POST STUFF
|
 by Myndflame, Level 35
Last updated at February 27, 2009, 9:10 am
|
|
Way to kill the planet you selfish ********.
And to end this travesty of unnecessary consumption, I recommend we tackle it Obama style by imposing new regulations and taxes on the gaming industry. Good old uncle sam can come in and tax the crap out of all the excessive energy wasting PC components and then use that money to save polar bears and fund research for enviro-friendly alternatives. In addition, a tax credit would be available for gamers who purchased components from a list of manufactures who make significant contributations to the political parties who legislate them. Of course this would have to be offset by taxing gamers who's PCs consumed 500 or more watts.
To ensure compliance, a new multi-billion dollar organization, the "IGRS" or Internal Gaming Regulation Service would be created to send agents to your home and install devices that monitor your gaming activity and consumption. Think of all the jobs that will be created!
Of course all this would be temporary. As soon as we've saved the planet these regulations would be dropped (projected to happen in a few centuries), although this may cause some issues as the budget surpluses from the new taxes and regulations would eventually be allocated to bailout state and local government programs who provide programs for low income gamers to trade in their carbon emitting PCs to be recycled into heating devices to prepare for the recently exposed but scientifically proven ice age of the 23rd century.
CONTACT YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN!
Report Post
76 comments
Subparbdf Feb 27, 2009 at 9:16 am
+5 votes
Shut the **** up ****** - go hang yourself so we don't have to.
3 replies to Subparbdf (hide)
3 replies to Subparbdf (show)
Permalink
Quote
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 9:31 am
+5 votes
That's just the kind of attitude I'd expect from you rich eco-terrorist types.
touchmytotem60 Feb 27, 2009 at 10:56 am
-1 votes
Subparbdf said
Shut the **** up ****** - go hang yourself so we don't have to.
Catscratch Feb 28, 2009 at 11:53 am
+1 votes
yes, because i can upvote myself. it was obviously YOU who just downvoted me.
windrunner Feb 28, 2009 at 11:57 am
+1 votes
i meant it was you who downvoted me and no i didnt downvote you or upvote me
Slappywag Feb 27, 2009 at 9:50 am
+1 votes
1250 watt power supply, haven't turned this baby off in a year.
Lesane Feb 27, 2009 at 10:04 am
+0 votes
I wouldn't mind it if a ton of other products that are bad for wildlife or the planet in general would get a similar treatment.
Slapnuts Feb 27, 2009 at 10:07 am
+2 votes
nice troll!
Irony at its finest Mr. "I use my PCs resources to create machinima".
:D You will be on the front lines of this war!
Irony at its finest Mr. "I use my PCs resources to create machinima".
:D You will be on the front lines of this war!
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
+4 votes
I consider it the equivalent to Al Gore riding around in a jet because you see, I'm using my PC skills to spread environmental hysteria, therefore it's entirely acceptable as collateral damage.
Bromsius Feb 27, 2009 at 10:35 am
+2 votes
Damn right! Video gaming is a vile, immoral industry which attempts to indoctrinate our young people with left-wing values. This Great Satan needs to be taxed to the hilt so we can provide more tax breaks for CEOs, create more jobs in industries which help to pollute our planet even more and end science classes in American schools which propogate lies such as evolution and climate change!
Klynx Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 am
-3 votes
Bromsius said
Damn right! Video gaming is a vile, immoral industry which attempts to indoctrinate our young people with left-wing values. This Great Satan needs to be taxed to the hilt so we can provide more tax breaks for CEOs, create more jobs in industries which help to pollute our planet even more and end science classes in American schools which propogate lies such as evolution and climate change!
2) you are 18 or 19. just sit back and soak in reality for a few years and then you'll have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general.
Bromsius Feb 27, 2009 at 12:09 pm
+4 votes
Klynx said
1) humans barely impact the planet. you've been told they do by eco groups since their formation but we really don't impact it as a whole at all. species come and go, sure, but volcanos "pollute" as much as we do globally whenever they erupt (underwater or otherwise).
2) you are 18 or 19. just sit back and soak in reality for a few years and then you'll have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general.
2) you are 18 or 19. just sit back and soak in reality for a few years and then you'll have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general.
2) I've been soaking in reality for a long time now and I've come to the following conclusions:
a) Soaking is better complemented with Avon's bubble-realism to help soothe my right-wing prejudices
b) Dermatologists say that Avon's bubble-realism helps to relax your skin and muscles. Since they're scientists, they're also obviously part of this left-wing, gaming conspiracy. The calm sensation I get from bubble-realism is really a gift from God to patriotic, SUV-driving Republicans.
c) Thanks to soaking in reality I now have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general and realise that being 2-3 years older than somebody else automatically makes my opinion more valid and educated than theirs.
Klynx Feb 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm
-1 votes
Bromsius said
1) Absolutely. It's quite clear to anyone with half a brain that rising sea levels, close-to-extinct species and the smog alerts in LA (which have been there for thousands of years) is a massive conspiracy on behalf of left-wing, video gamers to take money away from hard-working American families.
2) I've been soaking in reality for a long time now and I've come to the following conclusions:
a) Soaking is better complemented with Avon's bubble-realism to help soothe my right-wing prejudices
b) Dermatologists say that Avon's bubble-realism helps to relax your skin and muscles. Since they're scientists, they're also obviously part of this left-wing, gaming conspiracy. The calm sensation I get from bubble-realism is really a gift from God to patriotic, SUV-driving Republicans.
c) Thanks to soaking in reality I now have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general and realise that being 2-3 years older than somebody else automatically makes my opinion more valid and educated than theirs.
2) I've been soaking in reality for a long time now and I've come to the following conclusions:
a) Soaking is better complemented with Avon's bubble-realism to help soothe my right-wing prejudices
b) Dermatologists say that Avon's bubble-realism helps to relax your skin and muscles. Since they're scientists, they're also obviously part of this left-wing, gaming conspiracy. The calm sensation I get from bubble-realism is really a gift from God to patriotic, SUV-driving Republicans.
c) Thanks to soaking in reality I now have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general and realise that being 2-3 years older than somebody else automatically makes my opinion more valid and educated than theirs.
oradol Feb 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm
+2 votes
humans barely impact the planet. you've been told they do by eco groups since their formation but we really don't impact it as a whole at all. species come and go, sure, but volcanos "pollute" as much as we do globally whenever they erupt (underwater or otherwise).
65 million years ago a comet/meteor/whatever struck the earth and wiped out most of the life on it. This was a naturally occuring phenomenon, it doesn't mean that the effects of our replicating it would be any less catastrophic. This is the mistake you make along with many others who share your belief; that because something occurs naturally, it's fine.
Of course anyone with half a brain knows to dismiss this as stupidity.
I'm not even sold on all the global warming ****, because it's impossible for us to determine with utter certainty that climate change is our fault. What's even more stupid is rebelling against the idea of cleaning up our planet. It seems these days like most people who oppose global warming initiatives do so because it's the right wing thing to do, rarely can they ever provide a rational explanation for not doing it. I'm not even talking about initiatives that cost a lot of money.
65 million years ago a comet/meteor/whatever struck the earth and wiped out most of the life on it. This was a naturally occuring phenomenon, it doesn't mean that the effects of our replicating it would be any less catastrophic. This is the mistake you make along with many others who share your belief; that because something occurs naturally, it's fine.
Of course anyone with half a brain knows to dismiss this as stupidity.
I'm not even sold on all the global warming ****, because it's impossible for us to determine with utter certainty that climate change is our fault. What's even more stupid is rebelling against the idea of cleaning up our planet. It seems these days like most people who oppose global warming initiatives do so because it's the right wing thing to do, rarely can they ever provide a rational explanation for not doing it. I'm not even talking about initiatives that cost a lot of money.
Klynx Feb 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm
+1 votes
oradol said
humans barely impact the planet. you've been told they do by eco groups since their formation but we really don't impact it as a whole at all. species come and go, sure, but volcanos "pollute" as much as we do globally whenever they erupt (underwater or otherwise).
65 million years ago a comet/meteor/whatever struck the earth and wiped out most of the life on it. This was a naturally occuring phenomenon, it doesn't mean that the effects of our replicating it would be any less catastrophic. This is the mistake you make along with many others who share your belief; that because something occurs naturally, it's fine.
Of course anyone with half a brain knows to dismiss this as stupidity.
I'm not even sold on all the global warming ****, because it's impossible for us to determine with utter certainty that climate change is our fault. What's even more stupid is rebelling against the idea of cleaning up our planet. It seems these days like most people who oppose global warming initiatives do so because it's the right wing thing to do, rarely can they ever provide a rational explanation for not doing it. I'm not even talking about initiatives that cost a lot of money.
65 million years ago a comet/meteor/whatever struck the earth and wiped out most of the life on it. This was a naturally occuring phenomenon, it doesn't mean that the effects of our replicating it would be any less catastrophic. This is the mistake you make along with many others who share your belief; that because something occurs naturally, it's fine.
Of course anyone with half a brain knows to dismiss this as stupidity.
I'm not even sold on all the global warming ****, because it's impossible for us to determine with utter certainty that climate change is our fault. What's even more stupid is rebelling against the idea of cleaning up our planet. It seems these days like most people who oppose global warming initiatives do so because it's the right wing thing to do, rarely can they ever provide a rational explanation for not doing it. I'm not even talking about initiatives that cost a lot of money.
oradol Feb 27, 2009 at 3:41 pm
+1 votes
I don't see how there isn't reason to react as is. Do you suggest waiting until we have 100% confirmation that we're responsible for climate change? That would be folly, since given the nature of it we'll probably never know, and if we do know it will likely be too late.
We are destroying the planet, slowly but surely, the only question is whether or not we have already begun feeling the effects. Our ability to react isn't what makes us superior. Our ability to be proactive is what sets us apart, and rationally interpret the consequences of our actions when making decisions.
We are destroying the planet, slowly but surely, the only question is whether or not we have already begun feeling the effects. Our ability to react isn't what makes us superior. Our ability to be proactive is what sets us apart, and rationally interpret the consequences of our actions when making decisions.
Vir Feb 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm
+0 votes
oradol said
I don't see how there isn't reason to react as is. Do you suggest waiting until we have 100% confirmation that we're responsible for climate change? That would be folly, since given the nature of it we'll probably never know, and if we do know it will likely be too late.
We are destroying the planet, slowly but surely, the only question is whether or not we have already begun feeling the effects. Our ability to react isn't what makes us superior. Our ability to be proactive is what sets us apart, and rationally interpret the consequences of our actions when making decisions.
We are destroying the planet, slowly but surely, the only question is whether or not we have already begun feeling the effects. Our ability to react isn't what makes us superior. Our ability to be proactive is what sets us apart, and rationally interpret the consequences of our actions when making decisions.
What is "CLIMATE CHANGE" other than a marketing scam for a political position? First it was global cooling, then it was global warming. Now it's "Climate Change". C'mon Oradol, don't you know political propaganda when you see it?
So yes, we should figure out exactly how we're terraforming (Venusforming? Marsforming?) the earth before radically changing our lifestyle in a way that would reduce the living standards of millions of people.
That would be folly, since given the nature of it we'll probably never know,
So you're admitting the leftists don't know? What exactly are you using for the basis of your argument if you don't know?
and if we do know it will likely be too late.
So what you're saying is, we need to fight "climate change" because it might be out there, even though it's impossible to tell, because if we could tell, it would be too late.
Compare that to the following statement:
We need to pray, because god might be out there. Even though it's impossible to tell, by the time we could tell, we would be dead so it would be too late to pray.
Your argument is based on faith, not reason.
We are destroying the planet
There is no proof we are destroying the planet.
If we were significantly changing our own planet at any kind of rapid pace it WOULD BECOME obvious.
Erz Feb 27, 2009 at 5:03 pm
+1 votes
Your comparison of believing in climate change with believing in prayer
is interesting in a different way than you perhaps intended. Someone
might not believe in Christianity but that doesn't mean there's no
reason to accept the useful teachings of Christ and likewise just
because they dislike the eco-warriors it shouldn't mean that they
disagrees with the idea of reducing reliance on unrenewable energy
resources (especially when most of them are controlled by foreign
powers).
There are good reasons beyond a belief in climate change to sign up to
some of the climate change supporters' ideas and the American right's
continual support of high energy expenditure seems to be cutting off
it's liberal nose to spite its conservative face.
is interesting in a different way than you perhaps intended. Someone
might not believe in Christianity but that doesn't mean there's no
reason to accept the useful teachings of Christ and likewise just
because they dislike the eco-warriors it shouldn't mean that they
disagrees with the idea of reducing reliance on unrenewable energy
resources (especially when most of them are controlled by foreign
powers).
There are good reasons beyond a belief in climate change to sign up to
some of the climate change supporters' ideas and the American right's
continual support of high energy expenditure seems to be cutting off
it's liberal nose to spite its conservative face.
Vir Feb 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm
+1 votes
likewise justbecause they dislike the eco-warriors it shouldn't mean that they
disagrees with the idea of reducing reliance on unrenewable energy
resources (especially when most of them are controlled by foreign
powers).
The US gets most of it's oil from Canada. In addition to that, OPEC uses the US dollar for oil transactions. This makes the US dollar desirable to other countries as a reserve currency. In many ways, the current arrangement favors the US which in my view is a good thing.
I have nothing against renewable energy resources, or 'clean' energy. People can build as many windmills, electric cars, solar powered houses, etc as they want for all I care.
I do have a problem with the government TELLING people what they can and can not use, modifying their behavior via taxation, or spending endless tax dollars on fairy tale solutions to a non-existent (or misstated) problem.
disagrees with the idea of reducing reliance on unrenewable energy
resources (especially when most of them are controlled by foreign
powers).
The US gets most of it's oil from Canada. In addition to that, OPEC uses the US dollar for oil transactions. This makes the US dollar desirable to other countries as a reserve currency. In many ways, the current arrangement favors the US which in my view is a good thing.
I have nothing against renewable energy resources, or 'clean' energy. People can build as many windmills, electric cars, solar powered houses, etc as they want for all I care.
I do have a problem with the government TELLING people what they can and can not use, modifying their behavior via taxation, or spending endless tax dollars on fairy tale solutions to a non-existent (or misstated) problem.
oradol Feb 27, 2009 at 6:03 pm
+1 votes
The US doesn't get most of it's oil from Canada. Just more than from any other country. Something like 15% I think.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 9:42 pm
+1 votes
Dude just look at what they did in California. I watched a great program on PBS about California's "green" energy investment experiment just the other day. The **** flat out didn't work and now their economy is in complete ruins. Solar, wind, and all that other **** simply isn't economically sound yet. Let that **** happen naturally. Not through government meddling through regulations and taxes like you said. That mother****** Obama and the democrats are gonna ruin our ******* economy.
The only time I support alternative energy is when it's the best solution like you said or to stop sending cash to the Middle East and South America. Other than that we should stick to coal, nuclear, and whatever else is affordable and clean enough for all practical purposes. As long as it isn't poisoning our lungs and turning our creeks and rivers into cesspools then we should keep using it. **** all this retarded "CO2 is the worst polutant" crap. You're breathing CO2 right now dumbasses. Global warming is bull****.
The only time I support alternative energy is when it's the best solution like you said or to stop sending cash to the Middle East and South America. Other than that we should stick to coal, nuclear, and whatever else is affordable and clean enough for all practical purposes. As long as it isn't poisoning our lungs and turning our creeks and rivers into cesspools then we should keep using it. **** all this retarded "CO2 is the worst polutant" crap. You're breathing CO2 right now dumbasses. Global warming is bull****.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 9:47 pm
+1 votes
We also have like the 2nd biggest coal reserve in the world. We're like the Saudi Arabia of coal. It would be retarded not to use it. Turning our back on coal is national suicide. It's a trojan horse issue for people that hate America. We should be working on ways to make it cleaner. Not banning it all together. We already are by the way. We have some of the best technological inovation in the world. Don't stifle it due to global warming bull****.
oradol Feb 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm
+3 votes
What is "CLIMATE CHANGE" other than a marketing scam for a political position? First it was global cooling, then it was global warming. Now it's "Climate Change". C'mon Oradol, don't you know political propaganda when you see it?
So yes, we should figure out exactly how we're terraforming (Venusforming? Marsforming?) the earth before radically changing our lifestyle in a way that would reduce the living standards of millions of people.
The climate always changes. It changes naturally. We don't know if it's changing for the worse or not.
So you're admitting the leftists don't know? What exactly are you using for the basis of your argument if you don't know?
I don't think they know at all. I think they make a lot of assumptions. The fact is that we don't know all the reasons for natural climate change, so how do we know if we're causing it or the earth is?
So what you're saying is, we need to fight "climate change" because it might be out there, even though it's impossible to tell, because if we could tell, it would be too late.
Compare that to the following statement:
We need to pray, because god might be out there. Even though it's impossible to tell, by the time we could tell, we would be dead so it would be too late to pray.
I never said we need to fight climate change, I said we need to fight pollution. We are destroying the land of this planet by cutting down the trees, filling the oceans with garbage, and filling the air and lakes with toxins. Burning gasoline might produce CO2, but producing that gasoline produced some much more toxic chemicals.
It's rational to assume that pollution will harm the earth, just not to make the statements that global warming supporters tend to make. I don't see why we can't be environmentally conscious on the basis of pollution = bad, rather than on the premise of global warming/climate change/whatever the **** they want to call it.
A more accurate comparison is accepting that murder is bad. Christians believe it because they think it's a command from God, I believe it because it just makes sense.
So yes, we should figure out exactly how we're terraforming (Venusforming? Marsforming?) the earth before radically changing our lifestyle in a way that would reduce the living standards of millions of people.
The climate always changes. It changes naturally. We don't know if it's changing for the worse or not.
So you're admitting the leftists don't know? What exactly are you using for the basis of your argument if you don't know?
I don't think they know at all. I think they make a lot of assumptions. The fact is that we don't know all the reasons for natural climate change, so how do we know if we're causing it or the earth is?
So what you're saying is, we need to fight "climate change" because it might be out there, even though it's impossible to tell, because if we could tell, it would be too late.
Compare that to the following statement:
We need to pray, because god might be out there. Even though it's impossible to tell, by the time we could tell, we would be dead so it would be too late to pray.
I never said we need to fight climate change, I said we need to fight pollution. We are destroying the land of this planet by cutting down the trees, filling the oceans with garbage, and filling the air and lakes with toxins. Burning gasoline might produce CO2, but producing that gasoline produced some much more toxic chemicals.
It's rational to assume that pollution will harm the earth, just not to make the statements that global warming supporters tend to make. I don't see why we can't be environmentally conscious on the basis of pollution = bad, rather than on the premise of global warming/climate change/whatever the **** they want to call it.
A more accurate comparison is accepting that murder is bad. Christians believe it because they think it's a command from God, I believe it because it just makes sense.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm
+1 votes
There's more trees now than there were a 100 years ago. Stop listening to that environmentalist crap. But I agree that stopping real pollution is good. But all this focus on CO2 is bull****.
oradol Feb 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm
+1 votes
I post "think tank" there because the only damning evidence coming from anybody is coming from right wing think tanks ("its a natural phenomenon, they're *******") and left wing think tanks ("in 180 days the earth with explode if you keep your lights on at night"). The other experts, mostly working at universities abroad (the American profs tend to lean left), seem to say "yeah, it's probably happening. most likely". And that's all they'll give you, some a little more convincingly.
Vir Feb 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm
+1 votes
oradol said
I post "think tank" there because the only damning evidence coming from anybody is coming from right wing think tanks ("its a natural phenomenon, they're *******") and left wing think tanks ("in 180 days the earth with explode if you keep your lights on at night"). The other experts, mostly working at universities abroad (the American profs tend to lean left), seem to say "yeah, it's probably happening. most likely". And that's all they'll give you, some a little more convincingly.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 4:03 pm
+1 votes
Just because you're an ignorant prick doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Last time I checked people reject federal regulations on CO2 emissions because it would destroy our economy and because it won't even stop CO2 emissions from rising. Not to mention the effects of global warming on the environment and to humans has been insanely exaggerated. CO2 isn't "dirty". So banning it won't clean up the environment you ******* moron.
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm
+1 votes
I like being green, to the extent I can afford anyway. It's not in the name of global warming err, climate change... whatever they're calling it these days. When I was in school it was taught as fact that there was this giant hole in the ozone layer and we were all gonna die. Plus there was that whole evolution thing.. which, they have yet to discover a single fragment of evidence to support that theory (and don't go trying to call adaptation evolution). For all we know, the earth may only 5 or 6 thousand years old. After all, we have no documentation to prove otherwise, and for those that have studied carbon dating, you know that its accuracy is entirely objectionable.
My point being, live long enough or spend enough time studying history and you'll figure out that radical ideas will always be... well, radical. So take them with a grain of salt.
My point being, live long enough or spend enough time studying history and you'll figure out that radical ideas will always be... well, radical. So take them with a grain of salt.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 pm
-1 votes
I don't agree with you about evolution and the age of the Earth. But you're right about global warming being bull****.
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 5:52 pm
+1 votes
To me it makes sense that the earth is old and the stars are ancient. But my point is that we just don't really know, and sometimes no matter how logical it seems, it's still just a hypothesis. We use the best data we have at the time but likely new data will be presented that will change ideas from one generation to the next.
For that reason it makes sense to not take anything too seriously - like say, global warming. But taking care of the planet and conserving natural resources, well, people shouldn't need thousands of years of evidence to know that it's probably a good idea.
For that reason it makes sense to not take anything too seriously - like say, global warming. But taking care of the planet and conserving natural resources, well, people shouldn't need thousands of years of evidence to know that it's probably a good idea.
McNasty Feb 28, 2009 at 12:34 am
+0 votes
Myndflame said
I like being green, to the extent I can afford anyway. It's not in the name of global warming err, climate change... whatever they're calling it these days. When I was in school it was taught as fact that there was this giant hole in the ozone layer and we were all gonna die. Plus there was that whole evolution thing.. which, they have yet to discover a single fragment of evidence to support that theory (and don't go trying to call adaptation evolution). For all we know, the earth may only 5 or 6 thousand years old. After all, we have no documentation to prove otherwise, and for those that have studied carbon dating, you know that its accuracy is entirely objectionable.
My point being, live long enough or spend enough time studying history and you'll figure out that radical ideas will always be... well, radical. So take them with a grain of salt.
My point being, live long enough or spend enough time studying history and you'll figure out that radical ideas will always be... well, radical. So take them with a grain of salt.
The primary mechanics of theory of evolution is decent with modification, with adaptation for changing enviornments. If your decendents can't adapt to the changing enviornment then you go extinct. Examing the fossil record you will find the theory generally holds true. The problem is that there is a huge missing link between humans and their closest descendant, chimps.
Rioter Feb 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
+0 votes
Klynx said
1) humans barely impact the planet. you've been told they do by eco groups since their formation but we really don't impact it as a whole at all. species come and go, sure, but volcanos "pollute" as much as we do globally whenever they erupt (underwater or otherwise).
2) you are 18 or 19. just sit back and soak in reality for a few years and then you'll have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general.
2) you are 18 or 19. just sit back and soak in reality for a few years and then you'll have a better-formed opinion on the planet in general.
We certainly don't hollow out mountains in Nevada for nuclear waste containment for ****s and giggles.
Also studies linking certain grades of plastics to hormone interference resulting in birth defects and declining sperm counts doesn't really have anything to do with wildfires, earthquakes, or volcanoes.
Further to dismiss concerns about other species as "species come and go" seems infantile. While the vast majority of extinctions are varieties of insects, and certainly some others are beyond the scope of human fault or intervention, others are pretty clearly quantifiable as a result of humans.
Klynx Feb 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm
+1 votes
Rioter said
I think you define "pollution" oddly Klynx. While volcanoes and such do contribute in terms of carbon, dioxins, and even heavy metals, that hardly seems to encompass the entirety of what people produce.
We certainly don't hollow out mountains in Nevada for nuclear waste containment for ****s and giggles.
Also studies linking certain grades of plastics to hormone interference resulting in birth defects and declining sperm counts doesn't really have anything to do with wildfires, earthquakes, or volcanoes.
Further to dismiss concerns about other species as "species come and go" seems infantile. While the vast majority of extinctions are varieties of insects, and certainly some others are beyond the scope of human fault or intervention, others are pretty clearly quantifiable as a result of humans.
We certainly don't hollow out mountains in Nevada for nuclear waste containment for ****s and giggles.
Also studies linking certain grades of plastics to hormone interference resulting in birth defects and declining sperm counts doesn't really have anything to do with wildfires, earthquakes, or volcanoes.
Further to dismiss concerns about other species as "species come and go" seems infantile. While the vast majority of extinctions are varieties of insects, and certainly some others are beyond the scope of human fault or intervention, others are pretty clearly quantifiable as a result of humans.
Rioter Feb 27, 2009 at 4:43 pm
-1 votes
I'm not talking about species that would naturally die out, which I think you know. (Though that begs the question of what "naturally" would include. Does human waste that destroys a reef habitat count as natural? Does the shark fin industry count as natural?)
Klynx Feb 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm
+1 votes
Rioter said
I'm not talking about species that would naturally die out, which I think you know. (Though that begs the question of what "naturally" would include. Does human waste that destroys a reef habitat count as natural? Does the shark fin industry count as natural?)
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 4:50 pm
+3 votes
But trying to preserve them all gives activists a reason to live, and we all love activists with their signs, picketing and complete objection to any rational idea that might complicate their ideals.
Bromsius Feb 27, 2009 at 4:54 pm
-2 votes
Klynx said
Humans are natural. We all came from the same primordial ooze. The fabricated need to preserve every species on the planet is ridiculous and has been propagated since elementary school for a few generations now.
Anyway I guess such questions are too big for someone born in 1985. I'd better go and soak in reality with my bubble-realism!
Myndflame Feb 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm
+1 votes
You can't believe in creation and still be part of the "in" crowd. Now you're only allowed to believe radical ideas if they're man made.
Rioter Feb 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm
+0 votes
Sure, it is in essence natural if we damaged the ecosystem or the processes of our own biology to the point that we as a species went extinct as well, even if we did it under completely industrial means. But my use of the word natural was under the assumption we both agree that humans have an element of meta relation to environment because we relate and process decisions about it far differently than other animals.
When someone says, "I need to get away to some nature" they certainly don't mean Mexico City, even though it's "natural". It seems like you're being obtuse, but maybe not.
When someone says, "I need to get away to some nature" they certainly don't mean Mexico City, even though it's "natural". It seems like you're being obtuse, but maybe not.
greenmachine Feb 27, 2009 at 5:46 pm
+1 votes
A lot of that coral reef **** is bull****. They're dying off for other reasons other than human polution.
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...