FACT: sea levels are rising at 3 mm/yr. currently. If I lived in an island nation, I'd be scared as hell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Sea_level_rise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Sea_level_rise
Less than a foot of sea-level rise would decimate the Netherlands and its dike system. Island nations would require even less to be almost completely underwater.
If greenhouse gas releases just STOPPED today, the rises would continue for a number of years...it's not like pollution reduction is reflected directly in climate data.
- Feb 1, 2004
- 3,656
- 0
- 71
Phffft!...worrying about Global Warming is for wussies!...that's nothing compared to the Earth loosing it's magnetic field! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3359555.stm
We are doomed one way or the other...might as well enjoy what we have,
Everyone buy a SUV, Truck, or other V8/V10/V12 powered vehicle!
We are doomed one way or the other...might as well enjoy what we have,
Everyone buy a SUV, Truck, or other V8/V10/V12 powered vehicle!
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Wait...so the dutch might have to move in LESS than three hundred years? :shocked:
Come on. It's not like they are incapable of making their dikes...I don't know...TALLER?
How many people live on islands that small that they'll be decimated?
If we simply stop progress, man's problems wont be solved. We need to keep moving forward. People like to yell "oh, no, this next problem might be too big for man to solve" -- past history indicates that we have survived every problem we've encountered thus far.
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations? How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
)? They'd all be affected negatively by sea level rise.
AMCRambler
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2001
- 7,715
- 31
- 91
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: jumpr
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Increasing efficiency doesn't bring any real gains in standard of living in the long term. We can only get so much before we can't realistically 'gain' any more from efficiency. We have to increase our output of energy. "Green" power sources (i.e. non fossil / nuclear) can not ever come close (even in theory, assuming you want some free space not covered by solar panels / wind farms) to satisfying our current demands, nevermind growing.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations?
Not really, the environment can and will be fine. There have been single volcano eruptions which have done more damage than we have
How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
IMHO, a city, with people is more beautiful than any jungle, sure, it's nice to preserve areas for people to enjoy, but we are talking about a vast tract of land, as well as keeping all the people in the world poorer than they would otherwise be for something that some (most, but not all) people find beautiful. We are talking about ending man's continual struggle to improve himself in order to protect a thing that some people seem to worship without justification
Remember, the point of any policy should be to improve the life that mankind leads, not to protect some idyllic wilderness.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,590
- 986
- 126
Yeah, get rid of California...the 5th largest economy in the entire world. Yeah, that's no great loss...:roll:
Fixed.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Increasing efficiency doesn't bring any real gains in standard of living in the long term. We can only get so much before we can't realistically 'gain' any more from efficiency. We have to increase our output of energy. "Green" power sources (i.e. non fossil / nuclear) can not ever come close (even in theory, assuming you want some free space not covered by solar panels / wind farms) to satisfying our current demands, nevermind growing.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations?
Not really, the environment can and will be fine. There have been single volcano eruptions which have done more damage than we have
How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
IMHO, a city, with people is more beautiful than any jungle, sure, it's nice to preserve areas for people to enjoy, but we are talking about a vast tract of land, as well as keeping all the people in the world poorer than they would otherwise be for something that some (most, but not all) people find beautiful. We are talking about ending man's continual struggle to improve himself in order to protect a thing that some people seem to worship without justification
Remember, the point of any policy should be to improve the life that mankind leads by protecting open space and wilderness for civilians to enjoy.
So being dependent on the Saudis forever is a good thing? The country that sired most of the 9/11 hijackers? Ummm...
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: jumpr
Fixed.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Increasing efficiency doesn't bring any real gains in standard of living in the long term. We can only get so much before we can't realistically 'gain' any more from efficiency. We have to increase our output of energy. "Green" power sources (i.e. non fossil / nuclear) can not ever come close (even in theory, assuming you want some free space not covered by solar panels / wind farms) to satisfying our current demands, nevermind growing.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations?
Not really, the environment can and will be fine. There have been single volcano eruptions which have done more damage than we have
How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
IMHO, a city, with people is more beautiful than any jungle, sure, it's nice to preserve areas for people to enjoy, but we are talking about a vast tract of land, as well as keeping all the people in the world poorer than they would otherwise be for something that some (most, but not all) people find beautiful. We are talking about ending man's continual struggle to improve himself in order to protect a thing that some people seem to worship without justification
Remember, the point of any policy should be to improve the life that mankind leads by protecting open space and wilderness for civilians to enjoy.
See? Thank you for proving my point. It's a religion.
What you're failing to acknowledge is that we must preserve our environment if we have any hope of improving the life that mankind leads as a whole.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
Fixed.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Increasing efficiency doesn't bring any real gains in standard of living in the long term. We can only get so much before we can't realistically 'gain' any more from efficiency. We have to increase our output of energy. "Green" power sources (i.e. non fossil / nuclear) can not ever come close (even in theory, assuming you want some free space not covered by solar panels / wind farms) to satisfying our current demands, nevermind growing.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations?
Not really, the environment can and will be fine. There have been single volcano eruptions which have done more damage than we have
How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
IMHO, a city, with people is more beautiful than any jungle, sure, it's nice to preserve areas for people to enjoy, but we are talking about a vast tract of land, as well as keeping all the people in the world poorer than they would otherwise be for something that some (most, but not all) people find beautiful. We are talking about ending man's continual struggle to improve himself in order to protect a thing that some people seem to worship without justification
Remember, the point of any policy should be to improve the life that mankind leads by protecting open space and wilderness for civilians to enjoy.
See? Thank you for proving my point. It's a religion.
We can only toss the garbage out of our houses and into our back yards for so long before it comes flooding back inside.
When you realize that all that we see around us has sprung up in 100 years or less.. well, it doesen't take a rocket scientist to realize that there has to be an end.
And the "enviro-weenies" simply don't want it to be OUR end. There's another way; it involves living symbiotically with our environment, just as nature intended.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: Eli
What you're failing to acknowledge is that we must preserve our environment if we have any hope of improving the life that mankind leads as a whole.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
Fixed.Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: jumpr
The key is SMART growth...in housing, technology, etc. This country has the smartest people on earth working in its infrastructure arena; we should be able to increase efficiency without increasing pollution.
Increasing efficiency doesn't bring any real gains in standard of living in the long term. We can only get so much before we can't realistically 'gain' any more from efficiency. We have to increase our output of energy. "Green" power sources (i.e. non fossil / nuclear) can not ever come close (even in theory, assuming you want some free space not covered by solar panels / wind farms) to satisfying our current demands, nevermind growing.
Moving forward is great...but we need to be smart about it.
Do you care about the valuable ecosystems in Caribbean nations?
Not really, the environment can and will be fine. There have been single volcano eruptions which have done more damage than we have
How about the beautiful jungles of Indonesia and BURMA (which you bought
IMHO, a city, with people is more beautiful than any jungle, sure, it's nice to preserve areas for people to enjoy, but we are talking about a vast tract of land, as well as keeping all the people in the world poorer than they would otherwise be for something that some (most, but not all) people find beautiful. We are talking about ending man's continual struggle to improve himself in order to protect a thing that some people seem to worship without justification
Remember, the point of any policy should be to improve the life that mankind leads by protecting open space and wilderness for civilians to enjoy.
See? Thank you for proving my point. It's a religion.
Because that's a baseless claim. The environment is not some objective 'good' it's simply a thing that surrounds man. If we can lead better lives by removing species and simplifying the equation, why shouldn't we? Because people worship the envirnment in the same way that the religious right worships god.
We can only toss the garbage out of our houses and into our back yards for so long before it comes flooding back inside.
What? We are in no danger of 'having our carbage flooding back'. If we continue to progress, we'll have no problem getting rid of our 'trash' -- stopping progress in order to stop the trash only guarantees that we will continue to produce it.
- Feb 1, 2004
- 3,656
- 0
- 71
- Feb 1, 2004
- 3,656
- 0
- 71
[/quote]What in the flip? It's a baseless claim? What? How do you figure?
Saying that the very thing that created us is necessary for our survival is a baseless claim?
I don't think you get it, obviously. Ok, let's wipe out a few species. Fine. Where does it stop though? By killing off those few species, you have now caused a few more species to go extinct.. which causes a few more.. The snowball is getting pretty large now, isn't it?
That isn't really even the point, though. We're not talking about a few individual species, we're talking about the Earth's ecosystem as a whole.
We cannot completely destroy it. If even a fraction of the systems at work in our natural world collapsed, or changed drastically, we would be in for a world of hurt.
We're in no danger of having our garbage flood back into our homes? Really? Where do you think it goes? It certainly doesen't leave the planet. It already does flood back into our homes, depending on which kind of pollution you're talking about.
Nobody is saying anything about ceasing to progress. Many would argue that preserving the environment while at the same time improving the life of mankind would be real progress.
Remember, your goal is to improve the life of mankind. Don't you think we need the environment to do so?
Our life has not improved if we have to live in a wasteland of a planet, wouldn't you agree?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter