• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will God Forgive Us for What We are Doing to the World?

S

sharkeeper

Lifer
Oh well, controversial BUT!

It gets the thinking gears going...

Doing 21 knots, the consumption is 94.1 gallons per mile. Think about that the next time you bitch about an H2. Of course an H2 is not moving 70 kilotonnes...

800,000 US gallons of fuel is sufficient for 14 days at full speed. That's kind of scary. If the ship ran on nuclear power, a charge would be good for 4 years+. Oh that will probably never happen.

I don't have the comparision(s) in front of me of what the resources 2100 people would consume driving in cars, staying at hotels, etc. It just seems overwhelming when you see it all at once.

I don't even want to get into the discussion of things dumped into the ocean either. The water qualities around where (these ships frequent) does seem to be suffering. (COC 1989-present)

Methinks it's time to drink my ass off!
 
WW3 will destroy the earth before any of that sh!t does, just give it 2 more years at this rate
Click to expand...

Wrong. Mankind has no power that can flat out destroy the planet.

We can make it a rather hostile place to live though.
 
God may forgive us...but the planet will not...

I kinda have a had time getting too worried about this stuff though, because i will be dead long before we really start to see many problems, or the world will likely end before then...
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
WW3 will destroy the earth before any of that sh!t does, just give it 2 more years at this rate
Click to expand...

Wrong. Mankind has no power that can flat out destroy the planet.

We can make it a rather hostile place to live though.
Click to expand...


Destroy the planet itself? No.

Destroy humanity & nearly everthing living? Yes.
 
I'm as concerned about the environment as the next guy, but a large asteroid impact or volcanic event can do more damage in a single day than we've managed to in the past few thousand years, and the Earth has managed to recover from those just fine. We're pretty much inconsequential on the geologic time scale.
 
I'm as concerned about the environment as the next guy, but a large asteroid impact or volcanic event can do more damage in a single day than we've managed to in the past few thousand years, and the Earth has managed to recover from those just fine. We're pretty much inconsequential on the geologic time scale.
Click to expand...

The frequency that these natural events occur is rather low.

I've seen a tremendous decrease in the quality around the Chesapeake Bay in the past 30 years. In the 1970's the water was actually blue-green. Now it's the colour of poop all the time and frequently smells like it too. Granted it's a small body of water compared to the Oceans but still. The influx of nutrients is hardly natural and a lot of it comes from people wanting a greener lawn, for example.
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
WW3 will destroy the earth before any of that sh!t does, just give it 2 more years at this rate
Click to expand...
Wrong. Mankind has no power that can flat out destroy the planet.

We can make it a rather hostile place to live though.
Click to expand...
Uh...multiple neutron(sp) bombs after continued pollution will pretty much make for a dead planet. If you don't think it's alive, then just kill the overhwelming majority of life on its surface and in its oceans.
 
Uh...multiple neutron(sp) bombs after continued pollution will pretty much make for a dead planet. If you don't think it's alive, then just kill the overhwelming majority of life on its surface and in its oceans.
Click to expand...

It will still exist and life will return. Sudden death at the extinction level is better for the entire planet than a slow death of accumulating waste.
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I'm as concerned about the environment as the next guy, but a large asteroid impact or volcanic event can do more damage in a single day than we've managed to in the past few thousand years, and the Earth has managed to recover from those just fine. We're pretty much inconsequential on the geologic time scale.
Click to expand...

The frequency that these natural events occur is rather low.

I've seen a tremendous decrease in the quality around the Chesapeake Bay in the past 30 years. In the 1970's the water was actually blue-green. Now it's the colour of poop all the time and frequently smells like it too. Granted it's a small body of water compared to the Oceans but still. The influx of nutrients is hardly natural and a lot of it comes from people wanting a greener lawn, for example.
Click to expand...
True, but it's really just a matter of perspective I think. I have no doubt that we're doing damage in the short term, but in the long term (say thousands or millions of years) the planet will eventually recover.
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
WW3 will destroy the earth before any of that sh!t does, just give it 2 more years at this rate
Click to expand...

Wrong. Mankind has no power that can flat out destroy the planet.

We can make it a rather hostile place to live though.
Click to expand...


I really hope you're smarter than that..
 
I think we should get all the sh!t in the planet, put it into a rocket, and launch it towards the sun!

It would include some people too 😉
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Uh...multiple neutron(sp) bombs after continued pollution will pretty much make for a dead planet. If you don't think it's alive, then just kill the overhwelming majority of life on its surface and in its oceans.
Click to expand...
It will still exist and life will return. Sudden death at the extinction level is better for the entire planet than a slow death of accumulating waste.
Click to expand...
That assumes that the circumstances for life to exist remain.
Given that we don't really know what they are--we basically only know what they aren't based on other planets--there's no certainty one way or the other.
 
I really hope you're smarter than that..
Click to expand...

Anyone that has a 6th grade education can come to the conclusion.

Perhaps the definition of destroy should be outlined.

Do some research on how many TND's are available and their deployment methods.

A technology does not exist that can destroy the planet, period. Think about it.

I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that WWIII will be automatic MAD and the planet will be destroyed.

Sending (waste - particularly nuclear waste) to space presumably at the sun has merits. It would never be accepted as one awry launch would spell disaster. Designing a launch system that cannot fail is akin to controlling the weather. In order to control the weather, you have to be able to forecast it with 100% accuracy. Yeah like that will ever happen!
 
isn`t the issue about people rather than the planet?
what`s the planet good for if there are no people?
 
isn`t the issue about people rather than the planet?
what`s the planet good for if there are no people?
Click to expand...

The planet can and will exist without people. People cannot exist without a habitat. There are so many great things around people take for granted.

Building habitable life on another planet or a station that can sustain life like Earth does is so far out it isn't funny. People have needs and take them for granted. Problem is they seem to forget this until they are gone.
 
well,for millions of years people struggled with nature and now we just can`t learn to care fast enough.
hopefully fusion will come along this first half of this century and will solve many problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top