The future of our planet
- Thread starter AlainK
- Start date
americanelmer
Shohin
No it doesn't, it requires freedom of speech. When people are infected with the hubris that makes them think that their prescriptions must be followed by every one else and when someone (me I suppose) points out their hubris they can't handle being called out on it. So what happens they ridicule the person or persons who call them out and celebrate the cutoff of the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.
I have never said or written that others should kowtow to my ideas and opinions. I have only pointed out (sometimes very forcefully) that what are saying is just ignorant group think. They on the other hand seem to have the idea that theirs is the only way to think. As an American I reject their hubris. I don't care whether they agree with me or not. You can cure your ignorance but you can't cure your stupidity.
A_E
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
Not sure about the syntax, but as I'm not a native speaker, I assume that this is an articulate, profound statement.
Wow! I'm impressed, so true.
Though I'm afraid that some can't even be cured of their ignorance. That's where the cookie crumbles...
americanelmer
Shohin
"... that what are saying is just ignorant group think."
Sorry I left out the word 'They' -- good catch. And yes it is a profound statement glad you agree,
Wow! I'm impressed, so true.
[QUOTE="AlainK,
Though I'm afraid that some can't even be cured of their ignorance. That's where the cookie crumbles...[/QUOTE]
No the cookie doesn't crumble, if it applies to some it needn't apply to all. Are you one of those who it applies to? If not congratulations! There is hope for you yet.
A_E
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
This is the thing that pisses me off so much about the climate Gestapo, you guys seem to diminish any discussion about the validity of your argument by making the above claims that if we don't believe what you say we are nothing more than money grubbing scum bags who want to destroy the planet just for money. On the other hand when we offer the alternative to what we consider your money grubbing Socialistic political BS we see you putting on banners and marching into our back yards we are shouted down and accused of wanting to destroy the planet.
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
You've won!
You score the (first) Godwin point.
$$$$$$$$$ : what is, you, american bigots, the core of your philosophy. (when I say "you", I mean american people like you, not all us citizens like some fascists would like you to believe - by the way, check their profile to see how much they've contributed to 'bonsai', it will give you a very good appreciation of the kind of people they are)
Let's close this thread that was about the concerns about the future of our planet, an attempt to reflect on how we, human beings are intelligent enough to secure a future for our kids, not about "stupid americans" (they are not all stupid as many post showed, but some are aggressive, paranoid and xenophobic)
I give up, I'm throwing the towel. You are great again, OK.
I'll stick with the rest of the tiny world around your big... self.
morb
Sapling
just have to read this thread to see what the future holds for our planet
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
Holy socks how do you discuss this when you are being called up front a Stupid American bigot, fascist, aggressive, paranoid and xenophobic? There is no room to find a common ground in this kind of discussion. I'm not throwing in the towel because the discussion is too important.
americanelmer
Shohin
AlainK proves my points over and over and over again. He is a euro-weenie and can't overcome his ignorance. There is no hope for him, his sky is falling.
A_E
A_E
americanelmer
Shohin
americanelmer
Shohin
AlainK:"by the way, check their profile to see how much they've contributed to 'bonsai', it will give you a very good appreciation of the kind of people they are)"
You may marginally say that about me but you are clueless if you are saying that about Vance Wood.
Not only that, this is a thread that You your very own self started. The twit meter on you goes to 12 (eleven doesn't cover it).
A_E
You may marginally say that about me but you are clueless if you are saying that about Vance Wood.
Not only that, this is a thread that You your very own self started. The twit meter on you goes to 12 (eleven doesn't cover it).
A_E
morb
Sapling
inevitably totally destroyed when our sun burns out. are we the cause of global warming? i don't think so. are we contributing to it? definitely. is all the bickering, cussing and fighting going to be mankind's downfall? absolutely.
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
I have said it before that climate change is part of our geological history. If indeed we are responsible for global warming then how do we go about turning that around? Shut down all human activity? Start culling the herd?
americanelmer
Shohin
When exactly or even approximately do you envision the Sun is going to "burn out"?
Which bickering, cussing and fighting are you referring to?
I requested an answer with 'No Platitudes'. You just gave me two.
Still waiting.
A_E
sparklemotion
Shohin
No, we can't shut down all human activity. And no one proposes "culling the herd." Voluntarily reducing fertility rates: Sure. Enacting 1-child policies: No.
I've provided a number of options in this post: https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/the-future-of-our-planet.30379/page-10#post-510033\
In addition, the article that was linked in the very first post here has a bunch of suggestions, including:
- a) prioritizing the enactment of connected well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant proportion of the world's terrestrial, marine, freshwater, and aerial habitats;
- (b) maintaining nature's ecosystem services by halting the conversion of forests, grasslands, and other native habitats;
- (c) restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes;
- (d) rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to restore ecological processes and dynamics;
- (e) developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to remedy defaunation, the poaching crisis, and the exploitation and trade of threatened species;
- (f) reducing food waste through education and better infrastructure;
- (g) promoting dietary shifts towards mostly plant-based foods;
- (h) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking;
- (i) increasing outdoor nature education for children, as well as the overall engagement of society in the appreciation of nature;
- (j) divesting of monetary investments and purchases to encourage positive environmental change;
- (k) devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels;
- (l) revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices, taxation, and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment; and
- (m) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.
As to this point: yes, the climate always changes. I'm not going to fact check these numbers, but some quick googling tells me that the Earth has existed for about 4.6 billion years, but it's only been habitable for humans for around 440 million of that (about 10%) time. When people talk about conservation, or "saving the earth" or "preserving the planet" or any of that stuff. They are talking about keeping the planet habitable for humans, which in many ways, involves keeping it habitable for our current suite of species. When people talk about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change being a problem, they are talking about the climate becoming uninhabitable for human beings.
I have continued to read (and post in) this thread despite my better interests because I choose to believe that it is possible to have a good faith discussion about this very important topic. Stuff like "climate Gestapo," or references to "Socialist political BS" do not seem compatible with that. In the interest of elevating the discussion beyond that point, I've needed to read between the lines quite a bit here and ignore the inflammatory/irrelevant/diversionary stuff. If I cut out what I see as bad faith from the passage above, what stands out to me are these two statements:
"we don't believe what you say"
I'm not asking you to believe what *I* say. But I'd like for you to believe what people who have devoted their lives to studying climate science say, or provide evidence to the contrary. Instead what I've seen is cherry picked individual datapoints (it was -100 that day!; this one part of florida was flooded before, but now it's dry!), or misinterpreted facts (yes, glaciers have always calved. But some of the recent calving events are worrisome because of the relative size, the time of year, and other factors which are likely to cause a situation in which the ice that melts isn't replaced by other water freezing).
"...accused of wanting to destroy the planet"
Again, let's get our terminology straight: everyone agrees that humans are unlikely to "destroy the planet." The vast majority of scientists agree that humans are likely going to "destroy the planet for humans." Every decision that we make in our lives comes with trade-offs. I believe that the trade-offs you choose, when viewed as a whole, are indicative of what you value. When I see people who are deeply committed to disregarding/disputing warnings about climate change, I conclude that those people value not having to change their way of life in any way to possibly prevent it. Which is not very many hops away from "wanting to destroy the planet for humans."
On the other hand, it appears that when you see people who try to warn about climate change, or enact policy changes to prevent it, you see "money grubbing Socialis[ts]." To me, this is illogical for at least two reasons.
First, the science is on my side (and how can we know what's true here, except through science?).
Secondly, the vast majority of people who want human activity to alter in order to avoid destroying the planet for humans would be better off economically if we kept the status quo. Polluting is always the cheaper and easier option. Let's use me as just one example: My investment portfolio is primarily in mutual funds, but I'm willing to bet that I've got more invested in fossil fuel-based companies than alternative energy technology. If my city didn't have a hazardous waste drop-off facility, I could pay lower property taxes and my pour used motor oil down the drain. Coal was the cheapest way to provide power in the US, until fracking came along, which makes natural gas a heck of a lot cheaper. If fracking (and other mining activities) can proceed with fewer regulations, my power bills will be lower.
I live in the northern Midwest of the United States. The fallout from global warming in my expected lifetime is actually likely to improve my quality of life quite a bit: longer growing seasons means more and cheaper locally grown food, warming temps means less $$ spent on heating, etc. Yeah, eventually coastal flooding will drive more people inland, and we'll have to deal with more refugees and the like here. But by the time those things happen, I'll be pretty close to dead. And yet I want us to do something to prevent that. How is that "money grubbing"?
Bolero
Omono
Tree Huggers, Liberals, Eco Kooks, and all wearing Rose colored glass's and Birkenstoxks
Bring the Donald Trump Thread back....Lets get back to Reality....
Bring the Donald Trump Thread back....Lets get back to Reality....
morb
Sapling
https://www.livescience.com/32879-what-happens-to-earth-when-sun-dies.html
as for the bickering, cussing and fighting, open your eyes and look around. if you live somewhere that this doesn't happen then you live in paradise and i envy you.
as far as the platitudes...whatever
M. Frary
Bonsai Godzilla
I agree.
Shut down the Bristol Bay one too.
Last edited:
ianb
Shohin
Good to see you giving a thoughtful substantive response to all the points brought up by sparklemotion.
americanelmer
Shohin
Good to see you giving a thoughtful substantive response to all the points brought up by sparklemotion.
All the points sparklemotion listed are just platitudes. Your call for closing the threads is just a typical response of Libtards when they can't win an argument based on their politically correct brain washing.
Bolero is just the opposite on calling for continued discussion no matter whose butt is hurt.
When I posted the phrase "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!" The usual loser suspects call for shutting down the kitchen instead of continuing the dialog. Typical.
A_E