• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

HP to build a "central nervous system for the Earth"


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 25 July 2008 - 09:19 PM


Hewlett Packard is up to two
years away from starting to
build a "central nervous
system for the Earth",
known as CeNSE.


Read More: http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/7520706.stm

#2 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:06 PM

The man leading this ambitious project is Dr Stan Williams, who runs HP's Information and Quantum Systems Laboratory. "The motivation for this work is realising and understanding the planet is sick and the disease is us," he told BBC News.


I don't like this attitude and I hate to see people of prominence diminishing the value of humans. There are enough monsters on this planet doing this already, we don't need scientists doing it as well.

We are part of this planet and a product of evolution. Was the earth sick when prokaryotes and ukaryotes oxygenated the atmosphere? Was the planet sick when plants colonized the land? These transformations of the earth were enormous and dwarf anything that humans are doing today, yet we are the "disease".

#3 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:27 PM

The man leading this ambitious project is Dr Stan Williams, who runs HP's Information and Quantum Systems Laboratory. "The motivation for this work is realising and understanding the planet is sick and the disease is us," he told BBC News.


I don't like this attitude and I hate to see people of prominence diminishing the value of humans. There are enough monsters on this planet doing this already, we don't need scientists doing it as well.

We are part of this planet and a product of evolution. Was the earth sick when prokaryotes and ukaryotes oxygenated the atmosphere? Was the planet sick when plants colonized the land? These transformations of the earth were enormous and dwarf anything that humans are doing today, yet we are the "disease".

Agreed. I think it are calvinism and total depravity that casts a shade on our current civilisation. The paradox however is that religion itself is a product of evolution.... We just have to deal with it I guess.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:45 PM

Just to be clear, I am not saying that we should not consider and limit our effects on the planet, just that we don't need to call people "a disease" in order to do it.

#5 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:54 PM

Yep. But it's the combination of religion and socialism (the current Dutch political coalition that has political power) that uses this perception to raise taxes of all sorts..... Bad synergy..... ;)

But maybe this is going to far OT...

Edited by SubZero, 26 July 2008 - 03:55 PM.


#6 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 26 July 2008 - 04:30 PM

I agree with him that humans are a "disease" to the planet. Many current human activities are not sustainable. This is not to say that humans could never become sustainable in a planetary sense, but the analogy of disease to the planet seems fitting, as we continually destroy habitats that are essential to both the human race and many other races that inhabit this planet. I think its a good thing scientists are raising the alarm. If we only heard these kinds of analogies from extremists, it would probably eventually make us immune to criticism.

I see CeNSE as the first line in a series of defence systems to protect earth against technology/biology run-amok. It could be used to detect new strains of viruses or chemical proliferation in the air and water. On the other hand, it could also be used to monitor benign activities and become another "eye" of big-brother. Eventually the big-brother concerns will probably be overruled by fear of terror, as we already see in western countries today (CCTV on London etc). I am on the fence on this being a good or a bad thing. Perhaps if everybody had access to the "eye", or whatever the "eye" reports, the process would be transparent enough as to make people feel they still retain some measure of privacy.

One thing seems certain. There are plenty of people who don't care about the future of the earth. These people could very easily be thought of as cancers of the earth, if they have access to sufficiently powerful technology.

Edited by lightowl, 26 July 2008 - 04:40 PM.


#7 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:05 PM

I must say I sympathize with the initiative. More and better data would enable us to refine our models in order to get a better understanding of cause - effect relations. The way this initiative is presented seems to flaw in a similar way as other initiatives that are related to environmental issues. To get attention one must use polarizing imagery and language. Furthermore, to be able to receive funding, a more neutral position would be less productive I guess.

#8 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:13 PM

I don't object to CeNSE, or to protecting the environment, or even to surveillance (as long as it is open-source and public - not "big brother"), but I do object to calling the human race a "disease" or "cancer". There is a big difference between saying a single person is wasteful, doesn't care, or is a polluting bastard, and claiming the entire race is a "disease". This implies that the entire race needs to be eradicated - wiped out - that the earth needs to be cleansed of them.

Do a thought experiment. Let us say a huge asteroid is headed for the planet - big enough to blast it apart in many pieces. Who is going to save the planet? All the beautiful trees? The polar bear? The whole of nature in all it's peaceful balanced perfect existence? No. It is only the "disease" that can stop the destruction of the entire planet by the enormous asteroid. The "cancer of the planet" is the only thing capable of caring for and protecting the earth as a whole, and we should.

#9 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:29 PM

I don't object to CeNSE, or to protecting the environment, or even to surveillance (as long as it is open-source and public - not "big brother"), but I do object to calling the human race a "disease" or "cancer". There is a big difference between saying a single person is wasteful, doesn't care, or is a polluting bastard, and claiming the entire race is a "disease". This implies that the entire race needs to be eradicated - wiped out - that the earth needs to be cleansed of them.

Do a thought experiment. Let us say a huge asteroid is headed for the planet - big enough to blast it apart in many pieces. Who is going to save the planet? All the beautiful trees? The polar bear? The whole of nature in all it's peaceful balanced perfect existence? No. It is only the "disease" that can stop the destruction of the entire planet by the enormous asteroid. The "cancer of the planet" is the only thing capable of caring for and protecting the earth as a whole, and we should.

Ha, I'm realy in reply mode today. Doesn't happen often.

Anyway, there's another reason to dismiss this kind of imagery. There's a level between the "entire human race" and "individual". For instance "Jews", "Arabs", "republicans". Before you know it, certain races or other collectives are thought to be just a bit more disease-full than others. As can easily be caused by the desire for political gain or plain boredom.

I think it's essential indeed that issues like this should be addressed as neutral and objective as possible. And with a positive in stead of this distasteful negative inclination.

#10 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:56 PM

but I do object to calling the human race a "disease" or "cancer".

As an analogy it is flawed in a sense, I agree. But its still fitting on a global scale. As other "diseases" we have the ability to destroy our host almost completely. I don't agree that it implies a solution would be to eradicate humans. That would be an extreme interpretation. Its still just an analogy.

I think it's essential indeed that issues like this should be addressed as neutral and objective as possible. And with a positive in stead of this distasteful negative inclination.

I definitely don't agree with this. Outrage should be expressed with anger, IMO. Its the best way to show you really mean it.

Edited by lightowl, 26 July 2008 - 05:58 PM.


#11 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 26 July 2008 - 06:03 PM

Look up the definition of disease.

If humanity as a whole impairs the ability of the world to function properly then we could be defined as a disease to the natural state of the world. That's not to say I agree with that opinion. Personally I think a big volcano, 20,000 years dormant could cause effects like global warming. People think the earth is just going to explode into a big ball of fire the more we pollute. The truth is the world is a big steal ball bering. We could completely destroy ourselves with whatever weapons or policies available and the earth would be business as usual 3 million years later.

Edited by bobscrachy, 26 July 2008 - 06:04 PM.


#12 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 26 July 2008 - 06:12 PM

We could completely destroy ourselves with whatever weapons or policies available and the earth would be business as usual 3 million years later.

This is true, and it makes the analogy of a disease better. Earth would need time to recover from the disease. This is assuming of course we consider biological diversity a good state of affairs. ;)

In many cases it is not necessary to eradicate an agent to recover from disease. Various fungi and bacteria live on and inside our human bodies in equilibrium with their surroundings. It is when those agents become too numerous and consume too many resources, that they are considered a disease. In that sense no individual or group of agents is the cause of disease, but the entire population of agents consuming what they need to survive, is the cause.

Edited by lightowl, 26 July 2008 - 06:32 PM.


#13 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 July 2008 - 07:56 PM

Wow. What a completely ridiculous statement. We are definitely not a "disease". This guys sounds like a person who would go out with an Ak killing people, thinking he was doing good. Just my opinion. I can't believe a person could say something like that and be serious about it. Sure we produce the dreaded carbon dioxide, but guess what, the world produces way more carbon dioxide than we do. So does that mean the Earth is a disease in itself? I know that global warming isn't the only thing you have on your little list of wrongs humanity has done, but it's safe to bet it's on it.

I think you're a disease.

#14 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 26 July 2008 - 09:04 PM

I can't believe a person could say something like that and be serious about it.

Not even as an analogy with the CeNSE describes as a nervous system? I don't see how its so ridiculous. Its obvious the way we use the resources of the earth currently is not sustainable and I'm not talking about global warming. We are polluting fresh drinking water to a point where millions must live of sewage water, cutting down huge areas of precious forest without replacement, burning off massive amounts of oil without replacement, dumping huge amounts of toxic waste into the oceans, aggressively overfishing the oceans to the point of depletion in many areas. At the same time we can only sustain relatively decent living standards for less than half the human population. If this continues without radical improvement (which is in the pipe) we would destroy our own means of survival. Global warming is peanuts compared to these problems.

To be honest I find it rather discouraging that some people can not see the analogy. Its an indication that the problems of the world are too distant to bother, or a complete lack of knowledge of the impact humans are having on the earth today.

Edited by lightowl, 26 July 2008 - 09:10 PM.


#15 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 July 2008 - 01:12 AM

I wasn't talking about the idea of the project. I never said that at all, Lightowl. It's just ridiculous to say that the human race is a disease. I don't think you were the one who said that either. Well, idk, maybe you agreed? I was refereing to a comment up higher. Someone said that the human race is a disease to the world. The way it was being described, he sounded like some goth kid who hated the world. The reason I mentioned Global Warming is because I figured people could relate to that being a problem humans helped cause, and a reason to a person who thinks the human race is a "DISEASE". And it's definitely not penuts compared to anything. Global Warming is a huge problem.

But with innovation, comes sacrifice. The sacrifice being that we needed energy, and didn't realize the side affects it was causing until years later when looking at the affects on Venus from the greenhouse affect. But guess what? The world is trying to cut back right now and stop things from getting worse. A "disease" doesn't know when to stop.

#16 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 July 2008 - 01:17 AM

I guess it was you hahahaha ;)

I just read it.

#17 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 27 July 2008 - 02:14 AM

I wasn't talking about the idea of the project. I never said that at all, Lightowl. It's just ridiculous to say that the human race is a disease. I don't think you were the one who said that either. Well, idk, maybe you agreed? I was referring to a comment up higher. Someone said that the human race is a disease to the world. The way it was being described, he sounded like some goth kid who hated the world.

Yep, that was me, and I argue it because someone said it was a bad analogy. I think its rather fitting, not that I think the human race is a disease, but the analogy fits in this context.

The reason I mentioned Global Warming is because I figured people could relate to that being a problem humans helped cause, and a reason to a person who thinks the human race is a "DISEASE". And it's definitely not penuts compared to anything. Global Warming is a huge problem.

Global warming is a problem, but its not the biggest problem. If poverty was not so widespread today, global warming would not be a problem for a long time, if ever. Those mostly affected by any natural disaster is the poor in this world. We who can afford to buy or rent secure homes and buy our clean water in the stores wont feel the direct effects. But we will surely start noticing the many poor desperate people knocking at our doors begging for help. Its sad really and unfair. I wish more people would share what they have.

But with innovation, comes sacrifice. The sacrifice being that we needed energy, and didn't realize the side affects it was causing until years later when looking at the affects on Venus from the greenhouse affect. But guess what? The world is trying to cut back right now and stop things from getting worse.

Yep, I'm not disputing that. And I'm definitely an optimist when it comes to technological possibilities. I just wish it wouldn't take a disaster for things to get moving in many cases. I doubt global warming will be limited because of the problems it is causing poor people. I think the price of fossil fuels will probably have a bigger impact in the short term, until we have alternatives readily available through technological advances.

A "disease" doesn't know when to stop.

Right, this is where the analogy is weak, but still. Some people still don't know when to stop, or don't want to stop, or don't care to stop. Hopefully democracy will keep those people out of power. But where they to gain power, the analogy would stand on that point too. Also, an analogy doesnt have to be complete correct on all aspects of a comparison. That's the beauty of analogies. They can be used to describe similarities without absolute equality.

Edited by lightowl, 27 July 2008 - 02:32 AM.


#18 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 27 July 2008 - 02:24 AM

BTW, the guy making the analogy was the guy leading the project at HP.

"The motivation for this work is realising and understanding the planet is sick and the disease is us,"

"As information technology people, we are not going to be the ones who prescribe and administer the cure but we should be the people who provide the information required to do proper diagnosis and treatment."

...

And just as a doctor would use a barrage of tests to find out what ails a patient, so Dr Williams believes he and HP can do the same in finding out what is going wrong with our environment and offering solutions to problems before they turn into disasters.

Dr Williams suggested that, instead of wielding a stethoscope, HP would use trillions of sensors to monitor the health of the Earth and use the information to head off natural calamities such as large scale flooding or wildfires.


Edited by lightowl, 27 July 2008 - 02:29 AM.


#19 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 July 2008 - 04:28 AM

I thought the Earth's nervous system was the Internet. These HP things are more like receptors. It would have been nice if they'd given us a little better sense of what they could do; that was pretty much left blank. Can they sense all kinds of chemical species? Ions, small molecules, nucleotides, peptides..? Could I have them implanted in my body to give me a constant readout of all pertinent chemistry? Then we'd really be talking.

We'd all be better off if the Earth had about one tenth the people it has now. The "disease" analogy isn't that bad, although it kind of reeks of Gaia-ism. It's no worse than the "nervous system" analogy, which is also pretty stupid. I doubt the guy really meant that humanity is the disease, as though we should all be killed. But it was a pretty dumb thing to say.

#20 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 July 2008 - 06:23 AM

You know what man, I can tell you are a good guy. It's good to see that you care about the world. Trust me, I do too. The goth kid thing was a little over exaggerated. It's just I can't agree with that even if it was just an analogy. But who cares, lets not worry about that now. You make some very good points. I actually just made a post today talking about how oil prices are crippling the world. Not just the oil prices themselves either...

When the price for oil goes up, A LOT of other things rise as well. Like for example, what I said in the post earlier today: How do you think that food gets to the store for you to buy? Gas. Since they have to pay more for gas, they have to raise the prices to stay afloat. This applies to many things. It may not be big price changes, but it's certainly not helping! They say we're eventually gonna have 12 dollar gas. By then, I don't know what the world's gonna do.

Apparently America is gonna drill for some natural gas. For every gallon of natural gas it's the equivalent of 8 gallons of oil in energy. Can't beat that. But still, global warming is a very pressing issue. I'm not gonna lie, I didn't use to believe in it for the longest damn time. The evidence is just too overwhelming. It may not be the closest problem time wise, but if that's how everyone looked at it, I don't know how we would ever defeat it. Really, we need to try and deal with every problem at hand.

Edited by Cody, 27 July 2008 - 07:15 AM.


#21 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 27 July 2008 - 08:03 AM

Oil prices are breaking the worlds dependence. $5 oil means electric cars, and energy advancements from every viable direction. If you were truly worried about greenhouse gases causing environmental problems you would pray night and day for higher fuel prices.

Worrying about the world environment is pointless . The media has been feeding the public what they want to hear for generations. This is no different. People who feel like they're helping to make a difference are the easiest to take advantage of. Want some advice? Don't litter, do as much as you can to save money (efficient lightbulb, fuel efficient car, solar panels, ect.) and don't listen to all the horrible things you hear on the news. Most of what is aired on tv is there to raise your blood pressure and distract you from taking care of your own business.

Edited by bobscrachy, 27 July 2008 - 08:06 AM.


#22 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 27 July 2008 - 03:52 PM

I thought the Earth's nervous system was the Internet. These HP things are more like receptors. It would have been nice if they'd given us a little better sense of what they could do; that was pretty much left blank. Can they sense all kinds of chemical species? Ions, small molecules, nucleotides, peptides..?

I think they pretty much left that up to what is physically possible. Obviously biology has created many excellent receptors that could be used to detect toxicity.

Could I have them implanted in my body to give me a constant readout of all pertinent chemistry? Then we'd really be talking.

Yea, I have been waiting for that for a long time now. I know they are starting to ship toilets from Japan that monitor ones urine and makes suggestions on how to change your diet. In the not so distant future, we will be able to buy hand held blood analyzers to help us diagnose and preempt disease, just like we can buy blood pressure readers today. The market is already booming with various kinds of strips to measure all kinds of biological indicators in our blood and urine. The problem is mainly that they are not repeatable tests, and still too expensive to use regularly.

We'd all be better off if the Earth had about one tenth the people it has now.

In a sense that would be true, but I suspect one reason for the progress boom is the large number of people on the earth today, combined with access to education and the occasional war to provide government incentive to develop new technology and educate their people. If the 10% people you talk about where to be equally distributed between richer and poorer, the overall effect would probably be slower progress in the short term. In any case its hypothetical, because, just like with aging, the solution to let people die is morally not an option.

The "disease" analogy isn't that bad, although it kind of reeks of Gaia-ism. It's no worse than the "nervous system" analogy, which is also pretty stupid.

I think what he was talking about was the system as a whole, with the receptors as one part of the nervous system, and their software (in combination with the Internet) as another part.

I doubt the guy really meant that humanity is the disease, as though we should all be killed. But it was a pretty dumb thing to say.

I think he might have had success using that analogy when explaining the system to laymen. That's probably why he used it in the interview. I don't think it was such a dumb thing to say. Perhaps if some of us here where his only audience.

How do you think that food gets to the store for you to buy? Gas.

Oil prices are breaking the worlds dependence. $5 oil means electric cars, and energy advancements from every viable direction.

Exactly. This is why the peek oil gloom is unlikely. We will always have the ability to revert to other technologies that are less expensive. The interesting thing, I think, about why oil is so expensive today, is that all the cheap oil was coming from less problematic parts of the world. Now that that oil is coming to an end, or getting much harder to get our hands on, we are forced to buy it from people who don't like us. That's a problem, but eventually they will undermine their own business by forcing us to develop new sustainable technologies. Nuclear power, for example, uses resources that are plentiful in Canada and other western countries. With new reactors like the French "rapid reactors" we can eventually use most of the energy in the fuel, only being left over with waste to store for about 100-500 years. In that time-span, I am quite confident we will be able to develop technology to further limit that storage period. I'm quite optimistic that the worlds energy problems will be solved within the next 20-50 years. Hopefully when we have enough energy we can start giving it away to poor people, so they can get clean water (from condensation) and heating/cooling. And that's only nuclear energy. Massively distributed solar energy will do much to better living standards for poor people in third world countries, provided theirs and our governments lets them use the technology freely.

Edited by lightowl, 27 July 2008 - 03:56 PM.


#23 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 July 2008 - 07:50 PM

Oil prices are breaking the worlds dependence. $5 oil means electric cars, and energy advancements from every viable direction. If you were truly worried about greenhouse gases causing environmental problems you would pray night and day for higher fuel prices.


Oh my god, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with that. We're getting more and more efficient at using EVERY source of energy. Including oil. The entire world is beginning to cut back on carbon dioxide levles. What you believe is that the ENTIRE world has to be brought to their knees!? I should be praying for higher gas prices??? Oh my god. Definitely a democrat influenced belief. Besides, we're gonna begin using natural gas instead.

Well of course the news is ran horribly. Media can't be trusted at all. Sorry, but that's way old news to me.

Btw, when I said "For every gallon of natural gas it's the equivalent of 8 gallons of oil in energy." I meant to say that for every MCM of natural gas (I think that's what it was), it's the equivalent of 8 gallons of oil.

Edited by Cody, 27 July 2008 - 07:53 PM.


#24 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 27 July 2008 - 08:48 PM

Oh my god, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with that. We're getting more and more efficient at using EVERY source of energy. Including oil. The entire world is beginning to cut back on carbon dioxide levles. What you believe is that the ENTIRE world has to be brought to their knees!? I should be praying for higher gas prices??? Oh my god. Definitely a democrat influenced belief. Besides, we're gonna begin using natural gas instead.


Look at the proof. JUST $4 gas has driven up the demand for hybrids, electrics, bio disel, wind and solar. T bone pickens even wants to spend billions to lobby the government into placing windmills up the center of the nation. Disagree with me all you want, facts speak for themselves.

Just to let you know, I am registered as a republican. But, sorting your opinions based on two very broad political ideologies is akin to being herded like a sheep.

Edited by bobscrachy, 27 July 2008 - 08:50 PM.


#25 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 July 2008 - 09:02 PM

Oh my god, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with that. We're getting more and more efficient at using EVERY source of energy. Including oil. The entire world is beginning to cut back on carbon dioxide levles. What you believe is that the ENTIRE world has to be brought to their knees!? I should be praying for higher gas prices??? Oh my god. Definitely a democrat influenced belief. Besides, we're gonna begin using natural gas instead.


Look at the proof. JUST $4 gas has driven up the demand for hybrids, electrics, bio disel, wind and solar. T bone pickens even wants to spend billions to lobby the government into placing windmills up the center of the nation. Disagree with me all you want, facts speak for themselves.

Just to let you know, I am registered as a republican. But, sorting your opinions based on two very broad political ideologies is akin to being herded like a sheep.


Well yeah, what do you expect? THEIR KILLING THE COUNTRY. Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you. I don't care what you say though, doing this to people is wrong. Your wrong in my opinion. So don't act like you are god and that there is NO WAY to dispute the things you say.

What are you talking about? You don't even know me.

#26 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 27 July 2008 - 11:09 PM

I think calling the human race a disease undercuts the whole point of protecting the environment. The reason we need to protect the environment is because it benefits human beings and the other conscious animals we share the world with. You don't cure an illness to help the germs. That statement just another example of the natural=good, man-made=bad dichotomy.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 27 July 2008 - 11:19 PM.


#27 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 27 July 2008 - 11:45 PM

Well yeah, what do you expect? THEIR KILLING THE COUNTRY. Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you. I don't care what you say though, doing this to people is wrong. Your wrong in my opinion. So don't act like you are god and that there is NO WAY to dispute the things you say.

What are you talking about? You don't even know me.


Drugs are bad champ.

#28 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:49 AM

Well yeah, what do you expect? THEIR KILLING THE COUNTRY. Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you. I don't care what you say though, doing this to people is wrong. Your wrong in my opinion. So don't act like you are god and that there is NO WAY to dispute the things you say.

What are you talking about? You don't even know me.


Drugs are bad champ.


Lol, that's the best you've got? *Cody snorts cocaine*

Lame.

#29 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:22 AM

Oh my god, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with that. We're getting more and more efficient at using EVERY source of energy. Including oil. The entire world is beginning to cut back on carbon dioxide levles. What you believe is that the ENTIRE world has to be brought to their knees!? I should be praying for higher gas prices??? Oh my god. Definitely a democrat influenced belief. Besides, we're gonna begin using natural gas instead.


Look at the proof. JUST $4 gas has driven up the demand for hybrids, electrics, bio disel, wind and solar. T bone pickens even wants to spend billions to lobby the government into placing windmills up the center of the nation. Disagree with me all you want, facts speak for themselves.

Just to let you know, I am registered as a republican. But, sorting your opinions based on two very broad political ideologies is akin to being herded like a sheep.


Well yeah, what do you expect? THEIR KILLING THE COUNTRY. Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you. I don't care what you say though, doing this to people is wrong. Your wrong in my opinion. So don't act like you are god and that there is NO WAY to dispute the things you say.

What are you talking about? You don't even know me.

Cody, bobscrachy just handed you a collection of facts, which I bolded above. Those things are true to the best of my knowledge. If you want to dispute them, then present the evidence necessary. Don't accuse people of acting like god just because you don't believe the facts they present.

#30 Cody

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:31 AM

Oh my god, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with that. We're getting more and more efficient at using EVERY source of energy. Including oil. The entire world is beginning to cut back on carbon dioxide levles. What you believe is that the ENTIRE world has to be brought to their knees!? I should be praying for higher gas prices??? Oh my god. Definitely a democrat influenced belief. Besides, we're gonna begin using natural gas instead.


Look at the proof. JUST $4 gas has driven up the demand for hybrids, electrics, bio disel, wind and solar. T bone pickens even wants to spend billions to lobby the government into placing windmills up the center of the nation. Disagree with me all you want, facts speak for themselves.

Just to let you know, I am registered as a republican. But, sorting your opinions based on two very broad political ideologies is akin to being herded like a sheep.


Well yeah, what do you expect? THEIR KILLING THE COUNTRY. Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you. I don't care what you say though, doing this to people is wrong. Your wrong in my opinion. So don't act like you are god and that there is NO WAY to dispute the things you say.

What are you talking about? You don't even know me.

Cody, bobscrachy just handed you a collection of facts, which I bolded above. Those things are true to the best of my knowledge. If you want to dispute them, then present the evidence necessary. Don't accuse people of acting like god just because you don't believe the facts they present.


I never disputed that they weren't true. I agreed with him.

"Well yeah, what do you expect?" "Also, where is your proof? Not that I don't believe you."

All I said is that doing this to people is wrong. It shouldn't be done this way. THAT was my dispute. And all he had to say to it was an idiotic remark. He was acting as if what he said was the only way and there was no other way to go around it. That's what gods tend to do. See me connection now? I asked where his proof was because I wanted to see if he had a page or something that would be interesting.

Anyways, I stand behind what I say. Not out stuborness, but because I truly believe that forcing people into submission is the wrong way to go about it.

Edited by Cody, 28 July 2008 - 03:47 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users