MisterE Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 dude lol, this giant edit hereby withdraws my "fair point" above, sheesh i am not in the business of defending al gore, i never even saw his friggin movies none of this has anything to do with the nasa study's conclusions except that you think people should be mad at al gore or something watever dude back at ya yeah well i see his fearmongering about the apocalypse as being similar to this, and some of the actual details they cite as leading to it are the same things he talks about. to me this study just seems ridiculous because of the very notion that you can use math to predict something like the collapse of society. look how ww1 started. it was almost a sequence of totally random events that led up to it. yeah they maybe set off some underlying tension but so much of what happens in history is totally random. numbers can't predict that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fiznuthian Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Cool, well you make some good points I won't lie. It is true our government is primarily composed of elites that, even if in supposedly in favor of reducing environmental harm, certainly don't act like it. I can't speak for all of them. For all I know there might be a couple bicycle riding, composting garden junkie congressmen out there. That's something I guess.I also agree about Al Gore. I think in a lot of ways he represents the struggle that the typical American faces when attempting to do something helpful. I mean, how many of us know people who recycle rabidly, buy local food, etc. and are vocal about doing their part to save the environment. That's well and nice but almost all of them still drive a car, still use electronics and use computers, purchase fast food, and generally still live a lifestyle that otherwise is more harmful than helpful. The issue is that we're so comfortable right? Just how many of us are willing to give up almost every first-world luxury to truly reduce our impact to near nothing? I can bet not many will or are willing.. Perhaps the ultimate first world problem. This shit can't last no matter what we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plarkreluke Banloboh Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 What if oil-company insider types are against environmental action that combats global warming, not because they are against scientific-evidence, but because they know something crucial the rest of us don't? They know how weather can actually be manipulated and controlled (for industrial purposes)? This would be kept secret as their meddling would implicate them in being, at least partially, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of natural disasters. [/tinfoil hat conspiracy] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usagi Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I farted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plarkreluke Banloboh Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I farted *resulting in a sulfur cloud that causes heavy storms and flooding* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublename Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Science has no place in American politics, this study will be lost in time. I just need to know if Ted Cruz can hit a mid range jumper and what's Hillary's low post game lookin' like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 shane smith (ceo of vice) on the joe rogan experience yesterday, they talk about climate change and al gore at the beginning (commercials end around 8 minute mark) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma333 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Are you a fatalist and just feel the world is inevitably going to destroy us anyway? Which it might.. i don't know any answers but i see a lot of this kind of shit is clearly being used to scare people into accepting some form of legislation or executive action that they otherwise wouldn't accept. otherwise they wouldn't need the scare tactics and they wouldn't use them so fucking heavily. so what's odd to me is, this being a taxpayer funded, government done study, why is it that if i question something like this, i'm a bad guy, yet this forum is full of people questioning the government on a daily basis? i'm presenting reasons why i think key figures involved in pushing this agenda should be questioned. maybe the gov is looking out for our best interests. but at the same time as the divide between the rich and poor has widened, i think the divide between gov and the rest of us has too. maybe because gov and the rich are attached at the hip? so sue me for being skeptical of this shit. and yeah on the other hand i guess i do have a bit of an attitude that if something big and catastrophic is going to happen, there prob isn't shit anyone can do about it anyway. it's entirely possible we all disappear in an instant and all that's left are shadows on some sidewalks. that's the world we live in This is a good point about the intention behind publicly releasing information like this...you would think if anything, this type of thing would be kept under wraps by governing bodies, if just to keep the general populous from freaking the fuck out. This was my first reaction to this news - what goverent policy are we en masse being prepared for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AsylumSeaker Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 From an outsiders perspective, both the major parties in the USA appear fairly right wing and conservative. I dont have any faith in governments getting the job done. The solution will have to come after something like the ukrainian revolt happens anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fiznuthian Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yeah that isn't very likely here. 1) People are way too comfortable 2) Almost, if not entirely, half the country fully supports what is happening and doesn't give a shit about the environment 3) We have a serious widespread metabolic health problem 4) Half the nation is more interested in eliminating gay people 5) We have well armed and trigger happy police forces 6) Widespread revolt might mean we can't get our fast food and pizza Generally people here are extremely divided anyway. If anything were to happen it would turn into a civil war probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impakt Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 What we need is more weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fiznuthian Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 God damn right. [youtubehd]cNUI-pV5kw0[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 hmm, i really doubt the US govt is planning some massive policy changes based on a speculative NASA study (which is not the first of its kind, that's for sure). NASA has been preaching about climate change since the late 80s, and national policy has yet to be effected in any meaningful way (except the neoliberal shenanigans known as "cap and trade schemes," a totally limp-dicked effort to make money on climate pollution rather than curb it). even if we americans did get asked/prodded into using less energy in our daily lives, it's something i'd be willing to do, because (IMO) it is necessary, and furthermore it is not at all necessary to be using as much energy as we do per capita, and we need to get used to using less. i would balk, of course, if the government officials, big businesses, and private "elites" did not adhere to these new rules, as would most people. that would be infuriating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 IF any government did what it needed to do, what would be the odds that the general public would cry somethings being forced down their throats? You can blame politicians for not being bold enough, but a lot of needed laws/policies would conflict with current laws. On a possibly fundamental level even. I expect more from grassroots initiatives along with subsidies from the government. And that takes time. Possibly too much. See gay rights, for instance. Or the marihuana thing in the US. Gun laws? It's not that the O administration doesn't want to change those pesky gun laws, but you know Americuh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fiznuthian Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yeah, you're right.. And once again I feel that we are as a whole are far too comfortable with the lives we live now. The more I think about it, the more I realize just how nice it is to be a first-world citizen in America. So in that respect, the right-wing folks who cry foul over socialized anything, taxation, etc.. I can see what they're on about, if only because of the fear of losing what we have. But it's not going to last, and it can not. I watched a doc the other night about commercial agriculture. There's widespread concern about the near future as oil costs begin to rise. No one knows how soon, but inevitably the collapse of our way of life will in large part begin with the loss of our current agricultural practice. Fertile land is being destroyed, water consumption is mind boggling, and the sheer amount of oil-based anything that commercial farming requires is really hard to grasp. Enjoy it while it lasts because when the gears start grinding people are going to lose their fucking minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yeah. My only hope is on some technological advancements we haven't seen yet. Advancements which would alleviate this ecosystem we're living in. If we could create water/food and alternative ways to build existing technologies in an eco-neutral (or eco-beneficial even) way, we might overcome those challenges. Although the income inequality thing should be dealt with first. Having all wealth in a tiny pool of people extremely limits innovation (among other things obviously). Because innovation can be pretty costly and requires many happy accidents. So the pool of wealth needs to be as big(in terms of people) as possible. The bigger the pool of people innovating, the higher the odds someone accidentally stumbles upon the cure for cancer, so to speak. Solving income inequality would be the necessary start in solving our even bigger issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 the fundamental reason why people on the right don't like the idea of socialism is because they feel that governments are made of people. and like any other people, they can be either wrong, or even corrupt. not only that but the fact is that power actually tends to cause corruption. how liberals can accept that when talking about cops but not when talking about gov just blows my mind to no end. the more authority over our lives you give this group of people called the gov, the more they are going to use it to their own personal advantage. its the exact reason things are so fucked up now. you have stuff like insider trading going on in congress, on both sides of the aisle. this is what gov has become. got a gov position? have a cousin who doesn't have a job? badabing. now he does. and he can sit around at his house smoking pot all day and still collecting a check on tax payers dime. without even actually having to go to work. that exact actual kind of shit is happening all the time. and yet a huge % of the population thinks that the answer to all of our problems is to give these guys MORE power? 'socialism' has a really nice sound to it. it makes it sound like this shit is going to be run by society. but only... it isn't. it's going to be run by the government. calling it what it is and saying 'government run' doesn't sound as happy as 'socializing', which sounds more like it's going to be decided by a bunch of hippies in a joint circle around a fire at some communal farm. it fucking isn't though. it's going to be decided by super rich assholes. just like anything else in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I think that's a straw argument. Yes, government is not perfect. And yes, power can corrupt. But is that a reason to keep government from tackling the current gunlaws, for instance? Or those financial institutions? It's perfectly reasonable to be critical about government. But not to the point that it's impossible to govern. Which is basically what is happening right now. Government is a necessary part of society in one way or another. How much power does a government have when it want to change gun laws with changes which are backed by a very large majority of the population? The people say yes. The administration says yes. But a tiny group of people argues that government has way too much power and that personal freedom is at stake. Well,seeing current results, I don't believe government has that much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Also, what is 'socialism'? And what are the odds that when someone actually took the time to specify what he/she means with it (as I'm sure everyone has their own idea what it is),it would suddenly become obvious that certain proposals would not fit the 'socialism' label. Even though it is still used as an excuse to not support those proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 And finally, when it comes to MORE power, the first question should be where all the current power is. The 1%? The people with all the wealth? I think it would be fair to say that power is unevenly distributed at this point. And the next question might be what a better distribution of power would look like and how it could be achieved. If we agree to this point, I'd be interested to hear how this improved distribution of power could be achieved. And what the role of the government would be in that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Here are some tunes from the post-apocalyptic world, for your consideration: http://youtu.be/nZYZVf7ZpJY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Drug resistant viruses prove to be an answer. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drug-resistant-tb-a-global-health-security-risk-who-says-1.2581640 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 apparently the UN is in on it. Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 apparently the UN is in on it. Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report Everyone, but the people on the so-called "right" (read: stuck up their own arses) is in on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audioblysk Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Welp, that solves it. Time to get out the ol' doomsday checklist. - Buy land near a stream in the mountains. Learn to live off the land. Grow beard. Learn to whittle and woodwork. Make friends with wolves, chickadees and assorted forest critters- and to truly be come human by assimilating into nature as a destructive hunter-gatherer. time to man up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.