68 replies to this topic

[nowayout]

That's the thing. Climate science is controlled by the gatekeepers, who will keep dissenters out.

Yes, and 911 was a secret plot by the Jews who made sure to call in sick that day, and the Holocaust didn't happen, right? Jeez!

[nowayout]

By the way I'm still waiting for my explenation why should I care about plants or ants without any higher feelings or self-consciousness more than I do about minerals and metals.

I don't care what you care about. You don't have the culture or education to understand the importance of these things. It is your prerogative to continue your life of ignorance if you so desire. Go live in the hole you crawled out of and be happy.

But it is when people with your backward attitude wantonly destroy things that are important to the rest of us that the line should be drawn.

Edited by viveutvivas, 10 November 2010 - 01:04 AM.

[rwac]

You aren't skipping the argument if you take a couple shots like that.

I figured we'd both state our positions and then stop. I may have been overly optimistic.

Edited by rwac, 10 November 2010 - 01:05 AM.

[rwac]

Yes, and 911 was a secret plot by the Jews who made sure to call in sick that day, and the Holocaust didn't happen, right? Jeez!

No, but Ancel Keys did cherry-pick his data and falsify conclusions, and T. Colin Campbell did ignore the correlation of CVD with wheat consumption. Your point ?

Edited by rwac, 10 November 2010 - 01:16 AM.

[niner]

This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.

Even if it is true what is so bad about this? It happened many times without human intervention, in fact there would be no humans if it didn't happen 65 milion years ago so I would say this type of "destructions" are quite normal, they push life into new directions and we already see how different organism adapt to man-made environment. By the way I'm still waiting for my explenation why should I care about plants or ants without any higher feelings or self-consciousness more than I do about minerals and metals.

US Military planners cite climate change as a danger to national security. I think the argument is that changes in rainfall and temperature patterns will lead to massive migration of populations and to resource wars. In addition to this, we are already seeing a number of cases of noxious insect and microbial species that are expanding their range and causing significant damage to human well being. Just because a giant asteroid hit or a megavolcano eruption is "natural" doesn't make it good. It's entirely possible that for a long time after the rapid climate changes in the past, the environment was profoundly messed up, and took a long time to reach a new equilibrium. We can go ahead and run the experiment that the coal companies and Tea Partiers want us to run. The upside might (or might not) be a short term improvement to the economy, particularly if you make money from fossil fuels. The downside? Biosphere seriously F'ed up for a hundred thousand years? When I look at the arguments, and who is making them, on one side I see almost the entire scientific community, most of whom do not "make money" from the existence of climate change. On the other, I see a bunch of people who aren't even fully anchored in reality some of the time, and are prone to factual errors due to the overriding pull of their ideology. You can probably figure out which side I would go with.

[firespin]

This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.

Even if it is true what is so bad about this? It happened many times without human intervention, in fact there would be no humans if it didn't happen 65 milion years ago so I would say this type of "destructions" are quite normal, they push life into new directions and we already see how different organism adapt to man-made environment. By the way I'm still waiting for my explenation why should I care about plants or ants without any higher feelings or self-consciousness more than I do about minerals and metals.

When I look at the arguments, and who is making them, on one side I see almost the entire scientific community, most of whom do not "make money" from the existence of climate change. On the other, I see a bunch of people who aren't even fully anchored in reality some of the time, and are prone to factual errors due to the overriding pull of their ideology. You can probably figure out which side I would go with.

Come on How do they get funding for their research? How do they get paid or make a living? I'm sure they are not homeless. I'm not saying the environment is not important, but it have been shown over and over again scientists will be bias for whoever is funding their research and signing their paycheck, whether working private or public. I think being concerned about the environment is important, but a lot of these present fears are way overblown. If you were to believe some scientists doom predictions from the past, there shouldn't be any humans alive, or billions more humans than the amount today.

Since I would like to live forever, and I do like animals, I think the environment is important, but I believe these present fears are far overblown than what is the reality. This promotion of overblown fear like in the past will just lead to more dumb policies/laws created, waste of tax money, and possibly even be harmful to the life-extension movement.

Edited by firespin, 10 November 2010 - 04:31 AM.

[niner]

When I look at the arguments, and who is making them, on one side I see almost the entire scientific community, most of whom do not "make money" from the existence of climate change. On the other, I see a bunch of people who aren't even fully anchored in reality some of the time, and are prone to factual errors due to the overriding pull of their ideology. You can probably figure out which side I would go with.

Come on How do they get funding for their research? How do they get paid or make a living? I'm sure they are not homeless. I'm not saying the environment is not important, but it have been shown over and over again scientists will be bias for whoever is funding their research and signing their paycheck, whether working private or public.

Do you think that if it wasn't for AGW, all the climate scientists would be out of work? There are a million reasons for knowing more about climate. One of them is long range weather forecasting. Having a better understanding of what the next planting season is going to be like is worth a fortune in the futures market. Many of these scientists are academics. Among other things, they are paid to teach. Some are tenured, and are financially secure. Most scientists try to make their research seem relevant; whatever seems to be bringing in the money, they will make it sound relevant to that.

Has anyone ever stopped and thought about how preposterous this story is? It goes like this: The vast majority of climate scientists are complete sleazeballs who are committing illegal fraud in order to maintain the wildly lavish lifestyle of... a college professor. The conspiracy is incredibly tight, since although there are thousands of them, none have ever come forward with details of the massive scam. Investigative reporters, the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol are all clueless regarding this massive crime, despite the hundreds of thousands of Right Wingers who keep trying to appraise them of it. Apparently they are all "in on it".

[suspire]

Has anyone ever stopped and thought about how preposterous this story is? It goes like this: The vast majority of climate scientists are complete sleazeballs who are committing illegal fraud in order to maintain the wildly lavish lifestyle of... a college professor. The conspiracy is incredibly tight, since although there are thousands of them, none have ever come forward with details of the massive scam. Investigative reporters, the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol are all clueless regarding this massive crime, despite the hundreds of thousands of Right Wingers who keep trying to appraise them of it. Apparently they are all "in on it".

Next you're going to say 9/11 wasn't an inside job!

Come on man, stop preachin' your logic 'round here!

[firespin]

When I look at the arguments, and who is making them, on one side I see almost the entire scientific community, most of whom do not "make money" from the existence of climate change. On the other, I see a bunch of people who aren't even fully anchored in reality some of the time, and are prone to factual errors due to the overriding pull of their ideology. You can probably figure out which side I would go with.

Come on How do they get funding for their research? How do they get paid or make a living? I'm sure they are not homeless. I'm not saying the environment is not important, but it have been shown over and over again scientists will be bias for whoever is funding their research and signing their paycheck, whether working private or public.

Do you think that if it wasn't for AGW, all the climate scientists would be out of work? There are a million reasons for knowing more about climate. One of them is long range weather forecasting. Having a better understanding of what the next planting season is going to be like is worth a fortune in the futures market. Many of these scientists are academics. Among other things, they are paid to teach. Some are tenured, and are financially secure. Most scientists try to make their research seem relevant; whatever seems to be bringing in the money, they will make it sound relevant to that.

Has anyone ever stopped and thought about how preposterous this story is? It goes like this: The vast majority of climate scientists are complete sleazeballs who are committing illegal fraud in order to maintain the wildly lavish lifestyle of... a college professor. The conspiracy is incredibly tight, since although there are thousands of them, none have ever come forward with details of the massive scam. Investigative reporters, the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol are all clueless regarding this massive crime, despite the hundreds of thousands of Right Wingers who keep trying to appraise them of it. Apparently they are all "in on it".

What is the evidence/data/proof that prove these climate scientists are right? Who are they (the majority) that you are talking about? I never heard that the majority of climate scientists support what you are saying. Just because supposedly you believe a lot of climate scientists support it doesn't mean they (or you) are right. Many times majority of scientists supported past dooms-day scenarios and they were wrong. One time majority of scientists once supported eugenics saying that human genetics were harmed by "inferior people" and civilization will fall and they were wrong (We now also know about the horrible acts that occurred once the US, Germany, and other countries etc created laws based on what "majority" of those scientists claimed).

If you want someone to believe you then give facts, real data, proof and not obscure study with "if" and "maybe" mixed with fear mongering based on some small increase when the planet faced similar times and done just fine

Also I am not a right winger, I am a independent. I believe the left is no better than the right with bias and make a lot of unsupported claims (just as the right) with little evidence. Both are the extremes of opposite ends.
Just because someone does not agree with something that is supposedly leftist/liberal do not mean they are right/conservative.

Edited by firespin, 10 November 2010 - 06:41 AM.

[niner]

When I look at the arguments, and who is making them, on one side I see almost the entire scientific community, most of whom do not "make money" from the existence of climate change. On the other, I see a bunch of people who aren't even fully anchored in reality some of the time, and are prone to factual errors due to the overriding pull of their ideology. You can probably figure out which side I would go with.

Come on How do they get funding for their research? How do they get paid or make a living? I'm sure they are not homeless. I'm not saying the environment is not important, but it have been shown over and over again scientists will be bias for whoever is funding their research and signing their paycheck, whether working private or public.

Do you think that if it wasn't for AGW, all the climate scientists would be out of work? There are a million reasons for knowing more about climate. One of them is long range weather forecasting. Having a better understanding of what the next planting season is going to be like is worth a fortune in the futures market. Many of these scientists are academics. Among other things, they are paid to teach. Some are tenured, and are financially secure. Most scientists try to make their research seem relevant; whatever seems to be bringing in the money, they will make it sound relevant to that.

Has anyone ever stopped and thought about how preposterous this story is? It goes like this: The vast majority of climate scientists are complete sleazeballs who are committing illegal fraud in order to maintain the wildly lavish lifestyle of... a college professor. The conspiracy is incredibly tight, since although there are thousands of them, none have ever come forward with details of the massive scam. Investigative reporters, the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol are all clueless regarding this massive crime, despite the hundreds of thousands of Right Wingers who keep trying to appraise them of it. Apparently they are all "in on it".

What is the evidence and data that prove these climate scientists are right? Who are they (the majority) that you are talking about? I never heard that the majority of climate scientists support what you are saying. Just because supposedly you believe a lot of climate scientists support it doesn't mean they (or you) are right. Many times majority of scientists supported past dooms-day scenarios and they were wrong. One time majority of scientists once supported eugenics saying that human genetics were harmed by "inferior people" and civilization will fall and they were wrong (We now also know about the horrible acts that occurred once the US, Germany, and other countries etc created laws based on what "majority" of those scientists claimed).

If you want someone to believe you then give facts, real data, proof and not obscure study with "if" and "maybe" mixed with fear mongering based on some small increase when the planet faced similar times and done just fine.

Also I am not a right winger, I am a independent. I believe the left is no better than the right with bias and make a lot of unsupported claims (just as the right) with little evidence. Both are the extremes of opposite ends.
Just because someone does not agree with anything leftist/liberal do not mean they are right/conservative

Find me a major body of climate scientists who think that AGW is nothing but "fraud". In science, you go where the evidence points. The agreement regarding AGW is overwhelming. Whether I "supposedly" believe it or not doesn't really matter, but when a large body of scientists (not one, or ten, or one hundred; thousands.) say X and a bunch of ideological people who do not understand climate science (and have a history of being wrong on important issues) say Y, I will go with X. I'm not saying you are wrong on other important issues, but on this one you are hanging with a bad crowd.

It's cool that you are an independent. So am I.

[Brainbox]

It's not a conspiracy on either side. The fact that there are just two sides should wake you up.

Processes like this, especially when they are politically driven, do result in a sort of herd mentality. You're either with us or against us. And we are genetically selected to comply to these kind of things by centuries of religious activities.

Pessimism has always ruled the world, either through forms of religion or political movements. Look at the tone of the starting post; there are problems to deal with, but it is not that bad. The level of complaining and negativity is of all times.

It even looks like a bargaining process; start at an extreme end to try to get the best out for your point of view.

This has nothing to do with a scientific debate, but it is a political bullfight.

[robomoon]

The tech-societies have enough means of family planning, so their growth rates went down. Nevertheless, it would be not astonishing when complicated concepts just like overpopulation can be used or misused for other reasons. One use: science about an increased mass consumption of food, energy, etc., and interconnected environmental issues. One misuse: strategic stigmatization of some ethnical societies as unworthy for higher mass consumption while economic gains in other societies are being advocated this way.

No wonder when some life-extensionists react in a strange manner to anything that has to do with just an evaluation of the overpopulation concept. But it is no fun that technotopian speculations like the below citation are being created and even officially mentioned by life-extensionists, because they obviously have no other choice when misuse of the overpopulation concept was often too easy.

//cut//
Some of these doom-gloom of the environment is way over-blown, and don't have enough data to support them. They often are bias studies meant to pull on people's emotions to support a agenda. A example is human overpopulation. Every human being on the planet can leave in Texas with enough room, and yet somehow there is a danger of overpopulation? The populations of developed countries are also shrinking, standards of living are increasing for everyone because of
//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 10 November 2010 - 12:58 PM.

[Kolos]

I don't care what you care about. You don't have the culture or education bla bla bla look at my green penis it's so big.
But it is when people with your backward attitude wantonly destroy things that are important to the rest of us that the line should be drawn.

Who is "us" ? Rest of humanity? No I'm quite sure most people would rather agree with me that environment should be protected as long as it is in our(human) interest and that's where the line is, although most people probably don't think about it too much. Perhaps you think that we have some semi-religious obligation to goddess Gaia, "universe", "cosmic life energy" or whatever eco-luddits believe but I don't see any moral obligation to beings that wouldn't even understand the concept of morality.

Edited by Kolos, 10 November 2010 - 01:31 PM.

[Brainbox]

Apart from the fact that I dislike the methods of communication around the subject, I would like to align my (admitted, somewhat limited) insight. I do not have the time to write an essay about it, so it's very brief and maybe entertaining.

Regarding climate change, we do not have sufficient knowledge about cause and effect. We are gaining some knowledge about correlation, which is, when extrapolated based on for the greater part gut feeling, disturbing.

So, what do we do. We execute a what-if risk analysis based on the extrapolations and conclude "oh shit", if the extrapolations are correct we have an enormous problem regarding the continuity of our civilisation.

Then the superficial media communicate the "oh shit" part. Political organisations (in the US there are only 2 of importance) either want to provide shelter to be paid by taxes or ignore the issue and reduce taxes. Ah, taxes.... and polarisation extra-ordinaire is born.

We know for sure we are doing a few things not so good. Which basically comes down to how we spend our resources (such as energy) and what we pay as end user for products that are grown or made using these resources. In this regard we dream up a first concept called "ecological footprint" to be able to quantify the effects of our consumption. I like that. We are starting to get data that we can use to make decisions, either individually or collectively. But at this moment this does work only partially or even not at all. The link between the ecological footprint through used resources to what we end up paying is quite fuzzy. One litre (or gallon) of gasoline that we soup up in our car has an entirely different price as compared to an litre of gasoline we indirectly spend by eating burgers. This is originated in regional differences in pricing. Moving a cow or lot of soy beans is cheaper in Argentina or Brazil as compared to the Netherlands which has an enormous level of taxes on gasoline. To make a short-cut, it are the government administrations that obfuscate the transparency of what we pay for our resources. Resulting in our inability to make decent choices that are based on the ecological footprint.

We need to brake this circle of taxing individuals and organisation and subsidizing of entire industries by local governments. This redistribution of money did have it's good points in the past and still has partly good use now, but what is needed is to redesign it big time. And not add new taxes and subsidiaries to compensate for the side effects of the measures that were taken 50 years ago.

So yes, it is a political issue after all, which seems to be the problem.....

Now go do something, you complainers and politicians.....

[robomoon]

Do something. That means: tax something or remove tax from something. Great idea, nobody did it right before during the last couple of decades, not even green parties. It probably was due to their green tea or some green smoke that had something wrong in it, nobody can say for sure.

The solution: SENS to the rescue in green politics! Prevent the aging brains of green politicians from aging too much. It will help when one green psychoactive substance (not named due to legal reasons) that unwisely became misused during hippy parties in the 70's is getting medically administered for age prevention by adding some special ingredients to. Any special ingredient for controlled therapy like a cellular junk blocker, a braincell growth activator, etc., will make it much better to help intelligently putting a stop to the destructive soy farming!

That will do for better taxes.

//cut//
This redistribution of money did have it's good points in the past and still has partly good use now, but what is needed is to redesign it big time. And not add new taxes and subsidiaries to compensate for the side effects of the measures that were taken 50 years ago.

So yes, it is a political issue after all, which seems to be the problem.....
//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 10 November 2010 - 09:59 PM.

[Brainbox]

The solution: SENS to the rescue in green politics! Prevent the aging brains of green politicians from aging too much. It will help when one green psychoactive substance (not named due to legal reasons) that unwisely became misused during hippy parties in the 70's is getting medically administered for age prevention by adding some special ingredients to. Any special ingredient for controlled therapy like a cellular junk blocker, a braincell growth activator, etc., will make it much better to help intelligently putting a stop to the destructive soy farming!

That will do for better taxes.

That is an example of the classical correlation versus causation debate. A link is dreamed up using colours used in a name of a political movement and the colour of an illegal substance. Then a suggestive remark is placed about the causality of using this substance and the viewpoints of this movement.
The correlation is based on very general principles; the colour in the name of the movement just refers to nature in general, the properties of colour of the illegal substance introduced by you in this equation depend only on the fact that this plant happens to be part of our flora and therefore are inherited generically. But then, I can only guess that this plant is referred to due to the demagogue suggestive nature of the surmising remarks.

I wonder if this is representative for the school of thought that is being represented.

But the short reply would be: And your point is?

[Rational Madman]

I was only born 44 years ago.

A third of the Amazon is gone already, replaced by wastelands and soy fields. When I was born, the Amazon was still largely intact.

The Indonesian and Asian rainforests are doing much worse, 80% or more gone in many places. When I was born, they were still largely intact.

The "Great American Landscape" is a wasteland of ugly crumbling strip malls. The great Niagara falls is in the middle of a ugly crumbling ghetto. Much of it happened since I was born.

There are almost no true wildernesses any more. Kilimandjaro is covered knee deep in garbage. So is a lot of Alaska. There are plans to pave the Serengeti.

Many of the idyllic places of my childhood have been paved over for living space or commerce. Only the odd one out survives.

It is estimated that half of all living species will be extinct in 100 years.

Our atmosphere is poisoned by carbon dioxide, already irreversibly so, since humanity will never cooperate to address this. As a result of rising CO2, the oceans will soon become an acidified wasteland, as barren as our continents.

Because of human greed and avarice, these problems will not be solved.

What is there left to live for?

You know, it's somewhat problematic to treat the most dire forecasts as certainties. Putting this problem aside, humanity has the incredible capacity to adapt to, or resist unwanted changes. So don't throw in the towel quite yet. Once the global population accepts the scope of the potential threat, and I expect they will at some point, expect seismic changes.

Edited by Rol82, 11 November 2010 - 12:29 PM.

[Rational Madman]

The methodology that climate scientists have used for predicting future trends is sound, and the relationship between heightened greenhouse gas concentrations and climate change is beyond reproach. So assuming that climate scientists are correct about our influence over greenhouse gas concentrations, and the costs of predicted climate trends---there is a significant rationale for action. The debate over the likelihood of aberrant climate changes and our species' role in present and future changes strikes me as misplaced. Neither side can say with absolute certainty that their predictions and positions are unimpeachable, but the costs of the skeptics being wrong far outweighs the costs of action. And even if the forecasts of some climate scientists are overly alarmist, the statistically likely outcomes of their models still warrants attention. So the focus must be on formulating a response that prepares the international system of states for the effects of climate change, and limits the macro and micro effects of heightened greenhouse gas concentrations in a way that minimizes the costs of failure and action, while also maximizing the benefits of action. Since the micro costs of heightened greenhouse gas concentrations is indisputable, incentivizing behavior changes through reward shifting would be wise goal for even the skeptics to consider, and should ideally come in the form of taxing unwanted behavior, and the development of technologies and industries for managing the ostensible threat. If policies are made with prudence, then the transition most certainly doesn't need to be painful, and could potentially yield plentiful rewards regardless of future outcomes.

Edited by Rol82, 11 November 2010 - 12:32 PM.

[robomoon]

The school of thought representative for the demagogue suggestive nature of surmising remarks about an illegal substance introduced in this equation of food farming and business leaving a quite destructive ecological footprint in this world, has been called the street. The street is where one of the classical correlation versus causation debate has been pioneered like this: one stranger, probably the friend of a gang of harmless amateur dealers is allowing the street scholar to inhale a few times some smoke he's sucking out of a cigarette probably containing an illegal substance between other legal substances. For any 2nd breath he's nearly coughing his sick lungs out, at least he feels so while he's coughing so annoyingly that it is fairly obvious: no convenient smoker, already too sick. How much these contents are getting enriched with no green residues that stem from fertilizers, pesticides, and further additives, can only be dreamed up. Case closed.

So what about a green tea from organic farming, very healthy, legal by any law, and just guaranteed a green product from controlled biodynamic sources? Still not good enough to add something like a cellular junk blocker, braincell growth activator, etc., to enable a green rejuvenation therapy with tea for oral use in anyone's best political interest?

In short: what do you need?

The solution: SENS to the rescue in green politics! Prevent the aging brains of green politicians from aging too much. It will help when one green psychoactive substance (not named due to legal reasons) that unwisely became misused during hippy parties in the 70's is getting medically administered for age prevention by adding some special ingredients to. Any special
//cut//

//cut//
The correlation is based on very general principles; the colour in the name of the movement just refers to nature in general, the properties of colour of the illegal substance introduced by you in this equation depend only on the fact that this plant happens to be part of our flora and therefore are inherited generically. But then, I can only guess that this plant is referred to due to the demagogue suggestive nature of the surmising remarks.
//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 11 November 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[Brainbox]

... already too sick. How much these contents are getting enriched with no green residues that stem from fertilizers, pesticides, and further additives, can only be dreamed up.

So what about a green tea from organic farming, very healthy, legal by any law, and just guaranteed a green product from controlled biodynamic sources? Still not good enough to add something like a cellular junk blocker, braincell growth activator, etc., to enable a green rejuvenation therapy with tea for oral use in anyone's best political interest?

In short: what do you need?

What I need is data. Data and knowledge to be able to make personal decisions. And a sound frame of moral values, based on cultural inheritance. And sufficient intellectual capabilities to be able to think out of the box to transpose my inherited moral values to the actual issues that play in the time and place of my life. And motivation to define and adjust my goals.

Now, if I were the street smoker. I would want to be able to know why I was getting sick. I would want to know that the cigarettes are bad for my health and would want to escape the street scene and stop using the shit. After accomplishing that, I would want to start a healthy life, drink a green tea product from biodynamic sources and add a cellular junk blocker, braincell growth activator, etc., to enable a green rejuvenation therapy. According to my moral values, I would want to make my choices based on transparent data to judge the consequences of my actions for my local and global environment. I would want to help to set up an economic system and technology that would intrinsicly tune towards a global optimisation of resource usage. I would want to help street smokers to do what I did in case they desire to do so. And, last but not least, I would want to help design and implement rules and educative system that would support the benefit of our magnificent earth and individual development for everybody.

I would want to enable.

Wouldn't you want to do that?

Edited by Brainbox, 12 November 2010 - 12:23 AM.

[robomoon]

Caffeine in green tea isn't so useful when compared to a certain illegal substance, even while it has been given a bad reputation from a street drug and the lacking or obfuscation of scientific data. When even someone with the level of a college or university scholar is using the "s..."-word to name a compound the illegal substance is being with, how can the lower educated scholar ever expect enough scientific support to collect the required data? No way.

Defining and adjusting goals can be prioritized when there are enough resources for personal, legal, economical, educational, etc., changes. However, some individuals have a problem with the distribution of such resources to themselves (3rd world) and their usage (mental illness) or the groups they are being with (street gang). Resource distribution doesn't happen equally as we can see in the rising number of billionaires (technological progress) while elementary intellectual abilities remain increasingly constant in most of societies (human intelligence).

One resource to enable progress anywhere has been food while above examples should illustrate that even caffeine in green tea is no longer a priority. Another resource for progress has been the extension of human lifespan to extend the length of time when goals can be defined and adjusted. But today, the accelerating technological progress requires more: supported intelligence.

Food farming for livestock is expanding around the globe. Despite of the problem of deforestation, sufficiently high vertical farms don't exist or are a rare exception. Thus, artificial meat or a fish surrogate are nevertheless required to make the best out of it. Enough transparent data is supporting this.

Supported intelligence is mostly deriving from healthy brains. Why not enhancing it with the above data? The initial object to evaluate this goal: green tea. The current definition: PENS - just a new term and the abbrev. of Preventing Early Neuronal Senescence. The best idea to adjust this goal and to shift away from the limited nutrition value of tea from controlled biodynamic sources and its higher price spectrum: a cellular junk blocker, braincell growth activator, etc., as an ingredient of artificial meat or a fish surrogate. Wake up, it enables the best nutrition by design. Enough transparent data is supporting this.

... already too sick. How much these contents are getting enriched with no green residues that stem from fertilizers, pesticides, and further additives, can only be dreamed up.

So what about a green tea from organic farming, very healthy, legal by any law, and just guaranteed a green product from controlled biodynamic
//cut//

What I need is data. Data and knowledge to be able to make personal decisions. And a sound frame of moral values, based on cultural inheritance. And sufficient intellectual capabilities to be able to think out of the box to transpose my inherited moral values to the actual issues that play in the time and place of my life. And motivation to define and adjust my goals.

Now, if I were the street smoker. I would want to be able to know why I was getting sick. I would want to know that the cigarettes are bad for my health and would want to escape the street scene and stop using the shit. After accomplishing that, I would want to start a healthy life, drink a green tea product from biodynamic sources and add a cellular junk blocker, braincell growth activator, etc., to enable a green rejuvenation therapy. According to my moral values, I would want to make my choices based on transparent data to judge the consequences of my actions for my local
//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 12 November 2010 - 12:57 PM.

[churchill]

I never been in the Amazon or Indonesian rainforests so their impact on my life is close to 0 but there are many relatively wild places not far from where I live and I'm quite sure Kilimandjaro is not burried in garbage just yet, actually I'm surprised OP didn't mention Aral Sea or Chernobyl which were real disasters rather than crumbling streep malls but I guess it's his (very) subjective perception.
Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ecology should be practical but unfortunately for many activists it became a form of religion and that's what I call pathology. A lot of them seem to have luddite mindset, they hate civilization and industrialization in particular.

Well there are various very good reasons that humans should treasure genetic diversity. Cures for many diseases are probably sitting in that genetic diversity. By reducing genetic diversity you increase the possibility that a plague destroys our food supply.

I agree though that the view that taking care of the environment trumps all other things including human welfare is wrong. That being said it seems to me it is common sense to not burn a finite resource like there is no tomorrow (oil). It makes sense not to throw tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, even if you believe the chance is small that it changes the climate, the consequences are so catastrophic that it just makes sense to not do it. It is not as if people really even would have to make that many compromises in their life to make big changes, e.g. having a more fuel efficient car, buy energy efficient goods, not buying so much stuff.

[robomoon]

Food producers are consuming some finite resources too. Most of the finite resources for power production belong to countries or some influential business corporations, if you will. So there are leading societies in politics and business. Yet, their presidential or managerial dept. has the final right and duty to debate finite versus infinite resources. It's not in my interest to agree or not to agree whether oil should be burned or processed in the chemical industry as a material for plastics or whatever.

Greenhouse gases or not, that being said it also seems to me it's common sense to not burn oil like there's no tomorrow. The problem: tell your government or the big power business corporations to buy oil still resting as an investment asset (like real estate) in the underground. So they can buy it, leave it in the underground as a gift of higher security the coming generations can savor. Great plan, only makes sense. But we don't have much common SENS to consider security for the next generations to come, don't we? Thus, we also got PENS, see my previous posting. Maybe that oil can be processed into the main component of a dogfood to save some rainforest. Now it's PETA probably having a word in it too.

I never been in the Amazon or Indonesian rainforests so their impact on my life is close to 0 ... //cut//

Well there are various very good reasons that humans should treasure genetic diversity. Cures for many diseases are probably sitting in that genetic diversity. By reducing genetic diversity you increase the possibility that a plague destroys our food supply.

I agree though that the view that taking care of the environment trumps all other things including human welfare is wrong. That being said it seems to me it is common sense to not burn a finite resource like there is no tomorrow (oil). It makes sense not to throw tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, even if you believe the
//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 13 November 2010 - 01:22 PM.

[Kolos]

Well there are various very good reasons that humans should treasure genetic diversity. Cures for many diseases are probably sitting in that genetic diversity. By reducing genetic diversity you increase the possibility that a plague destroys our food supply.

As lond as we are organic yes, but preserving genes and preserving wildlife are two different things this days. We can keep them in controlled environment(like we already do in farms, zoological gardens etc.) or just take some samples and put them in the refrigerator so we can always re-create what we need.

[robomoon]

Preserving genes and preserving wildlife are two different things. Sounds new to me.

How to put a complete ol' rainforest sample-set into a farm or a zoological garden? That ol' robomoon never understands compression algorithms anyways - just keep it simple. How to pull all the bigger mammals out of the refrigerators to bring them back? A few species at a time, that's the schedule, right? Wonder if they'll have that nanotech to re-create some big elephant brains when they are needed and there's a lot of memories in their neurons. Elephants are even bigger but me while neither free elephant freezing nor jumbo-re-creation has been tested so far and I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap for a mammal the size of the meanwhile extinct West African Black Rhino. Oops, I nearly forgot to consider neuropreservation. Rhino-brains are even smaller but mine. Go figure how many would fit into only one refrigerator!

//cut//... preserving genes and preserving wildlife are two different things ...//cut//

Edited by robomoon, 14 November 2010 - 03:42 PM.

[Kolos]

Preserving genes and preserving wildlife are two different things. Sounds new to me.

Really? Well think about some domestic animals like dogs aren't they diverse and safe from extinction? But they mostly don't live in wild although some countries have problems with wild dogs so perhaps pigs would be a better example.

How to put a complete ol' rainforest sample-set into a farm or a zoological garden?

Go and collect it? Of course with rainforest greenhouse would be probably better idea than a farm.

That ol' robomoon never understands compression algorithms anyways - just keep it simple. How to pull all the bigger mammals out of the refrigerators to bring them back? A few species at a time, that's the schedule, right?

It depends how much would we need, perhaps we don't even need them alive.

Wonder if they'll have that nanotech to re-create some big elephant brains when they are needed and there's a lot of memories in their neurons. Elephants are even bigger but me while neither free elephant freezing nor jumbo-re-creation has been tested so far and I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap for a mammal the size of the meanwhile extinct West African Black Rhino. Oops, I nearly forgot to consider neuropreservation. Rhino-brains are even smaller but mine. Go figure how many would fit into only one refrigerator!

Wait.. What? So you think I want to freeze them alcor-style and then re-create with nano as we hope it will be possible with frozen humans in the future? I guess it might be possible but I was just thinking about blood samples and perhaps some genetical engineering why would I need to re-create memories of some elephant? Perhaps if I really liked that elephant but thats emotional reasons for industry usage etc. it doesn't really matter.

[robomoon]

When the majority of domesticated animals really count as rainforest wildlife, then a mammal like me should be wild most of the time. So all the great societies somewhere branded as ecologist Luddites in this world must get up to put some mammals like me into a rainforest greenhouse before they and further domesticated wildlife like dogs and pigs are going to get endangered by extinction like some monkeys.

Certainly something cheaper and bigger but Biosphere 2 will be there for the ecological balance and a greater economy of scale, to let our wild monkey colleges breeding undisturbed too.

Some ecologist Luddite scientists would not need to re-animate great animals like wild elephants? This means, no research on their brain matter filled with enough ultralongterm memory by default when neuroscientists in ecology are demanding living samples? Don't underestimate that brain matter, it may come handy when you are trying to revive the anti-deathist industrialists you are probably planning to keep working for one day. You know, that technological progress of life extension has its limits.

[dentalcare]

hello everyone.

[Soma]

I never been in the Amazon or Indonesian rainforests so their impact on my life is close to 0

Seeing as every aspect of nature is fundamentally and inextricably interconnected and interdependent, this statement proves false. The planet is ONE dynamic system- a macro-ecosystem made up of intertwining smaller micro-ecosystems. Not being aware of an immediate discernible impact is not the same as there not being one.

The current and future implications of rain forest destruction are astoundingly vast, and to say that it doesn't matter because it doesn't impact your life is truly awe inspiring.

The environmental impact is massive enough, without getting into hypotheticals but, just for the sake of discussion: what if a plant compound that could dramatically increase life expectancy, cure cancer and/or other diseases, etc existed in a region of the rain forest that was lost to soy fields? Would it impact your life then?

I hate to pose this in such a human-centric way, as though the only reason we should save the rainforest is because there may be something WE can get out of it, but I thought this example might allow you to rethink this conclusion.

Edited by Soma, 20 January 2011 - 12:54 PM.

[tepol]

Nature have done far more damage to the environment and brought to extinction to far more animals than man has ever done, and will continue to do so after humans are no longer on this planet.

Well, you obviously forgot about the one time God got so pissed off he decided to raise great flood .