• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Global warming revisited

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
It's been deemed sound science by the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists but perhaps YOU know better?

Perhaps you really don't, get it?
As mentioned above - For every scientist that says global warming is a catastrophe, there is another that disagree's... So like I said, its highly debatable. This is not what "I know", this is what the worlds scientists are debating... Nothing is proven.

Regardless, we need to get off oil and stop our nasty emissions. Not necesarily becasue of global warming, but for the other reasons I outlined. If the fear of global warming helps get it done, then good. I am all for it =)

In your dreams it might be 50-50, in reality it's 80-5-15 the 80 are those who are actually involved in the research, the 5 are those who have a phd in philosopy or astrology and don't believe it, the other 15 are non decided because they can't really give a definitive answer yet.

You really don't have the faintest clue how science works, do you?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,363
3,485
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
I understand your position, but it's wrong.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,131
54
91
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

In your dreams it might be 50-50, in reality it's 80-5-15 the 80 are those who are actually involved in the research, the 5 are those who have a phd in philosopy or astrology and don't believe it, the other 15 are non decided because they can't really give a definitive answer yet.

You really don't have the faintest clue how science works, do you?
Ironic how you ask him about having a clue how science works, when you just totally made up those percentages out of the blue.

Bottom line is, there is nowhere NEAR a consensus about MAN MADE global warming.

And the number of scientists who are lining up on the side of skepticism is growing, not shrinking.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
Then why give a damn about cancer? It only kills what, a few hundred thousand people a year?
That's not even close to 1% of the human population.
The species will survive just fine, so who cares, right?


And not all of humanity has modern technology. The vast majority lives in what we'd consider to be poverty. The baseline for being considered "poverty level" in the US is pretty damned good compared to what a lot of people have to live with.



Whether or not we are causing or contributing to these climate trends, whichever direction they go, is debatable. My take is, fine, the planet warms and cools by various natural trends. Maybe we're contributing by unlocking lots of ancient carbon dioxide. Maybe not.
But we do know:
1) Fossil fuels are in finite supply.
2) Fossil fuels release many other pollutants.
3) Obtaining fuels can be problematic due to locations of reserves within politically unstable regions.
4) The human population is increasing at an increasing rate.
5) If more of humanity wants to improve its standard of living, the per capita consumption of energy is going to increase.

Reducing fossil fuel reliance would be a step towards solving these other problems, and address the carbon folk at the same time.


 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

In your dreams it might be 50-50, in reality it's 80-5-15 the 80 are those who are actually involved in the research, the 5 are those who have a phd in philosopy or astrology and don't believe it, the other 15 are non decided because they can't really give a definitive answer yet.

You really don't have the faintest clue how science works, do you?
Ironic how you ask him about having a clue how science works, when you just totally made up those percentages out of the blue.

Bottom line is, there is nowhere NEAR a consensus about MAN MADE global warming.

And the number of scientists who are lining up on the side of skepticism is growing, not shrinking.
Christ... i give up, not ONE of you have ever read the report, have you?

Of course not, and *I* don't have a clue.

Fucking moronic twats, i don't know why i take the time to even try to discuss this with you indocrinated people.

No one even fucking mentioned MAN MADE Global warmeing before you did you twat, this entire thread is about how there is NO global warming you useless piece of shit.

Got it? Get that? GOOD, now fuck off!

I am leaving now, i've got things to see and people to do.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The Cake is a lie!

Global warming is just a scam to steal money from the government.

I see nothing wrong with making decisions that are good for the earth and the environment. However, there has to be some sort of choices that are better than others.

Talk about the environment is cheap. How come we dont have more hydro-electric Dams? The electric companies will tell you it is not cost effective. However, water is free and it does not cause pollution to monitor. Sure water levels sometimes fuctuate, but we are not using a resource which is carbon based. I think the savings in pollution is an added benefit that is worth it for our children.

We need to spend our money smart and do what is possible now. We can develop better technology in the future. Dont underestimate our ability to solve our own problems. Carbon Credits are not the way to the future. They are counter-productive and the only purpose they serve is to make politicians richer and electricity more expensive. In Germany they set up a system that makes long-term investment in solar power by guaranteeing a payback rate for people who invest in Solar Power. It was a good Idea and well worth it. Lets use our intelligence to make a better tomorrow not political posturing.
 

WaTaGuMp

Lifer
May 10, 2001
21,207
2,506
126
Since we will all be dead by the time something happens, the real question is where are we gonna post about it.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
It's been deemed sound science by the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists but perhaps YOU know better?

Perhaps you really don't, get it?
As mentioned above - For every scientist that says global warming is a catastrophe, there is another that disagree's... So like I said, its highly debatable. This is not what "I know", this is what the worlds scientists are debating... Nothing is proven.

Regardless, we need to get off oil and stop our nasty emissions. Not necesarily becasue of global warming, but for the other reasons I outlined. If the fear of global warming helps get it done, then good. I am all for it =)

In your dreams it might be 50-50, in reality it's 80-5-15 the 80 are those who are actually involved in the research, the 5 are those who have a phd in philosopy or astrology and don't believe it, the other 15 are non decided because they can't really give a definitive answer yet.

You really don't have the faintest clue how science works, do you?
Actually, I have been interested and involved,and paying attention for a long time... and you are pulling that 80-5-15 # out of thin air... Like I said - nothing is PROVEN. Since you seem to think you know alot about the science, try and recall what a proven theory is. Right now, we have alot of hypothesis, and not proof.

I am still baffled why you sit here and argue with me over minor points. We both seem to agree we need to cut down on fossil fuel emissions. I think so because of economic, political, and environmental reasons (that are not global warming). You think global warming is a major issue, I think its largely overhyped.

You then act like I am some sort of an idiot because I say there is no real proof- yet you provide zero proof, other that pulling an 80-5-15 # out of your ass. Yes, one of us has no clue about science, its you.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: sandorski

I understand your position, but it's wrong.
How so? you cant possibly prove global warming is real. The world best scientists cant, so what makes you so sure I am wrong?

I think we can all agree that we need to get off oil because of environmental, political and economic reasons correct? Does it really matter what order they go in?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty

Actually, I have been interested and involved,and paying attention for a long time... and you are pulling that 80-5-15 # out of thin air... Like I said - nothing is PROVEN. Since you seem to think you know alot about the science, try and recall what a proven theory is. Right now, we have alot of hypothesis, and not proof.

I am still baffled why you sit here and argue with me over minor points. We both seem to agree we need to cut down on fossil fuel emissions. I think so because of economic, political, and environmental reasons (that are not global warming). You think global warming is a major issue, I think its largely overhyped.

You then act like I am some sort of an idiot because I say there is no real proof- yet you provide zero proof, other that pulling an 80-5-15 # out of your ass. Yes, one of us has no clue about science, its you.


No, you have no idea about what science even IS, if you did you would know that there are no absolutes like proven in science.

There are evidence that points into one direction and that is it, now, 80-5-15 is the current status.

You ARE and idiot because you claim there are no real proof, of fucking course there are no proof, if there were it wouldn't be science, the EVIDENCE points to one thing and that is what all these 80-5-15 is all about.

Please don't adress this old soldier who never studied any science at all and didn't even finish high school before you figure the basics out.

OK? Thank you and goodbye.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski

I understand your position, but it's wrong.
How so? you cant possibly prove global warming is real. The world best scientists cant, so what makes you so sure I am wrong?

I think we can all agree that we need to get off oil because of environmental, political and economic reasons correct? Does it really matter what order they go in?
In science, you don't provide positive proof, you provide evidence and as it accumulates you reach a testable conslusion, if the tests agree with your conclusion it agrees with reality as known until other data either adds to it or changes it, either way, the theory grows stronger.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
That's like saying evolution is not proven.

Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's not fact.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
That's like saying evolution is not proven.

Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's not fact.
Exactly, evolution isn't proven and neither is GW but we have evidence that it is real and no evicence points to any other explanation.

Now, Gravity, Evolution and GW are facts, the theories are just the explanations of HOW it happens.

THAT it happens is an established fact.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,843
93
91
Originally posted by: JS80
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
Fossil record shows that there were no mass die-offs during previous geomagnetic shifts. It's been specifically looked at. Unlike other major catastrophic events that can be documented in geological layers, the orientation of metallic particles in rocks and the sea floor that conveniently recorded those shifts like a planetary tape recorder tells us that geomagnetic shifts did not cause mass die offs.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,090
3,628
126
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: JS80
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
Fossil record shows that there were no mass die-offs during previous geomagnetic shifts. It's been specifically looked at. Unlike other major catastrophic events that can be documented in geological layers, the orientation of metallic particles in rocks and the sea floor that conveniently recorded those shifts like a planetary tape recorder tells us that geomagnetic shifts did not cause mass die offs.
It would this time, if it would cause all of our electronics to fail.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
For every "expert," there is an equal but opposite "expert"

You might get a better understanding of the problem if you get off your pre-conceived biases and start with just a few of facts.

1. Expanding human population and production of greenhouse gasses and waste material per human being have both expanded greatly in the last century.

2. The quantity and the very nature of waste materials being produced, today, including plastics and other previously non-existent materials, is also growing. At least some of the long term effects of some of these newer materials is unknown simply because they haven't been around long enough to know how they will behave.

3. There is no question or doubt that the chemical balance of our atmosphere and our rivers, lakes and oceans has been altered by this increased production.

4. There is no question or doubt that at least some of the known chemical components are harmful to human beings and our society.

The LEAST likely assumption regarding the possilbity that this change in the balance of components is that they will have no effect. The dumbest, most pig headed, stupid response to these facts is to do nothing and wish that the problem would go away.

The smartest, most enlightened response to this increased pollution is to use our intelligence and creativity to reduce the causes of such pollution. If we do, the worst that could happen is that global warming and other effects believed to be caused by increased pollution are not as grave as the worst case scenario, and we end up saving a ton of money due to increased efficiencies in transportation and anything else that uses energy to operate.

I can live with that. :thumbsup:

OTOH, the worst that could happen if we keep our heads in our asses and ignore it is a catastrophy for which we're not prepared and, even if we COULD HAVE dealt with it had we been smart enough to try. :shocked:
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,090
3,628
126
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,363
3,485
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
Nice summation of the Denial Industry.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,310
4,006
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
Nice summation of the Denial Industry.
Are you trying to tell me that all the hoopla about DDT and the American Eagle eggs wasn't anything more than a smoke screen put up by folk who love mosquitoes?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
Nice summation of the Denial Industry.
Are you trying to tell me that all the hoopla about DDT and the American Eagle eggs wasn't anything more than a smoke screen put up by folk who love mosquitoes?
This is the only American Eagle you need concern yourself with.

 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
I could have used some inconvenient truth over the weekend. Visited Atlanta over the weekend and it rained the whole time with temps 15-20 degrees cooler than average. Al Gore failed me. :(
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
What, the Iraq war?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY