be enjoyed at the weekend. Conservation of natural spaces is not just a luxury.
"These are dangerous illusions that ignore the vast benefits of nature to the lives of 6 billion people on the planet. We may have distanced ourselves from nature, but we rely completely on the services it delivers."
that oughta keep ya'll busy for a bit...i'll be over here if you need me.
-
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/581_1112205605_cares1.jpg)
-
You should, you live on this little planet too. :rolleyes:
-
its funny bluej because when i read your posts i am oft reminded of our comedic little negro friend....either him or herve vilechez...
i had my suspicions but....
:p
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
You should, you live on this little planet too. :rolleyes:
Since when ?
-
gotta tell ya sky...i often wonder what sort of brick needs to be used to get the message across, but the fact is, until our leadership sees the light and corporations see some financial benifit it is probably not going to happen here in the US. without a major disaster.
teddy roosevelt would have been swinging his stick.
now, i can see how others might view this type of news as sensational...and obviously the wheels of change turn slow...BUT
here is what i think...
a rational mind would understand that we are dealing with limited resources that need to be used conservatively if the species is to survive. i happen to think that species survival is.
an outdoorsman's mind would understand that conservation of natural resoursces is imperative if they or thier children are going to be able to enjoy the environment.
a hunter or fisherman would understand that the rapid depletion of species and stocks leaves less to be captured for sport and/or eliminates the quarry permanently.
a conservative would recognize that the root of the word is conserve...meaning that it is not only money which can earn interest but also the materials from which one draws sustainance. a true conservative would not drive an SUV as it is purely wasteful.
a true conservative would also be progressive and openly willing to consider alternatives to consumption and promote these alternatives.
or am i wrong in that thinking and my own form of conservatism... is conservatism really just a way of saying MINE MINE MINE.
it does belong to all of us.
and its not really all that silly to consider.
IMHO
-
6 billion people and growing.
-
I bet 88 lives in some hell hole of a big city. they are allways crying doom and gloom during taxi rides.
lazs
-
Originally posted by JB88
gotta tell ya sky...i often wonder what sort of brick needs to be used to get the message across, but the fact is, until our leadership sees the light and corporations see some financial benifit it is probably not going to happen here in the US. without a major disaster.
get off the internet, you are wasting resources !
-
lol
if you were sitting next to me i would pick my nose and wipe my boogers on you.
:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
lol
if you were sitting next to me i would pick my nose and wipe my boogers on you.
:)
now THATS a funnay insult! LOL
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I bet 88 lives in some hell hole of a big city. they are allways crying doom and gloom during taxi rides.
lazs
Thats what I was thinking...:aok and they always forget to turn the lights off in the city. :D
-
actually, i live a little closer to here. (http://www.mooncreek.com/tours.html)
if you click on the bud and alleys link, you will see where i was posting from yesterday.
thanks for playing.
(hitting hidden trapdoor button)
-
Yawn. It seems global warming or the ozone layer or pollution or the breakdown in society or drugs or the asteroid from space or the second coming, guns etc etc ad nauseum, isn't enough to worry about anymore. Now we have to worry about this as well.
I actually saw the report discussed on the BBC news and simply tuned it out. I have become very tired of the doom mongers.
So what exactly is their solution? Reading between the lines I know what it is. Tell the people of the third world to forget about improving their lives and attempting to match us in the developed world. They should learn to love living in poverty and starving regularly. It's part of nature.
Or maybe we should start to give up our profligate lives eat less, consume less. Reintroduce grinding poverty and disease to the west. You see, in the good old days only the rich elite were allowed to live well. The rest of us lived short miserable lives to support their lifestyle. Perhaps we should go back to that?
-
Originally posted by JB88
actually, i live a little closer to here. (http://www.mooncreek.com/tours.html)
if you click on the bud and alleys link, you will see where i was posting from yesterday.
thanks for playing.
(hitting hidden trapdoor button)
is that near that club "the birdcage" in south fla?
-
no. actually, the developed world is only a problem when it comes to energy consumption. our birth rates remain relatively low as happens when societies begin to advance...the far east is rapidly modernizing and industrialising which is going to further strain the resource pool that we have to work with.
the population of the workd is on a proven tragegtory to congestion as well.
look, this isnt doom and gloom at all. this is a matter of practicality and a matter of foresight. that the same folks who are swearing that social security is going to fail and screaming that we need to privatize only serves to befuddle those who see that type of conservatism translatable to actual physical resources.
i find it very odd how folks have a hard time grasping that and/or resort to circular arguements rather than discussing potential solutions and/or facts of the matter.
but hey...it may just be all about you...which is fine...thats your perogative. but in my mind its pretty weak.
as you say...yawn.
-
Originally posted by JB73
is that near that club "the birdcage" in south fla?
lol
why, you need a reservation boss?
-
Well I guess the good ol USA will have to wipe out everybody else out so we keep our fair share.
-
Of course we are going to kill ourselves off. Duh. The very nature of the species is one of self-destruction. We refuse to accept responsibility for our actions, on a global basis.
One way or another, mankind will perish from Earth.
Then all the doom sayers can wag thier fingers in the air and proclaim they were right! Of course, they will be dead, but let's not nitpick.
Meanwhile, I am doing my part to escalate the destruction of it all by living one heck of a life.
You see, it's not that I do not care. I am just being realistic about it. Nothing I can do will make a difference in the world, and if you think any of you matter, then keep on smoking what you have been smoking. There is a happy place for you too.
-
skuzzy, i have never heard it put quite that way.
very well spoken to this crowd LOL !
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
and if you think any of you matter, then keep on smoking what you have been smoking. There is a happy place for you too.
Skuzzy, you forgot to advise them to exhale through a good filter that will trap all the contaminants and not pollute the air any further.
Oh... and when you change those filters, be sure the toxins aren't released into the environment in some way.
-
boy howdy!!!
not gonna pee on that fire, but i think you know where i stand on that one skuzzy.
:cool:
now where in the hell did i put that prozac...
-
No I really don't 88. When I see your art, for example, I see a mass of misused/abused resources. This leads me to believe you do not care as much as the next guy does.
Like I said, it is our nature. We are programmed for self-destruction. No one is going to stop it. It is simply a matter of time.
-
skuzzy, do you subscribe to that theroy, i forget the name, but where things do not evolve into order, but instead move from order to disorder?
i read about it once and is interesting, and seems along the lines you are speaking.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
No I really don't 88. When I see your art, for example, I see a mass of misused/abused resources. This leads me to believe you do not care as much as the next guy does.
not sure what you mean there. i suppose that you could argue that its bad art and thus it would be misused resource... lol
perhaps you might explain that i might understand.
-
Any theories I subscribe to are of my own making 73. It is the one thing we actually can control, unless we chose to give that up as well.
I am too hard headed to let some other dipstick make up my mind for me.
-
Originally posted by JB88
not sure what you mean there. i suppose that you could argue that its bad art and thus it would be misused resource... lol
perhaps you might explain that i might understand.
Now we start getting into all kinds of rationalizations, which just waste breath.
I believe you have a large amount of fresh water being used for something not related to sustaining life?
Or the electricity being used for something other than providing a way to see in the dark?
If you want to say you are all for conservation and we must do it now, then why are you being wasteful? It just has the appearance of being hypocritical. Of course, you can rationalize that entire perspective away, and it is your perogative to do so.
-
as am i.
;)
but i dont mind listening to them...appearantly most of us rather enjoy it or we wouldnt be here. i am as much of a dipstick as the next guy i suppose.
are you reffering to chaos theory 73? where is holden when you need him?
entropy would probably be a good model for what skuzzy is talking about...and i dont disagree that all things eventually meet thier end...actually, my work has something to do with that...if that was what skuzzy was reffering to...then he was being quite observant...that all things are temporal. but i dont think that such knowledge removes us from the responsibility for action when action is possible. my work tends to deal with the temporal nature of the human but it could be applied elsewhere.
i just happen to think that it is best to be conservative in resource usage to avoid suffering or the suffering of others whenever possible.
it makes rational sense to me that i dont need to be a resource hog to enjoy my life.
(though i may be a post potato)
the water was recycled btw.
a bit thin perhaps...but ok. you are technically correct.
im gonna go pour some battery acid in the waterway now... IM FREEEEEEE!
-
By the way, I am not dinging you 88. But from some perspectives you can be seen as a person of glutony and waste.
I live how I chose and accept the consequences of my choice and I do not tell others how to live. That is their choice.
-
do you percieve that i tell others how to live?
edited. (see next post)
glad to know...
ill clarify anyway and leave it at that.
i am an american...of course i am gluttonous and wasteful...by comparison. certainly.
but i think its important that we try to improve upon our situation and provide leadership where we can. we can at least prolong it and care for it while it is in our charge.
i am not a tree hugger, but i am concerned about the waste of oxygen producing plants in the longrun...it makes rational sense.
i dont drive an electric car, but i am for initiatives that would promote better use of resources so that option will exist in the near future.
i am not bioparanoid, but i think that pouring toxins into water is pretty dumb. its like peeing in your bathwater.
i believe in recycling because it just makes sense.
does that mean that i would want to take cars off the street? nope. but i think that putting pressure on companies to make them safer and more resource conscious is precisely correct.
just what i think.
peace out.
-
My perception is irrelevant. How do you see you is what matters and if what you think you see actually coorelates to some level of truth, then its all good.
But to be more to the point. I have not given it any thought.
-
Originally posted by john9001
6 billion people and growing.
Only 2/3 of the resources used up...that means I still have 1/3 to go.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Only 2/3 of the resources used up...that means I still have 1/3 to go.
hell yeah... I figure atleast my kids will grow up and never see it all go away.
So shreck it, lets continue the party and destroy the planet!
neeener neeener neeener!
-
Originally posted by JB88
but the fact is, until our leadership sees the light and corporations see some financial benifit it is probably not going to happen here in the US. without a major disaster.
Ummm, the U.S. does a FAR better job of protecting and conserving our environment and natural resources than most countries on the planet.
There is an economic benefit. Many Americans pride themselves on being "green" and we are one of the few economies who can afford green products like organic farm goods and eco-tourism.
Heck, for the most part recyling is a major waste of time and effort - but because it makes us feel better we're willing to support a whole industry of it.
The brunt of planetary destruction is happening in developing countries. Corrupt governments and poverty are the true enemies to the environment.
-
This comes from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which is heavly funded by those who are interested in the Kyoto Accord and the UN's plan to levi taxation upon the United States and redistribute our wealth to the 3rd world. And how well did they do with the recent Oil for Food program?. The US already funds the UN to almost 1/4 of its budget. Then add the billions the US provides through other means to the 3rd world. Sorry I already paid my taxes. These kooks get enough money from us.
If they can't scare you into submitting to UN control of the world by manufacturing a world wide disaster called global warming, by jingy they will just up and manufacture another world wide disaster. Same tactics the anti-gun lobbies and econut lobbies in the U.S. use in the media to scare soccer mommies chitless about inanimate objects and spotted owls. Oh and in the 70's the world wide disaster was a new ice age.
-
Malthusians have been playing the same tune forever now, and their predictions never pan out.
-
As a bit of trivia,
I had the opportunity to listen to a lecture by one of the countries "top futurists". I did not sit through the whole lecture, mostly because he was not saying anything I did not know with the possible insite that ecosystems are not well understood. The interaction of people with their environment is an area of science that is underdeveloped.
Genetics and modifying human DNA, however, is an area science seems to be excelling in. It's all about money (duh), and what gives the most "bang for the buck". Any predictions about the ecosystem (or global warming) are based on scientific principles that are not well understood.
Regards,
Malta
-
There are politically motivated and inductive reasoning filters that gunk up the works of science. But, we all know the planet won't be around forever.
Reminds me of the story about a guy dozing off during an astronomer's lecture. The astromer is explaining that if we're still here, our star will kill us all off a billion years from now. The napping guy is startled awake and say, "What? What did you say?"
The astronomer repeats it and the guys says, "Whew... Okay. I thought you said a million years from now."
Which is going to bite us hard first? Well, if you're in your 50's, your parents have been labeled "The Greatest Generation." What will media label the children of "The Greatest Generation?'
I'll say we'll be called "The Greediest Generation."
Those of us in our 50's will see some of the effects of our greed before we die. If you're in your 20's now, you'll most likely be cursing us. And your children will cure us also.
Those of you in your 40's and 50's who live a comfortable, upper-middle class or above life now do realize that your children will not have a better life than you? This will be a great sea change in human development. Those who are living a lower middle-class, month-to-month existance, your children will feel the brunt of the changes in store in the next 20 years.
The changes will economic and dangerously geopolitical; the ecology is down the list somewhere. Energy and the hunt to grab up the last pumpable oil will be the catalyst to some troubling economic times: inflation breeding inflation, breeding high unemployment and tremendous stresses on a government safety net that won't hold. It's going to get uglier than you guys in you 50's have ever seen.
And that's the good news. The bad news is that this race for energy to keep bad economies from turning into abysmal economies will make the odds for a major global confilct over energy access more likely than not.
Don't get me wrong, we'll be able to muddle through the next ten years or so. But, things will really heat up in 10 years, and the decade from 2015 to 2025 will be, well, interesting. And just so you have a reference for how fast a decade flies, Bill Clinton was running for re-election 10 years ago.
I can understand the logic of "Gettin' your share while the gettin' is good," but the kids are not going to think too highly of us. We can blame it on the politicians or the bad guys in Asia for taking 'our' oil, but that won't change anything.
Nothing short of a trillions of dollars, Apollo-scale program, begun 5 years ago, would have smoothed out some of the rough times. Alas, we're too late. The kids will have to figure it out.
And just for the record, I'm an economic optimist. You should hear what the pessimists say.
-
skuzzy is absolutely correct.. we need to grow and consume to survive. If this planet get's too small we will perish right then or move to the next one.
I believe as he does that it is hypocritical to be a human being and tell others how to consume.
88 claims he doesn't tell others how to live.... he lies. he picked out SUV owners. I would rather a mom get her kids to soccer practice (an I hate soccer) in an SUV than him waste a bunch of resources on totaly useless and boring art.
He tries to goad conservatives into his idiotic cause by placing blame. He really knows nothing about what will work out for the best in the future so far as the resources he wishes to conserve. Is it better to conserve gasolione to the point where no other alternative is worth pursueing for instance?
Humans are creatures of reaction and their finest moments come from desperation.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skuzzy is absolutely correct.. we need to grow and consume to survive. If this planet get's too small we will perish right then or move to the next one.
I believe as he does that it is hypocritical to be a human being and tell others how to consume.
88 claims he doesn't tell others how to live.... he lies. he picked out SUV owners. I would rather a mom get her kids to soccer practice (an I hate soccer) in an SUV than him waste a bunch of resources on totaly useless and boring art.
He tries to goad conservatives into his idiotic cause by placing blame. He really knows nothing about what will work out for the best in the future so far as the resources he wishes to conserve. Is it better to conserve gasolione to the point where no other alternative is worth pursueing for instance?
Humans are creatures of reaction and their finest moments come from desperation.
lazs
A translation for the reading impaired. :D
Why do I have a feeling I`m gonna make that list? lmao
-
Originally posted by Rolex
...But, we all know the planet won't be around forever.
Reminds me of the story about a guy dozing off during an astronomer's lecture. The astromer is explaining that if we're still here, our star will kill us all off a billion years from now. The napping guy is startled awake and say, "What? What did you say?"
The astronomer repeats it and the guys says, "Whew... Okay. I thought you said a million years from now."
Some serious thought (http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html) has been put into this...
-
Well, I do my part....I always turn off the light when I leave the room and I put a water saver in my toilet.
What more could I do???
-
simply agree that something more proactive should be done about managing and creating resources and state it publicly. the market will follow.
informed opinion creates ripples and causes action when spoken.
-
maybe 88 could tell us what is needed to manage resources and which ones he feels we should worry about.
In my experiance... most consevartionists are all for other people conserving or for conserving where it doesn't make any difference to them... If they hate cars then they see no reason why everyone shouldn't own a prius... if they live in a hell hole of a big city then they think everyone should take a cab or public transportation. If they are a skymincer they think everyone should ride a motorcycle.
I don't think 88 has a clue as to what needs conserving... none of us do.
We all make statements by what we consume. The market follows... that is really all we have to do.
lazs
-
Don't really care...don't think that the last 3rd will be used up in my lifetime..and of all the "scientists" in the world little more than a thousand come to this conclusion...I love my children to death..but after I'm gone..what happens here will no longer be my concern...and I'm sure that they will find a way to deal with it....why worry about saving a planet I won't be using anymore?
-
any swedes here want to chime in on this?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
There are politically motivated and inductive reasoning filters that gunk up the works of science. But, we all know the planet won't be around forever.
Reminds me of the story about a guy dozing off during an astronomer's lecture. The astromer is explaining that if we're still here, our star will kill us all off a billion years from now. The napping guy is startled awake and say, "What? What did you say?"
The astronomer repeats it and the guys says, "Whew... Okay. I thought you said a million years from now."
Which is going to bite us hard first? Well, if you're in your 50's, your parents have been labeled "The Greatest Generation." What will media label the children of "The Greatest Generation?'
I'll say we'll be called "The Greediest Generation."
Those of us in our 50's will see some of the effects of our greed before we die. If you're in your 20's now, you'll most likely be cursing us. And your children will cure us also.
Those of you in your 40's and 50's who live a comfortable, upper-middle class or above life now do realize that your children will not have a better life than you? This will be a great sea change in human development. Those who are living a lower middle-class, month-to-month existance, your children will feel the brunt of the changes in store in the next 20 years.
The changes will economic and dangerously geopolitical; the ecology is down the list somewhere. Energy and the hunt to grab up the last pumpable oil will be the catalyst to some troubling economic times: inflation breeding inflation, breeding high unemployment and tremendous stresses on a government safety net that won't hold. It's going to get uglier than you guys in you 50's have ever seen.
And that's the good news. The bad news is that this race for energy to keep bad economies from turning into abysmal economies will make the odds for a major global confilct over energy access more likely than not.
Don't get me wrong, we'll be able to muddle through the next ten years or so. But, things will really heat up in 10 years, and the decade from 2015 to 2025 will be, well, interesting. And just so you have a reference for how fast a decade flies, Bill Clinton was running for re-election 10 years ago.
I can understand the logic of "Gettin' your share while the gettin' is good," but the kids are not going to think too highly of us. We can blame it on the politicians or the bad guys in Asia for taking 'our' oil, but that won't change anything.
Nothing short of a trillions of dollars, Apollo-scale program, begun 5 years ago, would have smoothed out some of the rough times. Alas, we're too late. The kids will have to figure it out.
And just for the record, I'm an economic optimist. You should hear what the pessimists say.
Are "the kids" up to it? American kids of the baby boomers are prolly the most spoiled, regimented and programmed generation of all time. Will this generation be able to cope with their world blowing up?
-
far as anyone knows... every drop of water that was ever on the planet is still here and.... has been through some animal at one time or another.
How's that for "informed opinion"?
lazs
-
Originally posted by JB88
simply agree that something more proactive should be done about managing and creating resources and state it publicly. the market will follow.
informed opinion creates ripples and causes action when spoken.
ROFLMBO! This has to be some of the funniest stuff I have read in a while. Good one 88!
:lol
-
i knew you had a sense of humor skuzzy, but i never thought id see you LYBO...
my work here is done.
:aok
NOT!
lol
-
You have never seen me in the game then.
-
oh, i am sure that i have been shot down by you on a great many occasions skuzzy...or should i say...AUNTBEE!!!!
:rofl
-
Not hardly. I do not use shades accounts. No reason for me to.
-
ive never seen you in the skies, you ever get up anymore or too busy?
-
I very rarely fly or play the game. When I enter the arena I normally have a bazillion questions tossed at me, so I try to answer them.
But I try to keep things light when I am in the arena.
-
Originally posted by JB88
are you reffering to chaos theory 73? where is holden when you need him?
entropy would probably be a good model for what skuzzy is talking about...
Sorry JB88, I was at march madness (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146952) trying to decide between Salma Hayek and Jennifer Connolly... futility defined.
Entropy is not a theory, it is a measureable thermodynamic property. It tends to increase. It is the property 73 and Scuzzy are looking for. Things tend to go from order to disorder, ie. entropy increases.
-
a shame. a shades account would be pretty understandable in that case.
the new clouds rock lobster.
:aok
-
Originally posted by JB88
simply agree that something more proactive should be done about managing and creating resources and state it publicly. the market will follow.
informed opinion creates ripples and causes action when spoken.
So if I don't agree, what will you label me to identify my obvious lack of mental enlightenment from the more malleable sheep you wish to stampeed? How easy it is to lead people with "simply agree with me". Sounds like you are testing the waters for a run at the White House with Billary in 2008. Sould we start making out our tax cheques to the UN World Enlightenment Fund care of JB88 this April?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry JB88, I was at march madness (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146952) trying to decide between Salma Hayek and Jennifer Connolly... futility defined.
Entropy is not a theory, it is a measureable thermodynamic property. It tends to increase. It is the property 73 and Scuzzy are looking for. Things tend to go from order to disorder, ie. entropy increases.
yes, it does increase doesnt it.
when i think of entropy, i think "heat death" and thus my mind strung that into the notion of the eventual dimming of the human resouce flame.
i make no claims to scientific wisdom or knowledge. though reading about it years ago did inspire a few things.
so was it chaos then?
-
Don't try to label me. It will end up making you look ignorant.
Think about it.
-
Originally posted by bustr
So if I don't agree, what will you label me to identify my obvious lack of mental enlightenment from the more malleable sheep you wish to stampeed? How easy it is to lead people with "simply agree with me". Sounds like you are testing the waters for a run at the White House with Billary in 2008. Sould we start making out our tax cheques to the UN World Enlightenment Fund care of JB88 this April?
no. i am talking about the need to do SOMETHING not my own opinion ya numbskull.
i was arguing that one person CAN change things. not everything...but they can things...even if it is only themselves...it is something.
-
And the probability of that change having an impact on the overall world society? I could tell you, but it would depress you.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Don't try to label me. It will end up making you look ignorant.
Think about it.
um. what?
(holding electric label maker behind back)
not really sure what you mean, but ok skuzzy.
i'll try to avoid such things...i agree...it can make people look ignorant.
-
entropy
thats what i was thinking about.
and by the email updates, this thread enters warp 5 in reply acceleration ; )
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
And the probability of that change having an impact on the overall world society? I could tell you, but it would depress you.
you drove me to cocktails yesterday! lol.
i'll pass.
kidding.
no. thats just it. to think that one could control a society would be insane. i am simply reffering to the ability for one person to act to incite change. breaking it down to whatever level it exists at...it is something.
the more somethings, the more change.
-
Why is there a "need" to do something? That is always the argument that proceeds the scary story someone cooks up for the soccer mommies. And it is MR NUMBSKULL to you.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JB88
simply agree that something more proactive should be done about managing and creating resources and state it publicly. the market will follow.
informed opinion creates ripples and causes action when spoken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see no stinkin referal to one person doin sumptin here. I also don't see much of a handle on Free Market Economies and Capitolism either.
-
scary story or not. there is no denying that we could do better at managing our resources.
its a matter or practicality, and i believe that it matches up rather well with what i think of as a true conservative viewpoint.
sorry bout the lack of title mr. numbskull.
88 (mr. moron)
:aok
-
88, I was adressing Holden when I made the reference to labeling.
'Labels' are the handcuffs to open minded thinking.
-
my bad.
true that.
-
just to ramble on here (sorry im bored at home from work)...
what has always bothered me about "conservation" is how the real "leaders" in it try to force things on us.
i wrote a paper in college entitled "the myth of a generation". basically it showed how personal curbside recycling was brought upon us by a falsification by the EPA and the media of the time, later in an actual EPA report, saying their data was flawed and invalid.
either way, today my taxpayer dollars go to taking plastic bottles from peoples homes, and sorting the 250 diffferent types of plastic that can NOT be mixed when recycling them.
the whole conservation movement started back in the 80's because of this, brought on actually by a mob deal to unload some waste. LMAO. i wont go into detail, because you can look it up yourselfes, but there was a barge of garbage that no port would take because of the mob connections, and the thought of possible toxic waste hidden. this barge was on the national news if you remember, and the media blew it up to say there was no room for our garbage anywhere
hence curbside recycling was born. one of the biggest taxpayer drains, with a gross loss overall, resulting in nothing to help the environment.
did you know that it takes up to 20% more fossil fuels to recycle curbside paper than it does to make fresh paper? the de-inking and bleaching of this curbside paper creates actual toxic waste, that is monitered by the EPA in it's disposal.
industrial peper recycling (from printing companies, and the like) is different. their paper is pre-sorted by the company, and actually makes the peper cheaper, it's the homeowner and their newspaper mixed with the glossy glamour magazines that hoses up the works. yet these people insist in believing the myth they are "helping"
yes i could jump on the bandwagon, go work at the local recycling plant, and get paid $15/ hour to cut the little rings off the plastic bottles. (you did know that those 2 types of plastic can not be recycled together right?)
on to the use of gasoline, or lets go straight to crude oil. many don't know, and cover their eyes when the actual statistics are shown that the oil fields (only the ones currently harvested) in alaska can provide the USA with fuel for over 100 years alone (at the current growth rate). the "worry" is the reserves, and where they come from.
dont forget OPEC is a bunch of sheiks in the middle east that the USA has absoultly NO control over, and bows to pretty much every wish, heck the whole world does. did you know back in the 90's 1/4 of the national debt was owed to these same sheiks? we borrowed money in the 70's and 80's from them for different things, and still owe alot of the money today.
what does it matter that they control gas prices? ask yourself why 2 summers ago at the height of usage they decided to decrease production to raise prices? they were even open about it, and it was the first wave in bringing US prices above $1.75 at the time.
88, though thinking you (you as in anyone) are "helping" and can change the state of affairs, sadly there are sooooo many different political sides to it (both sides, commone you dont really think some liberal groups DONT profit off the recycling programs do you?)
oh well the thought of the day is over, time to go fly! ; )
-
73. when JB's fail to take a base the first time do we...
a. say screwit, it isnt worth it. let the bish have it.
b. let someone else do it and sit in the o'club playing our ukelelees.
c. try again and make it work or change targets to be more effective in the war, concentrating our forces on strat and relying upon teamwork to improve the situation and our inevitable solution.
d. tell 42 that its his fault because one person cant change anything so why bother.
:)
-
JB73;
Entropy is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is not a theory.
I don't know anything about plastic recycling, but I do know that Venezuela and Indonesia are not a bunch of shieks in the middle east. Your statement about Alaska having enough oil for 100 years at current consumption rates is just nonsense. Where in the world did you hear or read this? It's so far out there, it makes me question the credibility of your plastics opinion.
-
Ford to write a report on global warming
MAR. 31 3:52 P.M. ET Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it will write a report about global warming, including details on emissions from Ford vehicles and factories, in response to complaints from some shareholders that the nation's second biggest automaker isn't doing enough to reduce pollution.
A group of environmentally oriented shareholders responded by withdrawing a petition asking Ford to detail how it plans to remain competitive as environmental laws get stricter in California and elsewhere.
Ford plans to complete the report by the end of the year and said it will consult with climate experts in addition to the shareholders.
"We have long identified climate change as a serious environmental issue, and shareholders are increasingly asking about the risks as well as the opportunities associated with it," Ford chairman and CEO Bill Ford said in a statement. "It's time for a broader, more inclusive public dialogue on the complex and important challenge of climate change."
Sister Patricia Daly, who heads the New Jersey-based Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment and filed the resolution, said she was satisfied with Ford's action.
"Let's take on the issues before us and the realities that will be before us in the next couple of decades," Daly said. "It's no longer an environmental concern. It's a business concern, and corporations are starting to understand that."
Denise Nappier, Connecticut's state treasurer, said companies must prepare for the financial implications of global warming. Connecticut's public pension fund also was a party in the resolution.
Ford said the report will analyze climate change issues and look at the potential impact of various government actions. Ford said it already is developing cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, and will reduce emissions from its manufacturing plants by 14 percent by the end of this year.
Mindy Lubber, president of the Boston-based environmental shareholder group Ceres, said Ford's report will be the first from an automaker to examine the emissions from its vehicles. Lubber said shareholders have similar resolutions before General Motors Corp., the world's biggest automaker.
Not all investors are satisfied. At least two groups have no plans to withdraw resolutions that will be up for consideration this year by Ford shareholders. The company plans to hold its annual meeting in May.
Boston-based Green Century Capital Management wants Ford to detail the amount it is spending to lobby against an increase in federal fuel efficiency standards. Bluewater Network, an environmental group based in San Francisco, also has a resolution that calls on Ford to link senior executives' pay to their performance on global warming issues.
"Ford does nice reports, but they're still suing California, lobbying against higher federal mileage standards and their new vehicles still create more global warming pollution than any major automaker," said Russell Long, director of the Bluewater Network.
The Sierra Club also has targeted Ford's environmental record, particularly after the company decided in 2003 to back off a promised improvement in fuel efficiency. On Thursday, the Sierra Club launched a new campaign to enlist Ford dealers in the effort to make the company's vehicles more environmentally friendly.
Ford shares slipped 6 cents to $11.38 in late afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares have traded in a range of $10.94 and $16.48 over the past 52 weeks.