..after two hours of seeing green and red (!) lightnings in the sky, while the fiercest of the storms I have seen in my life tore things (houses, electricity lines, trees) apart, the wind that crushed every object and the light.. I decided I need no more proof that the end of the world (or a colossal change in the universe) is coming. That was a memorable night.
What's your take on "end of the world"?
Is the "end of the world" = "end of human civilization" = "end of times because noone will count the time past the moment"?
What's your take on people causing these catastrophies all over the world? Don't deny them, there's a lot of crazy shit going on in the world these days, and there is more to come.
Just interested to hear your thoughts.
"end of the world" = "irreversible change" ?
facepalm.jpg
the end of the world will probablly be caused by people like you that interpret emperical necessities as something mythical or religious.
I'm not talking religious or mythical.
I'm talking about inevitable social and climate change.
Have you looked around yourself lately?
Quote from: lostpilot on Aug 08, 2010, 01:47 PM
I'm not talking religious or mythical.
I'm talking about inevitable social and climate change.
Have you looked around yourself lately?
Have you heard about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection#August_2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection#August_2010)
Quote from: Nailec on Aug 08, 2010, 01:36 PM
facepalm.jpg
the end of the world will probablly be caused by people like you that interpret emperical necessities as something mythical or religious.
Lol.jpg
Anyway, my take on all that is that the man won't be the cause of the end of the Earth, the man will be the cause of the end of himself.
We're fucking this world up a little more everyday, and it's not that I like being pessimistic (besides, it's more of a reality than a pessimistic prediction, to me), but we won't stop, we will never stop.
The man has always been raping this planet at the deepest, and despite all the efforts that the global population is " showing ", we will always get back to our selfish and wasting roots: this planet will bleed until its last drop.
When this occures, the planet will still be here, but it will be totally unfit to live on, men won't survive.
And that's where the humanity ends.
As for the end of the world itself, I guess it will be all natural, sun will die, etc..
The end of the world will probably happen in about 6 billion years, when the sun will become a red giant, practically absorbing earth in the process. Of course this means the literal end of the world (as in earth). I sure hope humanity will find the means to leave our solar system by then.
Lay off the psychedelics.
;)
Most of you do not read what I write.
I am not talking fireworks, dying suns and cosmic tear-out's, aka END OF EVERYTHING. I'm talking about the end of human civilization.
Therefore Vesanic made a good point about human race being the most self-destructive element in the universe ever.
And my main point is that there are things going on that never happened before.
russia is burning, pakistan is swimming, saxonia is swimming, gulf of mexico turned black, man dies in a sauna (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/07/world-sauna-championships_n_674582.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/07/world-sauna-championships_n_674582.html))
i know that bad things are happening. but why conclude that humankind will eradicate itself? take the chill-pill. its not said, that the worst consequences of global warming will actually happen.
well, I conclude that humanity will destroy itself because humanity included their own element to the world, and the element is getting out of control.
just saying. it's not like I'm a paranoid asshole about this, just throwing ideas out there.
Yesterday I have seen a storm like I have never seen - I live in the same place for 22 years, and nobody around me seen a storm like that. And yeah, you can talk about coronal ejection, but I see the results here.
so what caused the storm? if it was so unique, there must have been a reason? fires in Russia somehow affecting it?
yes, fires and climate in Russia did affect the storm - the super-hot air masses from Russia came to Lithuania to encounter the cold ones from the Baltic Sea - boom, crazy storm happens.
And the storm was special of its strength and the colored lightnings. Made massive damage to lithuanian people :(
(http://moesucks.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uguu-cat.jpg)
indeed
People have been seeing crazy things in the weather and have been assuming that the people in power will destroy them since the fucking dawn of civilization.
What makes us so special? Why are we blessed with existing in time to see our own destruction?
Simple answer. We aren't.
Mankind won't suddenly die out because of climate change. First of all, I don't believe in it, second, we survived a fucking ice age. IF, big if here, man-made climate change exists, we aren't going to suddenly see the end of days, people will die over the course of hundreds of years, but mankind will do exactly what it's best at doing which is persevering. You won't live to "see the world end". You're just not that special. Your life in the great scheme of things is meaningless.
Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Aug 09, 2010, 07:45 PM
People have been seeing crazy things in the weather and have been assuming that the people in power will destroy them since the fucking dawn of civilization.
What makes us so special? Why are we blessed with existing in time to see our own destruction?
Simple answer. We aren't.
Mankind won't suddenly die out because of climate change. First of all, I don't believe in it, second, we survived a fucking ice age. IF, big if here, man-made climate change exists, we aren't going to suddenly see the end of days, people will die over the course of hundreds of years, but mankind will do exactly what it's best at doing which is persevering. You won't live to "see the world end". You're just not that special. Your life in the great scheme of things is meaningless.
Yeah, no kidding, I really hope this is just like a fantasy thread or something.
Quote from: Vesanic on Aug 08, 2010, 02:21 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Aug 08, 2010, 01:36 PM
facepalm.jpg
the end of the world will probablly be caused by people like you that interpret emperical necessities as something mythical or religious.
Lol.jpg
Anyway, my take on all that is that the man won't be the cause of the end of the Earth, the man will be the cause of the end of himself.
We're fucking this world up a little more everyday, and it's not that I like being pessimistic (besides, it's more of a reality than a pessimistic prediction, to me), but we won't stop, we will never stop.
The man has always been raping this planet at the deepest, and despite all the efforts that the global population is " showing ", we will always get back to our selfish and wasting roots: this planet will bleed until its last drop.
When this occures, the planet will still be here, but it will be totally unfit to live on, men won't survive.
And that's where the humanity ends.
As for the end of the world itself, I guess it will be all natural, sun will die, etc..
Haha dude, I really hope you're joking. Here's a little tidbit to think about while you're pondering doomsday: if you took every person in the world, grouped them into 4 person families, and gave them all 2500 sq ft houses with an ample front and back yard (just houses, mind you, not roads or anything else), the area formed would be the size of Texas. So give me a break with that whole overpopulation garbage. It's pure insanity. Yeah 6 billion people is a lot, but so is 148 940 000 km2. It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Aug 09, 2010, 07:45 PM
People have been seeing crazy things in the weather and have been assuming that the people in power will destroy them since the fucking dawn of civilization.
What makes us so special? Why are we blessed with existing in time to see our own destruction?
Simple answer. We aren't.
Mankind won't suddenly die out because of climate change. First of all, I don't believe in it, second, we survived a fucking ice age. IF, big if here, man-made climate change exists, we aren't going to suddenly see the end of days, people will die over the course of hundreds of years, but mankind will do exactly what it's best at doing which is persevering. You won't live to "see the world end". You're just not that special. Your life in the great scheme of things is meaningless.
so i take it we won't be lucky enough to see the zombie apocalypse in our lifetime?
Tôo much information. Thats a desease. People still believe (or want to believe) in2012 or something about self destruction.
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 10, 2010, 01:05 AM
Haha dude, I really hope you're joking. Here's a little tidbit to think about while you're pondering doomsday: if you took every person in the world, grouped them into 4 person families, and gave them all 2500 sq ft houses with an ample front and back yard (just houses, mind you, not roads or anything else), the area formed would be the size of Texas. So give me a break with that whole overpopulation garbage. It's pure insanity. Yeah 6 billion people is a lot, but so is 148 940 000 km2. It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
While I'd agree with you to some extent, you realize that having some room to live is not the problem... Problem is more how to sustain these 6 billion people...
Now I'm sure we both agree that would take more than an area the size of Texas....
Quote from: tarkil on Aug 10, 2010, 04:44 AM
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 10, 2010, 01:05 AM
Haha dude, I really hope you're joking. Here's a little tidbit to think about while you're pondering doomsday: if you took every person in the world, grouped them into 4 person families, and gave them all 2500 sq ft houses with an ample front and back yard (just houses, mind you, not roads or anything else), the area formed would be the size of Texas. So give me a break with that whole overpopulation garbage. It's pure insanity. Yeah 6 billion people is a lot, but so is 148 940 000 km2. It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
While I'd agree with you to some extent, you realize that having some room to live is not the problem... Problem is more how to sustain these 6 billion people...
Now I'm sure we both agree that would take more than an area the size of Texas....
So what you're saying is, in Corey's hypothetical scenario where every human on the planet is relocated to Texas, THE REST OF THE PLANET IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH to sustain that?
Pretty much yes...
When you think about it, 70% of the surface is water already... From what I could find via google (took me 10 seconds, so might not be the most accurate data, but still...), only 11% of earth surface is usable to grow food.
Now with another 10 seconds (so still this is some rough number), I can find that it takes 1.2 acre of land to sustain 1 american person.
leading to a necessary surface for 6billion american : 6 billion * 1.2 = 29 137 366 km2, roughly 20% of Earth surface if I take Corey's number for global surface (and I'm not counting texas out of this.... ;) ).
Meaning nearly twice as what's available...
Looks like you can thank poor countries for not being as deadly to earth as you are... ;)
Ok, so I dispute the 11% and the 1.2 acres/American or whatever, but just step back and think about how vastly more productive one acre can be than another (I'm not just talking about farming, what can be done with land can be productive in any sector). And then just check out Google Earth and look how empty all of the land is.
Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Aug 10, 2010, 07:17 AM
So what you're saying is, in Corey's hypothetical scenario where every human on the planet is relocated to Texas, THE REST OF THE PLANET IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH to sustain that?
hahahaha i pooed a little loling at that. call me easily entertained, who knows.
Every generation goes through this thing where there's speculation that the end of the world (religious or otherwise) is approaching. It's probably because humans have never been around longer than their own lifetime, so seeing all these disasters and stuff, it's like "oh wow, it's happening all the time, the world must be ending soon". In reality, there are more disasters because ppl can record them more now, and because the world is more populated, so whereas there used to be disasters that didnt affect anyone, now they always do.
The world obviously will end one day, and while I think humanity is definitely capable of being the cause of it...I dont think so. Maybe an asteroid or maybe just the sun wen its own life comes to an end, but I dont think the world will end soon. It could end at any time for any reason, sure, but I dont see all these things happening as any kind of sign.
And 2012...UGH...that's the most annoying thing ever. I tried to convince everyone to calm down, since it was Mayan mythology (not even mythology for the end of the world, just the end of one age, and then the beginning of another), but because religious ppl have picked up on it, it's sent ppl into a panic. So basically wen it's 2012 I make it my mission to scare as many ppl as possible, since I cant make it go away and wont be able to ignore it. I just hope the world doesnt end in 2012, because then I'll hear all the "I told you so"s.
Yet if the world does end, at least nobody has to listen to the miserable shits whine and moan anymore.
I'm prayin' for rain. I'm prayin' for tidal waves.
I just think one day everyone's head is going to explode. Nothing fancy like some Devil popping out of the ground, or the heavens opening up, or wrath of any kind. All its gonna be is heads exploding at the same time.
You guys can end the world however you want just leave me out of it.
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 10, 2010, 01:05 AM
It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
So what ? Should I blame myself for not living in the third world ?
im throwing an end of the world party on Dec 21st 2012. its on a friday haha smoke a blunt a watch it all go down.
i guess i'm the only one who hoped this was a Medeski Martin & Wood thread? :-\
Quote from: Vesanic on Aug 20, 2010, 11:24 AM
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 10, 2010, 01:05 AM
It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
So what ? Should I blame myself for not living in the third world ?
I'm just saying that environmental socialists with that kind of attitude are pretty much saying that it'd be better for people to take extremely severe cuts in their standards of living in the richer countries and for the poorer countries to be condemned to starvation than it is for us to use the resources we have at our disposal... from their computers and air conditioning. Plus, when you actually allow property rights and the free market to actually work, it is rationed by the price system, while not impoverishing the globe, and I would argue that there is a much greater incentive to protect and act rationally with private as opposed to public land, for obvious reasons.
Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus). Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?" Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 24, 2010, 12:00 AM
Quote from: Vesanic on Aug 20, 2010, 11:24 AM
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 10, 2010, 01:05 AM
It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.
So what ? Should I blame myself for not living in the third world ?
I'm just saying that environmental socialists with that kind of attitude are pretty much saying that it'd be better for people to take extremely severe cuts in their standards of living in the richer countries and for the poorer countries to be condemned to starvation than it is for us to use the resources we have at our disposal... from their computers and air conditioning. Plus, when you actually allow property rights and the free market to actually work, it is rationed by the price system, while not impoverishing the globe, and I would argue that there is a much greater incentive to protect and act rationally with private as opposed to public land, for obvious reasons.
Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus). Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?" Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?
are you saying that we are not responsible for global warming? i'm not attacking you either. i'm just simply asking.
Not only that, I'm also saying that it's a giant scare to drum up support for these energy-rationing policies and favoring of certain industries and companies that are absolutely not viable and take even more of the supposedly "dirty" resources to be made so. Cases in point: plant-based ethanol, windmills and all of the batteries and extra infrastructure as well as subsidies they require, and electric cars. Like seriously, even if you do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whatever, the point is that because the technology isn't there to make them viable and because they will perpetually require subsidies, a positive net amount of CO2 is created because the energy to produce all of these things and then subsidize them is also going to have to come from somewhere. I know that's very complicated to think about, but it's a real fallacy in the whole clean energy thing that nobody thinks about.
Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue. Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy. My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.
But yeah, I can source you with some good anti-global warming reading that is scholarly and not based upon any sort of conspiracy, I've posted a few links before n shit. I just get really ornery about the way that the whole issue is being handled by governments around the world, even if you think every claim Al Gore makes is gold. Just pure, unadulterated socialism that's going to get us nowhere but Povertytown.
do you have an article that would be worth reading?
i don't agree with you (SHOCKERZ), but i'd be interested in reading it.
i don't like al gore if that helps hahaha. i'd take bob brown over him any day.
Here's a few references, just pick one that sounds interesting to you:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)
I also like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html)
I did some cursory reading on Bob Brown, and I really couldn't see any difference between him and Al Gore; care to enlighten me?
Also, where do you disagree with me on the global warming issue, and why are you for using socialistic tactics to fight it?
cheers. i'll read some when i've semi-written half of my paper. i shouldn't even be here right now. i remember reading this article a while ago:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html)
the only thing you need to know about bob brown is that he is sincere in his belief in climate change and the environment. i believe it is our responsibility to be kinder to our earth. i know skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and uncritically embrace any argument, opinion piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. i'm open to both sides of the argument, but i get a real sense of being attacked from the anti-global warming campaigners as opposed to being informed on what they believe to be happening to our environment. we should be more environmentally friendly like driving our cars less, being more aware of where our food comes from, recycling etc. this is the simple stuff that if we all did we would be better off for. there are companies out there that are serious polluters and i think something has to be done about that.
i'm extremely against the logging of forests in tasmania, especially unprotected forests. brown has been a supporter and a fighter for these forests. i've heard him talk about it when i was very young and standing on my tippy toes in the back of a packed lecture room. i've been with him since then. here's a really good interview he did a while back:
http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_future/Transcripts/s878503.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_future/Transcripts/s878503.htm)
even if you don't agree with him, he's just the most remarkable environmentalist. i admire him immensely as a politician. he's very straight up and forward, which is a rare trait in any government.
and we disagree on the basic fact that i believe in global warming and i believe that we are in part largely to blame for it. i also support the emissions trading scheme. when a majority of scientists make a claim, they tend to be correct. at the very least it is worth giving very serious consideration to the possibility and implications of their claims since they do put a great deal of thought and research into their claims.
you think i'm a socialist? hmmm.
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 25, 2010, 12:10 AM
Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue. Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy. My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.
Quick question about what you just said, which is always the weakness I find in your arguments.
First of all, as you know, I wholeheartedly agree with "free market" (or whatever it's called) theory. I'm convinced that the best theoretical way to come to an efficient solution is through free market, innovation etc.
Nonetheless, and here comes my question / remark, I think this is unfortunately only true in a theoretical world where every one strives towards long term interest.
Which is not the case (at all) today in my opinion.
To think back on the example you just used : imagine corporation A, a world leading corporation in petroleum. They are immensely wealthy. Now, also take corporation B, a small company, with very innovative people, aiming to discover some cheap and green energy. Obviously they have no money.
Let's imagine several scenarios :
- A will struggle with their money so that B does not become successful, because it would lead them out of business. There's no way B can compete with such a powerful (i.e. wealthy, with influence in government power circles, etc.) company. No innovation there unfortunately.
- One could imagine that A would do that research themselves, because they will be long term winners. That would be where theory is different that reality to me. In reality, why would A spend unlimited amounts of money on R&D with no immediate (nor sure) payoff, where they can just do what they do everyday, and earn shitloads of money. One could object that if they don't do it, some of their rivals will do it because it will give them the high hand in their struggle. That's not happening though because imo, all this world of powerful corporations is biased, and everyone will prefer short term, sure gains. And as long as no one is moving towards another direction, well, no one else will do it because everyone's happy of their short term money, which they can keep improving by finding other petroleum fields, etc. etc.
- Finally you could imagine that some kind of high level business angel (Warren Buffett style) could create a corporation like B I was talking about in the 1st scenario.
Because they would have the necessary means to struggle with A. But why would they do it ? You don't go at war likely with such big corporations... Plus, most of the time, all the administrators of worldwide corporations are a small crowd, and if some people from company C belongs to ExCo of company D, you'll have people of D in C ExCo, etc.
This is what makes this sphere of the world very biased, and free market hypothesis, where all actors strive for their own long term wealth / wellness maximization cannot apply.
I hope that one day it will, cause that's the day where mankind will grow out of its fucking shitbox, but I don't see this happening any time soon.
Anyway, these are my opinions, I am not saying that I'm the holder of truth or anything, that's just how I see things based on what I saw and read and thought about in my life... And yeah, I'm quite pessimistic on men.... :)
I could farm enough corn on the rest of the planet-texas to sustain humanity. Assuming I had robots.
anyone seen wall-e? thats how we are going to end up fat and sitting in floating lay-z-boys. and far as global warming goes thats bull shit. Cap and trade is going to be big business coming soon. because everyone thinks the world will end. Its all about money and control. well not money but wealth and yes there is a diffrence.
Quote from: tarkil on Aug 30, 2010, 10:45 AM
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 25, 2010, 12:10 AM
Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue. Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy. My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.
Quick question about what you just said, which is always the weakness I find in your arguments.
First of all, as you know, I wholeheartedly agree with "free market" (or whatever it's called) theory. I'm convinced that the best theoretical way to come to an efficient solution is through free market, innovation etc.
Nonetheless, and here comes my question / remark, I think this is unfortunately only true in a theoretical world where every one strives towards long term interest.
Which is not the case (at all) today in my opinion.
To think back on the example you just used : imagine corporation A, a world leading corporation in petroleum. They are immensely wealthy. Now, also take corporation B, a small company, with very innovative people, aiming to discover some cheap and green energy. Obviously they have no money.
Let's imagine several scenarios :
- A will struggle with their money so that B does not become successful, because it would lead them out of business. There's no way B can compete with such a powerful (i.e. wealthy, with influence in government power circles, etc.) company. No innovation there unfortunately.
- One could imagine that A would do that research themselves, because they will be long term winners. That would be where theory is different that reality to me. In reality, why would A spend unlimited amounts of money on R&D with no immediate (nor sure) payoff, where they can just do what they do everyday, and earn shitloads of money. One could object that if they don't do it, some of their rivals will do it because it will give them the high hand in their struggle. That's not happening though because imo, all this world of powerful corporations is biased, and everyone will prefer short term, sure gains. And as long as no one is moving towards another direction, well, no one else will do it because everyone's happy of their short term money, which they can keep improving by finding other petroleum fields, etc. etc.
- Finally you could imagine that some kind of high level business angel (Warren Buffett style) could create a corporation like B I was talking about in the 1st scenario.
Because they would have the necessary means to struggle with A. But why would they do it ? You don't go at war likely with such big corporations... Plus, most of the time, all the administrators of worldwide corporations are a small crowd, and if some people from company C belongs to ExCo of company D, you'll have people of D in C ExCo, etc.
This is what makes this sphere of the world very biased, and free market hypothesis, where all actors strive for their own long term wealth / wellness maximization cannot apply.
I hope that one day it will, cause that's the day where mankind will grow out of its fucking shitbox, but I don't see this happening any time soon.
Anyway, these are my opinions, I am not saying that I'm the holder of truth or anything, that's just how I see things based on what I saw and read and thought about in my life... And yeah, I'm quite pessimistic on men.... :)
I don't have a lot of time to do better research for you, but your scenario C has already happened. It has also been killed multiple times by government intervention. Here is an article on T Boone Pickens energy plan getting shot down by bailouts. It actually does a horrible job explaining the plan and how it all got fucked up (beyond some unreasonable expectations of T Boone ). I'm not saying that I support this plan or anything. However it is an example of your last example happening in real life. He had a lot of press and support for a while. But his effort has been slowed down A LOT by the failing economy.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/100806/how_t._boone_pickens'_energy_plan_just_got_killed/?page=2 (http://www.alternet.org/environment/100806/how_t._boone_pickens'_energy_plan_just_got_killed/?page=2)
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ (http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/)
You asked why someone would go to war with the oil industry to start a business like this? It's called an untapped Market. Same reason Steve Jobs went to war with IBM. Consumers want clean and renewable energy, but no one is offering it to them ( very readily anyways ) So if someone could create a business that offers efficient solar, wind, geothermic, wave, or tidal energy to consumers as an economic, and efficient energy alternative to fossil fuels, they would probably be bigger than Exxon very quickly. Someone just has to have the vision and balls to do it. And of course it helps when government doesn't get in the way and shoot them down.
Yeah, I totally agree with what Trey said, but there's a few more aspects to the whole problem. Because the global economy is so shitty, and more specifically in the US we have a shitty economy coupled with a government that is sucking up every last bit of credit it can get its hands on, the amount of private investment out there is extremely crippled. When you add to that the fact that the government has taken up the responsibility of subsidizing the industries that it considers most "green," the disincentives mount like crazy because they are both taking resources away from voluntary or private efforts to fix these problems and taking up the cause of investing for us, displacing the private efforts that might be viable. And because of the fact that it's the government investing, the money is invested for a political return, rather than an economic return. 99.99% of the time, they're not trying to create viable industries, they're trying to buy votes, no matter what party you're referring to. So even if they had the discretion to invest wherever they wanted, there's no way they're going to invest in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, working on shit in their garage. They're going to invest where the unions are strongest and where they have the most potential for buying votes. Obama's stimulus is an excellent empirical example, and I could provide you with plenty of links to stories of where that money's gone.
There is also the technology and physics factor. There is literally nothing available with the kind of energy density of fossil fuels at the moment. So your argument to me sounds kind of like saying that the free market doesn't work because people haven't invested enough for us to have a battery that can power an iPhone for more than 12 hours. Say this situation was just as important as our fossil fuel situation. Judging by the massive increase in technology in the last few years, would you then say that nobody would ever invest the resources to make a better battery? Or would you just trust that one day the technology would be there and it would be in Apple's best interests to use it? It's the same thing: no matter how many resources are diverted to wherever, things that aren't viable with current technology are not going to be until breakthroughs are made and the best way to spur breakthroughs is to allow for free markets, as well as letting people keep what they earn.
Also, you have to take into account the principle of regime uncertainty. Because everyone is scared by the violation of property rights and massive inflation, we are getting not only the lack of investment, but also this short-term mindset you are referring to. Because the governmental situation around the aggregate world is so uncertain, everybody is investing for short-term returns. This is not only a function of over-regulation, but is also a function of a lack of sound money and property rights. No one can soundly plan for the future, so they must get everything they can right now. I mean I can see how you would assume that behavior in our current market, but I think it's very clear that we couldn't be much further from a free market at the moment.
Oh and I also did want to point out that people and companies have invested in technology for cleaner cars, coal, etc. when they could have just either put out less or made engines smaller to conform to emissions standards.
what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.
This thread sucks.
Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.
But long story short. I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie. I kind of forgot what we are talking about. What does this have to do with the end of the world?
^LOL
Another reason that the thread sucks.
Quote from: Variable on Sep 10, 2010, 07:11 AM
Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.
But long story short. I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie. I kind of forgot what we are talking about. What does this have to do with the end of the world?
i think some countries that didn't go into recession are still not doing enough, but as nicholas stern has said before about the copenhagen summit - it was cold, chaotic, quarrelsome, and disappointing but not nothing. the disappointing outcome of the climate summit was largely down to "arrogance" on the part of rich countries.
i say this as an australian and my country didn't go into recession and we're not doing enough but it's not nothing. although now that the greens have power in the senate, it will be better and perhaps we can get some environmental action through. mexico's got the best climate change policy because of the finance ministry being involved. they're thinking very carefully in a constructive way about climate change.
Quote from: Variable on Sep 10, 2010, 07:11 AM
Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.
But long story short. I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie. I kind of forgot what we are talking about. What does this have to do with the end of the world?
Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit."
But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.
Quote from: blixa on Sep 09, 2010, 02:12 PM
what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.
"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."
No, no, no, no, no. Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise. I just love how they call it climate change these days. What a hoot these people are. Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?
Check it out:
"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/ (http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/)
Austria Retreat Papers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/37169187/Austria-Retreat-Papers#key23dfzttpy584ry8v33cl)
I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane. oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Aug 24, 2010, 12:00 AM
Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus). Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?" Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?
( Haha, I love you, man. Your replies are always the shit. )
I'm not saying that we have already used most of what earth has to give us, but the wound is pretty deep, and although the natural process must probably have its own responsibility, I'm convinced that the human being has a BIG part of responsibility in what is happening to the world. Call me idiot, but we do waste tons of energy for nothing.
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Sep 11, 2010, 11:19 PM
Quote from: Variable on Sep 10, 2010, 07:11 AM
Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.
But long story short. I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie. I kind of forgot what we are talking about. What does this have to do with the end of the world?
Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit."
But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.
Quote from: blixa on Sep 09, 2010, 02:12 PM
what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.
"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."
No, no, no, no, no. Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise. I just love how they call it climate change these days. What a hoot these people are. Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?
Check it out:
"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/ (http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/)
Austria Retreat Papers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/37169187/Austria-Retreat-Papers#key23dfzttpy584ry8v33cl)
I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane. oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).
no offence, but i don't appreciate you saying stuff like this. i have not been duped. i have been respectful towards you but you can't seem to express your opinion without using condescending names. this is the exact reason why there has never been a constructive debate on this subject between global warming deniers and scientists who believe that it is happening. whether you believe the likelihood of global warming or not, you will see that the risks are immense - we can't take away the risks, but we can reduce them drastically by the way we do things. we emit 47 million tonnes per annum. we should be cutting that to 35 then to 20. we have to cut emissions by 7 and a 1/2 over a 40 year period. we need creativity and technology to make this story good. the future is dependent on low carbon.
when you have the majority of scientists agreeing on something then it is likely that it is happening. you will obviously not have any other opinion because you've already adopted the denialist approach. i would rather take the option of doing something about global warming than taking a risk and doing nothing.
also climate change will redistribute wealth around the world, both within and between nations. if and when the transition to a low carbon economy occurs, countries which have been slow to move will find that their high carbon assets are stranded owing to shifts in the full cost of dirty production processes. it is not impossible, given the magnitude of the gains from 'winning' in critical low carbon technologies, that a competitive dynamic will develop where countries race to develop the leading low carbon technology. given the significance of coal to the business-as-usual growth path of the global economy, at present carbon capture and sequestration would appear to be one of these critical technologies.
reaching a new climate agreement is both urgent and important, and will be exceptionally challenging. a new global deal on climate is nevertheless possible and extremely necessary.
Quote from: blixa on Sep 12, 2010, 03:08 PM
Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Sep 11, 2010, 11:19 PM
Quote from: Variable on Sep 10, 2010, 07:11 AM
Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.
But long story short. I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie. I kind of forgot what we are talking about. What does this have to do with the end of the world?
Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit."
But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.
Quote from: blixa on Sep 09, 2010, 02:12 PM
what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.
"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."
No, no, no, no, no. Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise. I just love how they call it climate change these days. What a hoot these people are. Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?
Check it out:
"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/ (http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/)
Austria Retreat Papers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/37169187/Austria-Retreat-Papers#key23dfzttpy584ry8v33cl)
I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane. oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).
no offence, but i don't appreciate you saying stuff like this. i have not been duped. i have been respectful towards you but you can't seem to express your opinion without using condescending names. this is the exact reason why there has never been a constructive debate on this subject between global warming deniers and scientists who believe that it is happening. whether you believe the likelihood of global warming or not, you will see that the risks are immense - we can't take away the risks, but we can reduce them drastically by the way we do things. we emit 47 million tonnes per annum. we should be cutting that to 35 then to 20. we have to cut emissions by 7 and a 1/2 over a 40 year period. we need creativity and technology to make this story good. the future is dependent on low carbon.
when you have the majority of scientists agreeing on something then it is likely that it is happening. you will obviously not have any other opinion because you've already adopted the denialist approach. i would rather take the option of doing something about global warming than taking a risk and doing nothing.
Quote from: blixa on Sep 12, 2010, 03:22 PM
also climate change will redistribute wealth around the world, both within and between nations. if and when the transition to a low carbon economy occurs, countries which have been slow to move will find that their high carbon assets are stranded owing to shifts in the full cost of dirty production processes. it is not impossible, given the magnitude of the gains from 'winning' in critical low carbon technologies, that a competitive dynamic will develop where countries race to develop the leading low carbon technology. given the significance of coal to the business-as-usual growth path of the global economy, at present carbon capture and sequestration would appear to be one of these critical technologies.
reaching a new climate agreement is both urgent and important, and will be exceptionally challenging. a new global deal on climate is nevertheless possible and extremely necessary.
Sorry I took so long to respond to this, but this really got my goat, so to speak and I wanted to approach it again with a cooler head. But I make no promises.
My first beef is that what you are talking about with halving our carbon output in the name of "not taking a risk" on something that #1 you know deep down that you cannot prove and #2 you (or anybody else) truly cannot predict its effect on the world and whether or not it will be bad for humanity is not just a matter of biking to work a couple times a week or turning off the shower when you wash your hair or even switching to solar panels or wind turbines. It is literally global impoverishment and a death sentence for people around the world. Everything we do requires energy, a society arising from poverty requires energy, and everything we use to produce energy (besides nuclear) produces CO2, even wind turbines and solar panels have fossil-fuel backups for their lull-times, not to mention the fact that their production requires CO2 emissions. In addition to economic freedom, what leads a society to prosperity is cheap, abundant energy, which comes in the form of fossil fuels at the moment. So what you're talking about doing is dismantling modern-day prosperity. If that's not what you're talking about, then enlighten me as to what exists that can replace fossil fuels, then tell me that the technology exists to implement them, and where you can drum up the resources to invest in them when you CAN'T USE ANY OF THE ENERGY SOURCES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DEVELOP THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
My second beef is that you people are completely willing to violate international, national, and personal sovereignty in the name of something that #1 you know deep down that you cannot prove and #2 you (or anybody else) truly cannot predict its effect on the world and whether or not it will be bad for humanity. You are willing to tell somebody that even if they disagree with you, even if maybe, just maybe there isn't calamity around the corner, that leadership around the world should be able to do away with his ability to prosper, his ability to pay for something whose market price was established on a voluntary basis, which was calculated based on private property (as much as is allowed by the global governance, anyway), and his ability to save his money, therefore providing the capital to invest in something that might even be more environmentally friendly? That is what is truly disgusting to me, that this movement has finally found a scare tactic that can inflict socialism on every single person who consumes energy. They can now take away the rights to private property because that while previously, air pollution did have geographic limits on its effects, CO2 pollution "affects every last one of us." As a Libertarian, that scares the living fuck out of me, and it is my belief that it should do the same to any other straight-thinking person. I also find it just plumb disgusting that you don't see anything wrong with government-mandated redistribution of wealth, no matter the cause in whose name it is done. That is stealing, theft. Period. There is no other way to define it, and in my opinion it is one of the most immoral attitudes that one can have and attribute much of the problems in the world (especially in later 20th/21st century America) to that attitude.
My last beef is that you just do not understand economics, but feel the need to decree these things that have dire economic consequences. How is the rationing of energy going to lead to better technology? It makes literally no sense because, while we are investing in new technologies all of the time, we still have to support ourselves. So taking away more and more of the economic pie means that people are going to take hits in their standard of living and ability to save at the same time. So the savings that may have been available to invest in these new technologies are now used to pay for higher electric bills or greater taxes. Look, things have already become so much more environmentally friendly over the course of the last 150 years. The principle is this: people don't want to live in a dirty place, but feeding themselves and their families will come before that any day of the week. That's why the least environmentally friendly nations are the poorest ones. You need wealth as a society to be able to afford to invest in more environmentally friendly technologies. That is rule numero uno. And with the world on the precipice of another financial calamity far greater than that of 2008 because of the "compassionate" spending policies of your Liberal counterparts, there is absolutely no way that we will be able to afford to invest in these technologies, even without the extreme emissions limits.
I watched that video with Stephen Schneider, and I didn't really hear anything new that I haven't heard. Did you read any of that book I gave to you? Horner goes into far greater detail with citations and all that jazz, much more deeply than I could in a post.
This link still works
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PF9ZSQCZ (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PF9ZSQCZ)
Also, here's my favorite talk show host (who is extremely logical and eloquent and who really, really knows his stuff) talking about this topic, if you'd prefer audio to reading.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_1st%20Hr%20Global%20Warming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_1st%20Hr%20Global%20Warming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM)
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_2nd%20Hr%20More%20News.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_2nd%20Hr%20More%20News.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM)
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr1_GlobalWarmingHoax.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr1_GlobalWarmingHoax.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM)
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr2_GlobalWarming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr2_GlobalWarming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM)