Originally posted by marshallnoise
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming is over.
Collapse
X
-
Marshall isnt wrong about lower classes caring much less about the environment, but its not because they consciously don't care about it as he implies.
Poor people are apathetic to the problems their actions create because they cant afford to avoid those problems.
Cheap products are not good for the environment, packaged in un-recyclable materials, are usually produced in mass, are usually heavily processed, and are cheaply constructed leading to short life cycles which means the product ends up in a landfill sooner than it should.
This is what the corporations want. They want you to think nothing is really happening and you personally cant do anything. While they hand more money off to politicians and keep pumping out more pollutants than all the individuals on the planet will for generations. You have been tricked into thinking the Economy needs to constantly grow, that it needs to be unhindered to achieve balance, that rules are unhelpful and cause chaos. When in reality it is the opposite.
Lead was in fuel until scientists pointed out it was going to kill people.
Cigarettes were the worlds favorite drug ingestion method until people learned their life span could be as short as 50 years old due to carcinogens, when scientists revealed it.
Asbestos was a great affordable insulator until it was discovered by scientists that it will cause lung cancer and kill you if you breath it in.
The fact that you are so blind as to trust corporations whose only interests are pure profit, at the expense of individuals and the environment but are skeptical of most things scientists say about climate is disturbing.1989 BMW 325is | 2019 Ford Ranger FX4willschnitz
Comment
-
Originally posted by E30 Wagen View PostSo you agree man is responsible for climate change? Also, "political operative," lol, you sound ridiculous. I don't see why a scientist, along with engineers and economists, who advises politicians on actions to prevent damage to the environment disqualifies them or is unethical. Sharing knowledge with the public is usually part of their job...
No. I didn't say that. What I did say is that is the crux of the debate.
Never heard of political operatives? Goebbels? Dewey?
I agree that scientists, engineers and economists should advise the public. But I don't always believe them, nor should you. More over, I wish the state of Louisiana and specifically New Orleans listened to the Army Core of Engineers more when they kept telling the state/city that the levees weren't sufficient. Oh wait, politics got in the way.
Agreed, but do you have an example we can actually discuss or is this all just hypothetical?
Google: Green New Deal. Google: France's Yellow Vest Movement
Not sure if you will click...but...its all laid out there for you.
I don't really know what your point here is. You admit we can (and we have) destroyed the environment in some cases, but ultimately our impacts are harmless and nature is invincible? I don't even know where to begin with this. And really, nature is consciously trying to kill me? You sound like a paranoid idiot.
Clearly you don't get my point. No, we haven't "destroyed" the environment. We have caused damage that recovers and usually, very quickly, indicating nature is far more resilient than you give it credit for. Hell, you can blow the top off a mountain and it would take one more massive earthquake to push it back up.
I may sound like a paranoid idiot to you, but spending 15 minutes outside of your, (supposition here) urban bubble, would greet you with how a grizzly bear, charging moose, charging elk, freezing cold, extreme heat (both happen without man's help, think Alaska), wolves, buffalo, might kill you. It certainly doesn't care about you, even a little. More over, it will probably something stupid that kills you like a disease carrying mosquito.[/QUOTE]
Being poor is an excuse to litter and not care about living in your own shit, got it.
You lack all appreciation for what the modern world has done for you. Mankind has overcome amazing obstacles of nature for you to sit here and type this on a computer or cell phone.
It would do you well to stop being an ungrateful, petulant child and begin to think about what life was like for all of our ancestors. You should be appreciative that we have roads, electricity, running water (potable no less), a means to translate your labor into money to purchase housing, food (from anywhere btw).
You seem to lack ANY imagination about what people actually lived like not that long ago. Let me tell you something; IT WASN'T BETTER. Now is the best its ever been. And it didn't get that way by praying to mother gaia. It got that way by man taking control of the environment around him and making it a reasonably hospitable place to be. And all of our efforts still can't prevent you from getting cancer, a malignant tumor, or a million other things THAT WILL KILL YOU.
You seem to think that I don't see the big picture at all, but it is you my friend who misses the context of history. I have never said to do nothing; but to do something carefully and extremely well thought out that will benefit ALL mankind, not just the elites who want to take environmentalist policy and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the "have nots" with and create a legitimate underclass.Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostErring on the side of the non-expert columnists being correct over the scientists is about as far from bright as you can get.
I never said that. Understanding and actually thinking about the fact that humans carry bias, regardless of their field of expertise IS bright. You should try it sometime!Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wschnitz View PostMarshall isnt wrong about lower classes caring much less about the environment, but its not because they consciously don't care about it as he implies.
Poor people are apathetic to the problems their actions create because they cant afford to avoid those problems.
Cheap products are not good for the environment, packaged in un-recyclable materials, are usually produced in mass, are usually heavily processed, and are cheaply constructed leading to short life cycles which means the product ends up in a landfill sooner than it should.
This is what the corporations want. They want you to think nothing is really happening and you personally cant do anything. While they hand more money off to politicians and keep pumping out more pollutants than all the individuals on the planet will for generations. You have been tricked into thinking the Economy needs to constantly grow, that it needs to be unhindered to achieve balance, that rules are unhelpful and cause chaos. When in reality it is the opposite.
Corporations want to make money. The way they do that is by finding niche markets to sell their goods. This meets the consumer's needs and employs tremendous amounts of people. Corporations aren't nothing; they are people running them and being employed by them. Stop pretending that if corporations went away that all of the world's problems would disappear.
Lead was in fuel until scientists pointed out it was going to kill people.
The same folks who are banning lead bullets "because lead gonna kill people!!!" think that lead in bullets leeches out into water supplies. Science has shown that bullets do not leech much beyond a couple feet. Might even be inches. NOT THE SAME. Yet, legislatures get a hold of that and make uninformed, retarded decisions like banning lead bullets from hunting. You know what happened? Tons of wild game got shot with ineffective bullets and they suffered needlessly.[/QUOTE]
Cigarettes were the worlds favorite drug ingestion method until people learned their life span could be as short as 50 years old due to carcinogens, when scientists revealed it.
Last I checked, Doctors were considered experts, right? They endorsed cigarettes for a good while, didn't they? Doh!
Asbestos was a great affordable insulator until it was discovered by scientists that it will cause lung cancer and kill you if you breath it in.
The fact that you are so blind as to trust corporations whose only interests are pure profit, at the expense of individuals and the environment but are skeptical of most things scientists say about climate is disturbing.Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by marshallnoise View PostI agree that scientists, engineers and economists should advise the public. But I don't always believe them, nor should you. More over, I wish the state of Louisiana and specifically New Orleans listened to the Army Core of Engineers more when they kept telling the state/city that the levees weren't sufficient. Oh wait, politics got in the way.
Google: Green New Deal. Google: France's Yellow Vest Movement
Not sure if you will click...but...its all laid out there for you.
Clearly you don't get my point. No, we haven't "destroyed" the environment. We have caused damage that recovers and usually, very quickly, indicating nature is far more resilient than you give it credit for. Hell, you can blow the top off a mountain and it would take one more massive earthquake to push it back up.
I may sound like a paranoid idiot to you, but spending 15 minutes outside of your, (supposition here) urban bubble, would greet you with how a grizzly bear, charging moose, charging elk, freezing cold, extreme heat (both happen without man's help, think Alaska), wolves, buffalo, might kill you. It certainly doesn't care about you, even a little. More over, it will probably something stupid that kills you like a disease carrying mosquito.
You lack all appreciation for what the modern world has done for you. Mankind has overcome amazing obstacles of nature for you to sit here and type this on a computer or cell phone.
It would do you well to stop being an ungrateful, petulant child and begin to think about what life was like for all of our ancestors. You should be appreciative that we have roads, electricity, running water (potable no less), a means to translate your labor into money to purchase housing, food (from anywhere btw).
You seem to lack ANY imagination about what people actually lived like not that long ago. Let me tell you something; IT WASN'T BETTER. Now is the best its ever been. And it didn't get that way by praying to mother gaia. It got that way by man taking control of the environment around him and making it a reasonably hospitable place to be. And all of our efforts still can't prevent you from getting cancer, a malignant tumor, or a million other things THAT WILL KILL YOU.
You seem to think that I don't see the big picture at all, but it is you my friend who misses the context of history. I have never said to do nothing; but to do something carefully and extremely well thought out that will benefit ALL mankind, not just the elites who want to take environmentalist policy and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the "have nots" with and create a legitimate underclass.
And if you're going to characterize me as an ungrateful, petulant, urban-dwelling child who misses the "context of history," well, blow me. Sorry if you thought I was being condescending or implying you're an idiot, but seriously, get fucked anyway. Your arguments are terrible. I'm very aware of what life was like for our ancestors and the ingenuity [edit: AND SCIENCE] required to get where we are today. My dad's ancestors were dirt poor. I didn't grow up poor but I definitely wasn't rich. I know what long, hot days framing a house feels like and what 12 hour days working in a boiling factory feels like. But so what, what's your fucking point? How do the toils of my ancestors impact how we approach environmental policy now? Are you suggesting we revert our mentality back 100 years because that's what got us here in the first place? Just keep doing things the same for another 100 years? Are you really going to start going on about some environmentalist conspiracy about keeping people poor? I am so sick of hearing that ignorant blue collar mentality about [insert conspiracy] or the gubment or whatever keeping them in their place.
God I could go on but I don't think there's any getting through to you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E30 Wagen View PostRespect for authority figures, specifically from academic sectors, seems to be your main issue. If you can't accept the work that these people do and the rigors of the scientific process then it's pointless to discuss anything further with you. Sure, there can be biases and corruption, and on some level it's up to you to determine the validity of studies, perhaps like it is for a patient to make sure he's getting the best medical opinion. But when it comes to true hardcore academic research it's the best we've got at understanding natural phenomena.
No dispute here, I'm just not plugged in to everything going on.
I get your point. It's just weird how you characterize nature as an adversary or something. It's not. It's just our habitat, our one and only, and I definitely respect the influence it has over us. However, I also respect the influence we have over it. Obviously nature restores itself in a way, but it seems naive to think that the domino effect of deforestation, the loss of wetlands, urban sprawl, the unprecedented release of co2 and particulates into the atmosphere, and the loss of entire ecosystems, will bounce back regardless of our constantly expanding civilizations.
Regarding the bolded section above: Ok...what is the alternative? Genocide? Fratricide? You seem to value nature more than fellow man. What are the limits at which you would stop interceding for nature?
And if you're going to characterize me as an ungrateful, petulant, urban-dwelling child who misses the "context of history," well, blow me. Sorry if you thought I was being condescending or implying you're an idiot, but seriously, get fucked anyway. Your arguments are terrible. I'm very aware of what life was like for our ancestors and the ingenuity [edit: AND SCIENCE] required to get where we are today. My dad's ancestors were dirt poor. I didn't grow up poor but I definitely wasn't rich. I know what long, hot days framing a house feels like and what 12 hour days working in a boiling factory feels like. But so what, what's your fucking point? How do the toils of my ancestors impact how we approach environmental policy now? Are you suggesting we revert our mentality back 100 years because that's what got us here in the first place? Just keep doing things the same for another 100 years? Are you really going to start going on about some environmentalist conspiracy about keeping people poor? I am so sick of hearing that ignorant blue collar mentality about [insert conspiracy] or the gubment or whatever keeping them in their place.
It is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.
God I could go on but I don't think there's any getting through to you.Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by CarpHunter View PostHoly fuck Marshall, if that nonsense doesn't scream manifesto what does?
Pink bubbles go ape.Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by marshallnoise View PostNot all scientists are the same. Telling me that I have to accept their work (whose? specifically) simply because they "earned" it is not a good enough reason for me to change my mind. I accept their work, I don't have to agree with it either. Don't mistake one for the other.
Well give it a wee bit more weight there fella. I am willing to bet that the vast majority if not all of people balking at the environmentalist movement are doing so because of economic reasons. One does not HAVE to be tied to the other, but for some reason they are politically. I know it didn't come from the right either.
Nature isn't looking out for you in any meaningful way. It isn't without its own hierarchy. Let me tell you, you aren't at the top.
Regarding the bolded section above: Ok...what is the alternative? Genocide? Fratricide? You seem to value nature more than fellow man. What are the limits at which you would stop interceding for nature?
I do not value nature more than fellow man (well, in most cases) and if you're seriously going to characterize my position as being approving of genocide then something is wrong with you. I can more or less see things from your point of view, namely avoiding drastic economic impacts. But so often people from your position jump right to the extremes of mine as if we want to protect the environment to the exclusion of all else. Instead of genocide, maybe we could start with simply not doing the things I listed as much as we can? Inculcate a culture of reduce-reuse-recycle, which many european countries and Japan already do; in fact I think a lot of it needs to start with stopping our throw away culture and our desire for ridiculously big and gas guzzling SUVs. Maybe try some baby step policies to address lax energy and pollution standards? I don't know, there's got to be lots of little things we can at least try.
If you know what types of hardships mankind, as a species, has gone through, you would have not brushed it aside so easily. There is no excuse for living today without a heaping pile of context navigating your thoughts continually.
It is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.
Comment
-
Originally posted by marshallnoise View PostIt is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.
humans have existed for 300K years at the most optimistic estimates
the earth is 4 billion years old
that means we've been around for roughly 0.0075% of the time
what prioritizes humans above any other species that spent millions of years evolving?past:
1989 325is (learner shitbox)
1986 325e (turbo dorito)
1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
1985 323i baur
current:
1995 M3 (suspension, 17x9/255-40, borla)
Comment
-
Originally posted by decay View Postok, i'll take the bait on this one
humans have existed for 300K years at the most optimistic estimates
the earth is 4 billion years old
that means we've been around for roughly 0.0075% of the time
what prioritizes humans above any other species that spent millions of years evolving?
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using TapatalkSi vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
That's not what sentience is, but I agree with your premise. Our intelligence should prioritize us over other species, but I think it's imperative that also includes obligations we have to protect the Earth from our abuse of it. The latter is non-negotiable, and the crux of this AGW argument is whether or not we're actually doing that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostThat's not what sentience is, but I agree with your premise. Our intelligence should prioritize us over other species
other primates and octopi have demonstrated learning, tool usage and creation, and other tasks that require what we define as intelligence
, but I think it's imperative that also includes obligations we have to protect the Earth from our abuse of it. The latter is non-negotiable, and the crux of this AGW argument is whether or not we're actually doing that.past:
1989 325is (learner shitbox)
1986 325e (turbo dorito)
1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
1985 323i baur
current:
1995 M3 (suspension, 17x9/255-40, borla)
Comment
-
Intelligence is absolutely a sliding scale. My understanding of biology is quite limited, but I don't believe there to be a switch that gets flicked which turns intelligence on or off in species, ours is simply more developed. I simply believe that there is such a distinct gap between us and the runner up, it would be foolish to suggest any other species should be prioritized over us. It isn't a matter of us vs. them in their entitery, because without them there is no us....but we sure as hell are at the top of the list. If the flood is coming and Noah's ark arrives, I'm making room for more people than I am animals. The 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around tells us that we are special unlike anything before us.
Comment
Comment