Fuck people for wanting kids and control of their lives, right?
Yeah, fuck them, in fact. You're not the only person in the world, you know. We're all stuck here together in a very precarious position that will define all future humans lives. What an individual wants has no bearing if it jeopardizes that. There's seven billion humans in the world, a person's childish desires for a giant family that is actually a swirling drain of resource depletion isn't as important.
As for it being control, please. If reveling in your their ignorance and inflicting it on everybody else is how people control their lives then maybe they really should have it controlled for them.
There's no point in maintaining the human race's future if we aren't even able to allow it now. Wanting a family is not
childish, and people are not just resource sinks. They're goddamned people. Should people have a lot of kids? Maybe not, and there's a few reasons for that. But
you don't get to tell people how to live their lives.
You don't get to control them. You don't get to say 'no, you're not allowed to have any children'. They have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do not get to restrict the second for the future of the third. People are people, it does not matter on whit whether they're ignorant or not (fuck all those poor people in India, right? fucking assholes making it so their grandchildren are using up all the resources in the future).
None of this changes the fact that most CO2 reduction is just going to come down to time in the sun. We've recorded the effect of how ppm changes between summer and winter, and while it's certainly distinct it goes (IIRC) from 415 to 389 ppm. Meaningful. But not a solution.
....Well no shit it's not gonna do anything if we continue putting out this much. My point was that if we stopped clear-cutting and replenished greenery where possible, that it would a. help, and b. that not every aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere was terribad. And furthermore that nature is pretty decent at establishing equilibrium. If we move off of fossil fuels, or reduce their use significantly (since the increased rates of carbon use are both more advantageous for us in several respects and counter a certain amount of fossil fuel use), then the mechanisms for dealing with the carbon in the atmosphere will in fact help.
And no, sunlight breaking down carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a significant part of the carbon cycle. At all. As in looking at carbon cycle stuff I literally can find zero mention of it.
This is just plain wrong. You don't know what materials are used in fracking fluid unless you work for the companies who own the proprietary. And I'm sure people's taps going up in flames is just red propaganda or something.
You know, in my glorious state they also passed a law that lets companies drill sideways under your land to obtain mineral resources under it. Just an aside of how clean and upstanding of a business this is.
...They are pulling up methane, most of the time. Methane, strangely enough, is able to catch on fire. If there's a significant bubble drawn up alongside the methane in the pipes that gets out, that can catch on fire for a brief time. And literally, the guy who invented fracking used bleach and soap,
because they were cheap and there was no real reason to use any other chemical in the process, and people have done studies on this stuff. Here, let me list some of the ones my source used.
Not even sure how the drilling thing relates, unless by mineral resources you mean oil and gas.
If I am immoral beyond words then you are reckless beyond them. Literally aggravating stable faultlines and not caring, I don't even have anything to say if you don't see why this is a stupid, stupid fucking thing to do. Yeah, I'm sure it'll stop at "just little shakes". Do you support dropping little artificial hurricanes on New Orleans too? For the first time I say this completely unironically, lo and behold the hubris of mankind.
...Yeah. It does, in fact, stop at small shakes. This isn't a magical process we can never understand and is too great for humanity to comprehend. This isn't playing God here. Stable faultlines don't quake, lubricated or no. Stressed ones do. If category I typhoons turned out to be the product of specific air travel lines, I would find that fascinating. I would also see it as completely
Also, my point wasn't about your morality, but if you want to bring it up; I would very much rather be trying to help the world recklessly than give people their 'just desserts' cautiously. Literally my life goal is to cure death via nanotechnology. So yeah, you could say I'm ambitious.
Please stop focusing the example. My point, my original point before we got tracked off here is that innovation is not a solution to anything, ever. Innovation increases certain options we have available to us. That's it. Sometimes we get a smallpox vaccination and sometimes we get a suitcase nuke. Whether any innovative potential is ever actually used depends entirely on the economic and societal circumstances. Hence why we could have long ago massively improved our sustainability but have not, while people continue to cling to "innovation will save us"
...More options
is literally a solution if no options currently available solve a given problem effectively. I dunno if you've noticed, but no one's used a suitcase nuke. Now compare the lack of anyone dying to a suitcase nuke to the fact of smallpox not existing anymore. Our sustainability has massively improved compared to where it used to be, iirc. It's not perfect, and coal plants need to disappear as quick as can be, but to say there's no progress because we could be farther ahead is a fallacy.
Also, if you don't want me to focus on bad analogies that try to equate innovation with child sacrifice...don't make them. Seriously. Innovation can have consequences, yes, technologically induced redundancy and all that. That doesn't mean you stop innovating. And organisation styles and sweeping administrative policy changes are also innovations. They're just much harder to do.
Jesus does not have every climatologist in the world supporting him.
Only every second Christian.
Do I even have to say it?
Only half of Christians support Jesus? Shouldn't it be all of them?
[/quote]
It was the idea of attributing everything they see to God's work or something like that. I was trying to stay on the safe side.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1392574 times)