Half The Time Line is wrong

General discussions about future technology and the human race.

Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Fri May 06, 2011 7:40 am

I am amazed at just how dominant the bleak, dreary view of Earth's environment is.

Despite the fact that mainstream science has thoroughly destroyed the notion that Humans are causing any level of GLOBAL climate changes or negative consequences to the Planet's ecosystems.

If anything, human presence is generally a positive effect. In places such as the United States, where billions are spent on keeping the environment pristine and pleasant for the countries inhabitants, animals are actually better off, evolutionarily speaking. They have access to food, humans do not mess with them, sometimes the animals can find warmth or shelter.

Great examples are the wild geese that make nests and forage for food at the waste processing plant my Dad works at. Animals, in my experience, treat people and their buildings as part of the scenery. In many cases they even outright tempt fate by arrogantly disregarding human presence.


Then there are all of the other silly ideas like overpopulation, starvation, poverty, sea level rise and violent weather systems.

It's nothing but doom and gloom. The Planet is not facing overpopulation and can easily support several times our current population, given efficient land usage and usage of modern technology for food production and logistics.

Poverty, starvation, and overcrowding are artificial problems created by humans. You don't see starvation and poverty in developed countries like the U.S. and Europe.; only in places like Africa and Asia where tyrannical regimes, anarchy, and hellish conditions reign.

More importantly, you don't see any of this "environmental destruction" anywhere except developing third world countries, who have a legitimate need for resources. Do you deny the Brazilian worker trying to feed his family, the right to access his own rainforests? Do you deny him the right to chop down this wood for shelter or economic gain? For what, to "preserve the environment?"

Massive environmental changes in the near future are not going to happen because of human beings. A single volcano spits out more Co2 and other gases than Humanity has put out in it's entire existence, and as you can see we have had plenty of volcanic eruptions in recent history with no noticeable long term consequences.


Co2 is also not the driver of climates environmentalists make it out to be. Water Vapor is. Our contribution to "Green house gases" is extremely bleak. A drop in a very massive bucket. You can go look up the statistics yourself.

The point is that humanity as a whole has a very inflated ego. Maybe in a thousand years we will be building dyson spheres around the sun and commanding the elements; terraforming whole solar systems to resemble whatever we wish. But right now, as of present day, in 2011, we are meek ants on the back of a massive elephant that barely registers our presence.

Only 4 percent of the planet's land mass has been settled by humans. You could fit the entire global population into texas with their own spacious, 1000+ sq. ft. home. Considering that, in the U.S., all food is produced by a sparse couple of million farmers and workers, and only a small percentage of the U.S. food supply is actually used domestically-most being exported and constituting a substantial part of the world food supply-you can begin to see just how easy it is to actually feed our current and future population. The technology is there, but what is not there is a conducive cultural and economic state in much of the rest of the world. People in Africa don't need to starve, or be poor.

Really, the answer to humanities problems is very simple. If the rest of the world would adopt a free market, capitalist economy with little in the way of regulation and taxation, and generally allowed people to do as they wish without being controlled by some highly centralized, bumbling bureaucratic authority, then we would quickly enter a golden age of progress, living standards, etc.

As the saying goes, however, "we are our own worst enemy." It isn't nature or the limitations of our planet that keeps us down. It's other humans. Africans are suffering because of other Africans and no authority to uphold human rights. The Middle East is plagued by fanatic devotion to Islam that creates millions of jihadists, whose actions threaten to throw us back into the medieval period, because of the grip of social conditioning and a regressive society.

The United States is in what appears to be the beginning of a depression, because of a massive government that refuses to yield and stop growing. It isn't a failing of human ingenuity, nor an economic issue. It's a problem with a government choke hold on the private sector.

In general, the world's problems can be summed up by this: Regressive, backward ideas that lead to tyrannical governments, religious fanatics, and a scarcity mentality.


We need to stop thinking in terms of limitations and start seeing just how vast and plentiful the resources are. There is more than enough oil for everyone, we just need to dig it out. There is more than enough of it in the ground to last for many decades; long enough to find other sources of viable, cheap power.
In fact, we already have a viable alternative: Nuclear fission power plants. France and several other countries get most of their energy via fission. There is no reason the rest of the world can't do the same. The Nuclear industry has the highest safety record of any other industry (yes, even your precious solar and wind, which actually cause more damage to the environment than a nuclear power plant given the deaths of birds and displacement of large areas of land on inefficient ultimately crappy energy sources).

Yet again we see examples of ideology over economic efficiency. Where highly skilled, experienced individuals working in the energy industry clearly see what is best, politicians with a leftist agenda force their views on society. We waste billions per year on subsidies for solar and wind; highly inefficient sources of energy that simply cannot be expected to supply the entire power grid now, much less in the foreseeable future), when this same money could be freed up for use by the private sector in the form of tax reductions.

Who knows best how to use their own money to generate more money, prosperity, and otherwise create good things? An impersonal, uncaring government bureaucrat who does not have to worry about not making a profit or his job (government jobs are better than similar private sector jobs, and nearly untouchable....at what expense to the tax payer?), or the individual?

This is the dilemma we now face. Humanity earns to break free of it's constraints. So much potential and progress, if only ugly ideologies such as socialism would stop rearing their heads over and over. We keep stumbling on the same mistakes, and still we don't learn. The Soviet Union collapsed, and still people try to engage in social engineering and "iron out" societies imperfections, by taking and redistributing money.

When will people realize that the government is not the answer, and never has been the answer to societies problems. The only road to prosperity and wealth is to embrace the private sector.

Everything is included in that statement. The private sector knows best what the price of goods should be, how to deal with the environment and keep it stable for future use, how to extract and refine resources, how to produce goods and services as efficiently as possible.

Why? Because the private sector is you and me. You and I know better how to use our own money than someone else, esp. a centralized, authority.



And that's the gist of it. There is no impending climate change or other nonsense. There is no overpopulation. There is no lack of resources, for we can always find more (if not fossil fuels than something else. Just as we have always done) and there certainly isn't a serious social problem that can only be fixed by more socialism.

I foresee a very different future. Assuming people wise up and we survive the demographic time bomb of a muslim majority in Europe (imagine Sharia in Europe, that is. Imagine Europe becoming part of the Middle East; it's society and cultural heritage eroded due to Europes own political correctness and ***-backwards policies. If we survive that, we still have a few more hurdles to overcome; but all of them are entirely a shortcoming of human beings, and not of our planet or any physical lack of resources.


The genocides need to end. The dictators must be outsted. People must wise up and learn to embrace democracy and appreciate freedom. Not through reckless abandon, but through gradual wisening (it does not necessarily have to take longer than a generation or two). As people advance culturally, dictatorships naturally dissolve. The conditions must be right, however, not rushed as in Egypt. When you rush headfirst into democracy without being ready for it, you risk having power taken by a total despot. Luckily in Egypt, the military was there as a stabilizing force.


Democracy
Free Market Capitalism
Strong nationalism. Nations must look out for themselves and their interests first, in the same way that individuals look out for their interest first. It doesn't mean there can't be cooperation between countries or good will, but countries must never surrender their independence and defer to the decisions of supra-national organizations over their own people. The United States especially should not be taking orders from anyone, but instead setting an example and a precedent for others to follow.

The founding fathers spoke about this. It's not selfish to be selfish. It's a very good thing to look out for your country first and assert your interests. It's a good thing because we live in a world full of nut jobs and tyrannical regimes. If we don't stand up for ourselves, someone will try to tear us down. That is the point of having a strong military. Not just to sit there and look pretty, but to actively protect our interests. That includes protecting trade and commerce or "going to war for oil and profit."

Trade and commerce are the cornerstone of any society. Dictators should never be allowed to hold the economies of other nations for ransom. This is another reason why the U.S. should strongly and aggressively drill for and obtain fossil fuels on it's own territory. The U.S. should build nuclear power plants, and the private sector allowed to do it's thing without the red tape and arbitrary limitations of the government. Obama is not an expert in any scientific field. Exxon, meanwhile (for example) has spent billions on research and development, and has thousands of employee's (people like you and me) who know about oil and energy production. I think these people are a lot more qualified to make decisions than Obama or some politician. That goes for environmentalists as well. Exxon as a company is far better equipped to deal with the environmental impact-however small-of their operations than some hippy in a torn t-shirt with barely a grade school understanding of physics, engineering, or economics.

Educated people do not generally seek to stifle others. Progress must be made physically as well as mentally. We cannot sit with our hands tied behind our backs, afraid to obtain the plentiful resources of Earth because we might inconvenience a few malibu (Who will probably go on happily screwing each other and eating discarded sandwiches, completely oblivious to the drilling rigs occupying a tiny parcel of the vast Alaskan wilderness. In fact, I don't think there is even
anything alive in Alaska where the oil is).



anyway, all of this is important for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the future timeline presented here reads like something out of a cliche sci-fi movie script trying to create tension and drama by projecting a bleak, dystopian cyberpunk existence.
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby wjfox2009 on Fri May 06, 2011 6:30 pm

I got to about halfway through this post and stopped reading. There's so much ignorance here it's really breathtaking. I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.
wjfox2009
Site Admin
User avatar
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: London

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Fri May 06, 2011 10:21 pm

You're ignorant for thinking that my post is ignorant. :D
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby classical piano guy on Sat May 07, 2011 12:27 am

FireNail wrote:Despite the fact that mainstream science has thoroughly destroyed the notion that Humans are causing any level of GLOBAL climate changes or negative consequences to the Planet's ecosystems.


Simply put, that entire statement is false.

FireNail wrote:If anything, human presence is generally a positive effect. In places such as the United States, where billions are spent on keeping the environment pristine and pleasant for the countries inhabitants, animals are actually better off, evolutionarily speaking. They have access to food, humans do not mess with them, sometimes the animals can find warmth or shelter.

Great examples are the wild geese that make nests and forage for food at the waste processing plant my Dad works at. Animals, in my experience, treat people and their buildings as part of the scenery. In many cases they even outright tempt fate by arrogantly disregarding human presence.


Animals such as geese are completely irrelevant in regards to planetary stability (from humanity's perspective). Bacteria such as plankton -- which are dying off at an alarming rate (though not so alarming that they will all have perished before we can recreate them synthetically) as a result of global warming -- are.

FireNail wrote:It's nothing but doom and gloom. The Planet is not facing overpopulation and can easily support several times our current population, given efficient land usage and usage of modern technology for food production and logistics.


Perhaps it could, if our planet contained nothing but intelligent, altruistic individuals who worked together for the benefit of mankind; however, as it stands, only a few areas could support a significantly larger population without drastically sacrificing the standard of living -- especially with peak oil on the horizon.

FireNail wrote:Poverty, starvation, and overcrowding are artificial problems created by humans. You don't see starvation and poverty in developed countries like the U.S. and Europe.; only in places like Africa and Asia where tyrannical regimes, anarchy, and hellish conditions reign.


"Artificial problems"? No, not even close. Perhaps starvation isn't too prevalent in first world countries, but poverty is ubiquitous.

FireNail wrote:Massive environmental changes in the near future are not going to happen because of human beings. A single volcano spits out more Co2 and other gases than Humanity has put out in it's entire existence, and as you can see we have had plenty of volcanic eruptions in recent history with no noticeable long term consequences.

Co2 is also not the driver of climates environmentalists make it out to be. Water Vapor is. Our contribution to "Green house gases" is extremely bleak. A drop in a very massive bucket. You can go look up the statistics yourself.


Actually, the catalyst of environmental decline is neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor -- it's methane. You can go look it up. And I think the giant hole in the ozone layer that formed over the south pole was fairly "noticeable."

FireNail wrote:Only 4 percent of the planet's land mass has been settled by humans. You could fit the entire global population into texas with their own spacious, 1000+ sq. ft. home. Considering that, in the U.S., all food is produced by a sparse couple of million farmers and workers, and only a small percentage of the U.S. food supply is actually used domestically-most being exported and constituting a substantial part of the world food supply-you can begin to see just how easy it is to actually feed our current and future population. The technology is there, but what is not there is a conducive cultural and economic state in much of the rest of the world. People in Africa don't need to starve, or be poor.


You and I have a very different definition of the word "spacious." I'd love to see some actual data behind the rest of the claims in there.

FireNail wrote:Really, the answer to humanities problems is very simple. If the rest of the world would adopt a free market, capitalist economy with little in the way of regulation and taxation, and generally allowed people to do as they wish without being controlled by some highly centralized, bumbling bureaucratic authority, then we would quickly enter a golden age of progress, living standards, etc.


Progress? Certainly. Living standards? Only for the high middle to upper class of this hypothetical society. The rest would be exploited for the sake of progress (just as in the Industrial Revolution) -- at least until superabundance is achieved and an artificial intelligent working class is created.

I suppose the transition to a pure capitalist economy would play out as a "means to an end" scenario: We would attain technological haven more quickly, but at the short-term expense of the lower class -- which the majority would never accept.

Sorry, your post is just too long. Plus, the numerous inaccuracies and spurious assumptions are a bit disconcerting, so I'm going to stop here. I may complete this response later.
classical piano guy
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:24 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Sat May 07, 2011 4:38 am

Do you know how I can tell you have no clue what what you're talking about? You use marxist terms when discussing free market capitalism. There is no such thing as "classes" in a market economy. Drop this silly notion, for it was Marx himself who coined terms such as "middle class." We know that marxism is a load of bologna, because we have seen it's spectacular failures time and again throughout history. The latest example is the USSR, and even China is moving far away from Communist ideals where it's economy is concerned.


The notion that Capitalism is destructive is false. It is another relic from a long-gone age of marxist thinking that seems to persist to this day. Capitalism is economic democracy. It is freedom. Freedom of the individual to decide where, when, and how to expend his time and labor. Money is a concept; an idea. It represents value generated through an expenditure of time and labor. Thus, any level of taxation is inherently a form of indenturing to a higher authority. In this case the government, which takes a percentage of your wealth-and therefore your time on this planet-away from you in order to use it for other purposes that you may or may not agree with.

The government does not produce profit. The government does not generate new value. It only takes existing value and redistributes it. Of course, part of the thinking behind our modern, western, society is that some form of government is necessary and beneficial to the well-being of people. We give up some of our natural freedom (what Thomas Hobbes describes as the natural state) in exchange for safety and protection of our most valuable rights. This is the basis of a civil society. Any more power, any more value being taken by the government than is necessary, is a violation of our rights as human beings. It is the taking of your most precious resource: time.



That said, I find it difficult to understand how any rational, learned person can come to the conclusion that more government programs are a good thing, or that the government would do a better job of running private industries than the private sector itself. Where does the buck stop? How much money is enough? The government has one constant, and that is growth. It will grow through the decades and centuries, like a cancer. And, despite the founding fathers best efforts at checks and balances, they have only managed to slow this trend; not halt it. The cure is of course to have no government at all, but then you are back to square one and perhaps worse off.

The same applies to any government anywhere, really. Any government that starts off small will eventually grow to absolute authority. Tyranny will ensue. It is up to the people to stop it, but we have no real precedent in history, as far as I know, of a democracy becoming a tyranny and being reversed without some sort of revolution and forceful taking of power.



So as you can see, it is a very self-evident truth that the only lasting, long term way to achieve success and prosperity is for every single nation of Man to adopt a free market system, and provide as much freedom as possible to it's citizens. It is no coincidence that any country that becomes capitalist prospers, while others wallow in their own delusional, socialist filth.




The problem with environmentalist propaganda such as global warming, drastic climate change, a hole in the Ozone layer, etc. is that none of it is substantiated by any credible science, or even makes sense when you consider what we know about physics and the way our planet works. What's more, this propaganda is actually just a facade. A front, to push a leftist agenda. That agenda is very simple: Give up more of your rights and have your leash tightened by the government, who will proceed to iron out societies problems and create a Utopian existence for all.





Now, I challenge you to come up with evidence of your "global warming" or your "ozone layer hole." I don't bother posting anything to debunk it because the information is commonly available online. If you weren't engaged in ignorant thinking, you would have already figured out the truth. Protip: A quick, two second google search with show you recent satellite photo's of Antarctica, which actually show the ice as a whole INCREASING over the last couple of decades.


Image

So there is just one example of the many lies and yarns of environmentalism. In the future, as the timeline on this site claims, Antarctic ice will melt, polar bears will go extinct, and conditions on the continent will become similar to those in Greenland or Alaska.

This is bull****. There is no evidence of this. As I have said, all scientific data collected over the past several decades actually shows an overall INCREASE in the antarctic ice coverage. Antarctica has, as a whole become larger.

The stories of ice caps melting are also false. In reality, some glaciers and ice melts in some places, while in others it becomes substantially larger. The media only focuses on the melting ice, because they have an agenda to push. People like you get suckered into believing this balls.


More importantly, environmentalists have been predicting all manner of doomsday scenarios for years now. None of them have come to pass. The very notion that we can possibly hope to understand "GLOBAL CLIMATE" is absurd. What is "global climate?" It get's colder in some places and warmer in others. The planet is far too vast to generalize about it's "overall climate."




My statements still stand. The fact is that most of the scientific community regards "man made climate change" and a "hole in the ozone layer" as utter drivel. There are far too many compelling facts and peer reviewed, reputable papers that poke holes in these theories (to call them theories is an insult to legitimate science).


As for overpopulation: Overpopulation is a myth. This myth has caused human rights abuses around the world, forced population control, denied medicines to the poor, and targeted attacks on ethnic minorities and women.

According to Matt Rosenberg, in this:

http:/geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/popdensity.htm

90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. Land covers 29% of the globe.

.03 x .29 = .0087 = .87% Let's call it 1%. Therefore, if Mr. Rosenberg is

correct with his data, I believe it's very safe to say that less than 2% of the Earth's

surface is inhabited by humans.



The fact is, the Earth is MASSSIVE. There are vast swaths of land completely unoccupied by people. Areas that have not even been touched by anything but human explorers. The planet Earth is a massive wilderness dotted with small cities that occupy relatively tiny footprints. These cities are largely located along coastal areas. About half of all human beings on this planet live near coastal areas, for obvious reasons. Civilizations started off and developed near sources of water and fresh water. Time has passed, and humanity has advanced, but infrastructure does not simply go away. civilizations started by coasts, and radiated outward from there. Most of China's population is located along the coastline, for instance.



What this means is that, there isn't a lack of land or resources on this planet rather, there is a lack of development of them. The planet is highly underdeveloped. People live in large, dense cities because that's where there are jobs, trade, and opportunities for success abound. Given this situation, does it make sense to stifle economic growth? No, it doesn't. And that is the reason why so many starve today. Tyranny. A lack of protection of basic human rights.



Of course, a lot of land is also used for food production, but again this area of land is very insignificant given the entire size of our planet. If you want an example of successful agriculture, look at the United States, where a few million farmers supply food for not just the entire country, but for a lot of other people around the world. Food production and efficient land use are not a problem AT ALL, when you have a well developed economy.

I mean, for Christ's sake, LOOK AT RUSSIA. The country as a smaller population that the United States, on 1/6th of the worlds land mass. Over time, population pressures will force Chinese to expand into Siberia and other parts of Russia. A similar phenomena will occur in other areas where a large population exists on one side of a man-made border, and a relatively small one on the other. Our population is not HUGE, it's just CRAMPED into small spaces. I fully expect that as technology improves and society advances, more and more of Earth's land will be made use of.


And yes, it is a fact that you can fit all people on planet Earth onto land the size of Texas, each family having it's own luxerious 1100+sq. ft. house.


You don't put the cart before the horse. You don't put government programs and taxation before economic advancement. Yet this is what many leftists now try to do around the world. Poor, third world countries desperately need free market capitalism and removal of tyrannical regimes in order to succeed. We as a whole need to drill for MORE OIL, set up MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, produce MORE of EVERYTHING that we need. It is wrong and stifles progress to limit growth with arbitrary bull**** like "global warming." There is no global warming caused by humans, and if we try to lower our Co2 emissions, not only will we bankrupt ourselves and bring misery and poverty to millions, but, more importantly, we will accomplish nothing. We will not see any effects at all, given that our emissions are already such an extremely tiny portion when compared to what mother nature puts out.




The private sector solves all problems over time. The private sector is responsible for our current advanced state of technological prowess. The private sector is responsible for driving down costs of cutting-edge technology and making it available en mass to even people who earn a modest income. The poor in America are rich when compared to most other people in the world. Coincidence? No. Even the poorest of poor in America have their basic needs met, and have access to opportunities to advance. Do you think this was because large-scale human planners came in and told everyone how to live, and redistributed people's money as they saw fit? No. It was a natural consequence of people having the freedom to pursue their own goals and to keep the value they produce.

Human beings are incompatible with socialism.


Corporations expanding and gaining profit is a good thing. It is the backbone of industry. When individuals earn profit, value is created. Individuals then spend their money to create more money. The more people come into existence, the larger the potential work force. More people means more farmers, more doctors, more businessmen, etc. Which means even faster technological advancement and more wealth being generated.


Contrary to leftist thinking, corporations should not have massive taxes placed on them. They are not evil, nor are they causing all manner of environmental disasters as your propagandist thinking dictates.


If you want to see a glorious future, you must allow your industry to lead the way. It is only because of the vast wealth generated by the private sector that prosperous, first world countries can afford to spend some money on keeping their environment neat and pleasant, on ensuring that everyone has access to food and a place to sleep, etc.

For many in the world, survival is the first priority. And given this situation, it makes no sense to make life harder for them by trying to "stop global warming."


As a whole, the standards of living have dramatically increased over time for human beings, and the percentage of "poor" has decreased. This was made possible by capitalism, not by government programs. Never forget this.
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby classical piano guy on Sat May 07, 2011 5:36 am

FireNail wrote:Do you know how I can tell you have no clue what what you're talking about? You use marxist terms when discussing free market capitalism. There is no such thing as "classes" in a market economy. Drop this silly notion, for it was Marx himself who coined terms such as "middle class." We know that marxism is a load of bologna, because we have seen it's spectacular failures time and again throughout history. The latest example is the USSR, and even China is moving far away from Communist ideals where it's economy is concerned.


Sigh, and do you know I can tell you have no clue what you're talking about? You dogmatically spew forth retarded remarks and baseless assumptions. Additionally, the origin of a particular term has no bearing on its present day usage. In fact, "middle class" actually refers to a set of tax brackets in America.

FireNail wrote:The notion that Capitalism is destructive is false. It is another relic from a long-gone age of marxist thinking that seems to persist to this day. Capitalism is economic democracy. It is freedom. Freedom of the individual to decide where, when, and how to expend his time and labor. Money is a concept; an idea. It represents value generated through an expenditure of time and labor. Thus, any level of taxation is inherently a form of indenturing to a higher authority. In this case the government, which takes a percentage of your wealth-and therefore your time on this planet-away from you in order to use it for other purposes that you may or may not agree with.


You obviously didn't read my post very carefully. I'm very much in favor of capitalism. Moreover, if you had managed to make it to the "In the News" section of this forum, you might have noticed a thread in which I argued for it vigorously. In my post above, I warned that pure capitalism (without even basic government influences such as minimum wage and child labor laws) could morph into a system of exploitation, which is completely true -- and even backed by repeated historical precedent. Also note, I didn't even state my own opinion on the ethics of the aforementioned utilitarianism, but rather simply commented objectively in response to your affirmation that unrestricted capitalism would usher in a "golden age" of "living conditions."

FireNail wrote:The government does not produce profit. The government does not generate new value. It only takes existing value and redistributes it. Of course, part of the thinking behind our modern, western, society is that some form of government is necessary and beneficial to the well-being of people. We give up some of our natural freedom (what Thomas Hobbes describes as the natural state) in exchange for safety and protection of our most valuable rights. This is the basis of a civil society. Any more power, any more value being taken by the government than is necessary, is a violation of our rights as human beings. It is the taking of your most precious resource: time.

That said, I find it difficult to understand how any rational, learned person can come to the conclusion that more government programs are a good thing, or that the government would do a better job of running private industries than the private sector itself. Where does the buck stop? How much money is enough? The government has one constant, and that is growth. It will grow through the decades and centuries, like a cancer. And, despite the founding fathers best efforts at checks and balances, they have only managed to slow this trend; not halt it. The cure is of course to have no government at all, but then you are back to square one and perhaps worse off.

The same applies to any government anywhere, really. Any government that starts off small will eventually grow to absolute authority. Tyranny will ensue. It is up to the people to stop it, but we have no real precedent in history, as far as I know, of a democracy becoming a tyranny and being reversed without some sort of revolution and forceful taking of power.


Ignoring the fact that this entire section on politics was nothing more than a pointless digression, I must point out that I never stated anything to the contrary.

FireNail wrote:So as you can see, it is a very self-evident truth that the only lasting, long term way to achieve success and prosperity is for every single nation of Man to adopt a free market system, and provide as much freedom as possible to it's citizens. It is no coincidence that any country that becomes capitalist prospers, while others wallow in their own delusional, socialist filth.


To any of those with concern for the impoverished and the lower classes (or, if it would better suit your fallacious semantics, "those with lower incomes"), as much capitalism as possible within reason. However, you're right, it is no coincidence, which I even pointed out in my last post.

I'm seriously beginning to think that wjfox made the right move.

FireNail wrote:The problem with environmentalist propaganda such as global warming, drastic climate change, a hole in the Ozone layer, etc. is that none of it is substantiated by any credible science, or even makes sense when you consider what we know about physics and the way our planet works. What's more, this propaganda is actually just a facade. A front, to push a leftist agenda. That agenda is very simple: Give up more of your rights and have your leash tightened by the government, who will proceed to iron out societies problems and create a Utopian existence for all.


You're right; the science you've provided is far more credible than that from leading researchers from NASA, Harvard, etc. Here read this, it may expose you to actual facts for a change:
(and check out any of its 158 sources as well)
Also, name a liberty that was removed by this "leftist agenda." I'm interested to know.
FireNail wrote:Now, I challenge you to come up with evidence of your "global warming" or your "ozone layer hole." I don't bother posting anything to debunk it because the information is commonly available online. If you weren't engaged in ignorant thinking, you would have already figured out the truth. Protip: A quick, two second google search with show you recent satellite photo's of Antarctica, which actually show the ice as a whole INCREASING over the last couple of decades.

Image


I'll research the south pole -- when you take a look at the north.

FireNail wrote:As for overpopulation: Overpopulation is a myth. This myth has caused human rights abuses around the world, forced population control, denied medicines to the poor, and targeted attacks on ethnic minorities and women.

According to Matt Rosenberg, in this:

http:/geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/popdensity.htm

90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. Land covers 29% of the globe.

.03 x .29 = .0087 = .87% Let's call it 1%. Therefore, if Mr. Rosenberg is

correct with his data, I believe it's very safe to say that less than 2% of the Earth's

surface is inhabited by humans.



The fact is, the Earth is MASSSIVE. There are vast swaths of land completely unoccupied by people. Areas that have not even been touched by anything but human explorers. The planet Earth is a massive wilderness dotted with small cities that occupy relatively tiny footprints. These cities are largely located along coastal areas. About half of all human beings on this planet live near coastal areas, for obvious reasons. Civilizations started off and developed near sources of water and fresh water. Time has passed, and humanity has advanced, but infrastructure does not simply go away. civilizations started by coasts, and radiated outward from there. Most of China's population is located along the coastline, for instance.

The amount of physical space occupied by man is completely and utterly irrelevant. Reread my post again.

FireNail wrote:What this means is that, there isn't a lack of land or resources on this planet rather, there is a lack of development of them. The planet is highly underdeveloped. People live in large, dense cities because that's where there are jobs, trade, and opportunities for success abound.

Of course, a lot of land is also used for food production, but again this area of land is very insignificant given the entire size of our planet. If you want an example of successful agriculture, look at the United States, where a few million farmers supply food for not just the entire country, but for a lot of other people around the world. Food production and efficient land use are not a problem AT ALL, when you have a well developed economy.


Yes, and the United States is one of only a small handful of countries which could indeed support 2-3 times its current population. The rest cannot.

FireNail wrote:Look at countries like America, and Zimbabwe. The difference is enormous, and it's all because in America the government was kept in check and the economy allowed to boom.

...right...that's it...that's the difference between America and Zimbabwe...the number of checks on the government. Excellent logic as usual.

FireNail wrote:Corporations expanding and gaining profit is a good thing. It is the backbone of industry. When individuals earn profit, value is created. Individuals then spend their money to create more money. The more people come into existence, the larger the potential work force. More people means more farmers, more doctors, more businessmen, etc. Which means even faster technological advancement and more wealth being generated.


I'm not sure why I'm still bothering to respond, as it's apparent you're just ranting and no longer responding to my post, but, with the exception of the glaring non sequitur (right at "Then more people come into existence), I agree.

I'll cut it off here and call it a night. I guess I'll expect to see another novel waiting for me in the morning.
classical piano guy
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:24 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Mon May 09, 2011 1:05 am

I mention "politics" as you put it (in actuality economics and the dynamics of the world we live in) because no capitalist-minded person would sit here justifying absurd environmental movements, whose chief motive is to redistribute wealth.



1. Yes, I do imply that Harvard and NASA are full of ****. Obama got a degree from Harvard and he is full of ****. That just goes to show that it doesn't matter what papers you hold, if you don't know what you're talking about, it makes no difference. I want you to go and do some serious research and yes, you will find plenty of scientists who think global climate change is nonsense. In fact, they have created a petition awhile ago which has thousands of signatures worldwide.

2. The amount of space on this planet that humans physically occupy IS important. That is the whole basis for the "overpopulation" argument. How much land do you think it really takes to grow food for one person? Very fricken little. With modern and up and coming agricultural techniques and technology, we can produce massive amounts of food on a very small footprint, with very little human labor necessary. We can easily support several times our current population given proper land use. (and of course, we will still have massive amounts of land left over) In the future, a cities food supply will be grown directly in the city, vertically, as part of the design of the buildings. Engineers and architects are developing newer, "green" buildings, and this is an example of the free market at work. These are going to be commercial structures that will generate profit. They will have wind and solar generators to augment the buildings power supply, and they will have hydroponics.

Now, proper land use of course, is not something for egg heads sitting in washington to "plan out." The reason why some places have desertification and crop-land destruction, while others (such as the U.S.) do not have these issues, is because one group uses the land wisely, and another does not. Desertification is a non-issue. All you need to overcome it is the desire to do so. The technology and techniques for proper agriculture are all there. If we need the land, we can make use of it. Just because a piece of land becomes covered with sand, doesn't render it inhospitable, in the same way that land covered in weeds can be cleared and prepared for planting. There is no land on this planet that is "unusable" to human beings. Not in the 21st century. If it's habitable, we can work with it. That's one of the reasons human beings are the top species on this planet. No other creature can occupy such diverse environments and thrive as we humans can.

Let me remind you that Israel is literally a garden of paradise and fertility in the middle of a desert full of sand. What do you think the land was like when the Jewish settlers showed up? It was all sand. They reveresed "desertification" and turned every square inch of their country into a lush garden, with more than enough food for them and for exports too.

What is the difference between Israel and it's neighbors? Why is it that Israel can accomplish this, and also have a thriving economy and plenty of wealth to spend on maintaining it's environment, feeding it's people, self defense, technological progress, etc., while surrounding countries which are much larger and have more resources on their land, are still wallowing in the 12th century?

The answer is very simple: Israel is a modern, forward-thinking country founded on the principles of democratic rule and capitalism. It's neighbors, meanwhile, are run by a backward religious dogma that prevents and stifles growth and progress.


There is your reason why there are "disparities" in the world. It's because some are winners and some are losers. It's not the responsibility of western nations to bankrupt themselves trying to save "the global environment" or to try to babysit the "world community" and pull it to prosperity. Let's be realistic and start to give credit where it's due. No one forces Africa or various third world ****-holes to stay in poverty and not advance technologically. They bring these miserable conditions onto themselves. They are responsible for bringing change to their countries, if they want it. And so far, it doesn't seem to be happening. If muslim countries, third world dictatorships, and other poverty-stricken areas, do not want to undertake any serious efforts at reforming their countries to create conditions conducive to success (free market, freedom for individuals, etc.) then they cannot blame anyone but themselves for their lack of success. And btw, I realize you mentioned you support capitalism, but it truly doesn't sound that way if you also support this climate change nonsense. How can you support the free market and a hoax whose very reason for existence is to destroy the private sector? That's like me saying "oh ye, I support the war" while holding an anti-war placard.

You are right, capitalism without any limitations doesn't work. The issue is too much regulation coming from a highly centralized authority. We have seen it in the USSR in recent memory. It doesn't work.

The job of placing environmental and building regulations should fall primarily to the local governments, not to the federal government which has no clue what's going on in any given area.



3. I don't understand why people assume a change of several degrees over the course of a century is a bad thing. In the past, warmer climates actually led to more prosperity for human beings AND FOR NATURE. A warmer climate means better crop growth=more food=HEY, LESS PEOPLE STARVING TO DEATH. Shouldn't you be happy?

Another thing is that, to sit here and actually believe that the planet's ecosystem is so fragile that it can't survive and adapt to something as minor as a few degree's of temperature change is absurd. Germs and bacteria adapt within a few generations to the most deadly concoctions we humans can come up with to actively try to KILL THEM, and yet they can't adapt to a few degree's of temperature change over the course of a century?

That is, after all, what your precious UN scientists predict.


Keep in mind that it's all bull**** anyway. You tried to claim authority by linking me to wikipedia articles and air-headed figure heads working for NASA, the UN, or some other organization where matters of money are more important than science. There are countless examples of global warming "scientists" botching data and purposefully misrepresenting facts. It's no secret at all. Not too long ago, a bunch of emails were obtained that showed many prominent climatologists in support of global warming, basically discussing with each other the importance of "smoothing over" inconvenient data to fit the hypothesis (man-made global warming/climate change). In other words, these schmucks don't give a damn about science at all. All they care about is their agenda.


And, if you think no one is making a profit off of global warming, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. It's not greedy corporations that are making a profit. It's elitists and politicians who treat the public as morons, such as Al-Gore or the sorry excuse for a scientist Michael Mann, who was involved in these emails I mentioned above. He is the director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center (hey look, a university professor who doesn't know what the hell he is on about, now there's a first, eh?).

Honest to god man, do you expect me to believe your wikipedia article over satellite photographs? Do you know who it was that took that photo I posted? The national snow and ice data center. Unless you want to tell me the photo is fake.

No dude, it really doesn't matter what NASA or Harvard say. If you have satellite photo's that SHOW, VISIBLY, THE ICE INCREASING WHERE WE ARE TOLD IT IS DECREASING, then how can you come to any other conclusion? How can you trust these people when they lie to you through their teeth? FYI, NASA probably put those satellites up there in the first place. A lot of people work for NASA. I doubt they all agree with the party line.


And this is ultimately what it's all about. Global warming alarmists try to wave authority in the face of a clueless public, who buys it. I do not, however. You either post credible facts (As I have done with the satellite photo) or you stop trying to dispute me.

What's next, will you start debating that gravity doesn't exist? That, perhaps in the next 70 years the Earth's gravitational pull will come undone, and we will all float into space?

Because that's how absurd it sounds when this site makes claims like "by 2100 there will be catastrophic flooding of coastal areas, huge rises in sea level, massive violent weather systems, massive changes in climates, and Antarctica will be like Greenland." This is not valid speculation into the future. This is someone who has watched too many reruns of Day After Tomorrow, writing an exciting view of a tough tomorrow. It's just too damn difficult for people to accept that, barring unforeseen circumstances, things can and will only get better over time, just as they have for the last several thousand years. People always want some weird disasters to strike, so that life can be like a Hollywood movie.


Even if we were to temporarily suspend disbelief, climate does not operate that fast. It does not take a friggen century for something like this to manifest, unless some enormous cataclysm occurs.

It took millions of years for the Ice Age to come and go. Now you want us to believe that changes as massive in scale are going to occur in a century, all because human beings had the audacity to emit less than .01 percent of the total amount of carbon dioxide put out per year (the rest being put out by nature) .
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby wjfox2009 on Mon May 09, 2011 8:40 am

FireNail wrote: In fact, they have created a petition awhile ago which has thousands of signatures worldwide.


This petition? -



lol. Can't be bothered to read/reply the rest of your post - I have better things to do than waste time arguing with anti-science people like you. It's amazing that people can be so delusional.
wjfox2009
Site Admin
User avatar
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: London

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Thu May 12, 2011 2:13 am

I started to watch the video and it talked about the tobacco industry. What does tobacco have to do with "global warming?"


You have yet to post any refuting evidence at least for the satellite photo I have shown. I think this photo pretty much single-handily debunks any illusions of human beings causing global warming or climate changes.

Until you can show me that human activity has caused ice to melt/expand, which is the basis of the entire "sea levels will rise, climate will change" nonsense, I won't continue with this.



People who buy into climate change are suckers. Plain and simple. They have no concept of scale, they have no concept of the sheer size of the planet we live on. That goes not just for climate change, but for overpopulation too. Humans are ants. And in 70 years absolutely nothing is going to happen to this planet. But I guess the only way to change your mind is to live and rub it in your face when all of your climate predictions are wrong.


Which is already happening. Recently, we have had some of the coldest winters on record. I remember a global-warming protest, where the protestors were standing outside wielding placards while a massive blizzard raged by; freezing their asses off. I found that hilarious.



Let me break this down for you and anyone reading this thread:

1. There is no hole in the ozone layer caused by humans. There was never any link established between human emissions and any change in the Ozone layer. If you think a couple million refrigerators giving off gases is going to cause Day After Tomorrow-style holes in the massive, massive ozone layer, you are delusional. The Ozone layer naturally fluctuates over time. Every time there is a storm, more Ozone is produced.


2. There is no shortage of Oil. There is a shortage of gasoline, and obtained oil. But there is no shortage of oil in the ground. The reason for the high prices is not some oil company conspiracy. It's a very basic issue of economics. The government in the United States, and in several other places (including Europe) shuts down any and all efforts by oil companies to drill for new oil. What this means is that the supply is obviously severely restricted. All of this is done under the guise of environmental protection, which is a load of crap. Thus, the entire world runs on middle eastern oil because people are too damn stupid to just drill for it and stop thinking of absurd what-if disaster scenarios. The middle east is drilling for oil, they are rich. We aren't drilling for oil, we have to pay tons of money for their oil. It's as simple as that.

Also, more oil naturally seeps into the oceans than any human disaster has ever spilled. You think the BP spill sucked? Take a look at all the oil that has been wasted over time because it's just...LEAKING into the ocean, and no one is there to get it.

You know what's really funny? The Chinese and other countries who don't have such loonies running their governments, are out drilling for oil on the same continental shelf as the United States. Our oil, in other words.



3. There is no catastrophic climate change going on. If there was, it's not because of humans, and in any case we can't really tell because climate is observed over THOUSANDS OF YEARS, not over several decades. Up until recently we didn't even have satellites. In many parts of the world, temperature and weather recording stations are very primitive. In many places, they don't even exist. That skews our over all big picture view.


4. The planet is far from overpopulated. It is underpopulated. Humans simply need to spread out more and make use of the abundant land instead of cramping millions of people into tiny squares of land. This means we must build more cities, homes, and of course farms. There is plenty of land to do so.


5. Technology will make us more efficient at getting food, as well as allowing us to have less of an impact on our environment, and also to care for it better. This is pretty apparent in first world, developed countries, where the environment is generally pleasant and well kept for. My family comes from the former USSR. The climate where we lived and here in the U.S. (in our area) is similar, but the difference is drastic. Here, there are lots of trees, clean air, clean water, wild animals coexist with people, streets are clear, etc. There, you can't go two feet without stepping into a broken glass bottle or coming upon an angry, wild dog.


6. As always, the key to prosperity and progress is not to restrict, but to expand. We cannot afford to impose massive regulations and burdens on the private sector in order to try to fight some perceived, non-existent environmental issue. Have any of you even bothered to look at the proposals for addressing climate change? All of them involve massive expenditures of money by the government, taxes, artificial ceilings for industries, and a shift of money from our country, to the UN. It isn't about the environment and never was. It's about a select few stuffing their pockets with our money.
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Half The Time Line is wrong

Postby FireNail on Thu May 12, 2011 2:18 am

I did a quick google search and found the Petition I mentioned. It has it's own site:
FireNail
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 6:53 am
---------

Next

Return to The Future

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron