Dem Debates

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone knows that global warming MAY make life on earth inhabitable.

He specifically said that this might happen in the next couple generations. Even the most insanely pessimistic estimates I could find only say that something like half the Earth would be uninhabitable by the year 2300. And all these estimates are pretty batshit insane in themselves, considering Earth has gone through periods with something like 10-20x the current CO2 and life still flourished.

Incidentally, runaway greenhouse ala Venus will take 1.5 billion years, even if man continued pumping out the same CO2 he is now, and he'd run out of oil/coal long before then. There simply isn't enough carbon on earth to produce enough CO2 to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

Either Bernie is incredibly optimistic about the increase in lifespan over the next couple generations and he thinks his grandchildren will live to see the year 2300, or he's a crackpot.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He specifically said that this might happen in the next couple generations. Even the most insanely pessimistic estimates I could find only say that something like half the Earth would be uninhabitable by the year 2300. And all these estimates are pretty batshit insane in themselves, considering Earth has gone through periods with something like 10-20x the current CO2 and life still flourished.

Incidentally, runaway greenhouse ala Venus will take 1.5 billion years, even if man continued pumping out the same CO2 he is now, and he'd run out of oil/coal long before then. There simply isn't enough carbon on earth to produce enough CO2 to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

Either Bernie is incredibly optimistic about the increase in lifespan over the next couple generations and he thinks his grandchildren will live to see the year 2300, or he's a crackpot.

You're different opinions on how damaging climate change can be is without a doubt the worst reason to criticize the man.

The truth is, based off the information that the scientific community provides, if we don't do anything as he stated in the debates, we likely will make the world inhabitable in a few generations.

You can deny it all you want but its one elf sim nerd arguing against nearly all of the scientific community.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The truth is, based off the information that the scientific community provides, if we don't do anything as he stated in the debates, we likely will make the world inhabitable in a few generations.

Ah, so now you agree with batshit insane Sanders. Even if man continues pumping out CO2 like no tomorrow, the world will still be quite habitable in 100, 500, and 1000 years. But no yeah, keep on saying things that not even the most pessimistic of scientists predict. It makes you look like you're smarter than the collective knowledge of mankind. It really does.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, so now you agree with batshit insane Sanders. Even if man continues pumping out CO2 like no tomorrow, the world will still be quite habitable in 100, 500, and 1000 years. But no yeah, keep on saying things that not even the most pessimistic of scientists predict. It makes you look like you're smarter than the collective knowledge of mankind. It really does.

Making these types of statements are just hogwash unless you actually post something to defend your position that the scientific community agree's on.

You are just a nerd that plays free games on the internet, I will never take your word on climate change seriously.

[iruinedyourday]

Its really sad that spell check is the only thing that people on the other side of the argument have to bring up. Its like I don't even know why they come into this thread if they have nothing to contribute and don't even have a single valid argument against anything.

Why do you post here sourdesel? You can make your own thread where you talk about aliens and pyramids or other shit you watch on the History channel.

[sOurDieSel]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

QQ I love the government and worship the alter of political correctness stop disagreeing with the liberal narrative and shattering my fantasy world

Governments are not benevolent.

[iruinedyourday]

http://www.project1999.com/forums/pr...=ignore&u=3374

[sOurDieSel]

rofl, why are you sending me PMs crying about how you don't like me....wait...did iruinyourday?

feels good keeping the online world safe from liberal degenerates who worship cultural marxism

[Lune]

You guys know how efficient nature is, and that efficiency is what made market capitalism such a magnificent system to carry humanity through industrialization.

Also consider how fucking disgusting and depraved nature is. Consider the Coot, which is a duck-like waterbird. Coots will lay far more eggs than they could ever possibly feed, under the assumption that predators will eat some of them. Oftentimes, that doesn't happen, and 10-12 little coots will hatch that the parents can't feed. Over the next few weeks, when some of the coots ask for food, the parents will peck them. The weakest coots get pecked with increasing aggression until their parents either peck them to death, or they stop asking for food and slowly starve to death. This will occur until only enough young coots remain for the parents to feed, sometimes as little as 2-3.

This sickening brutality is universal in nature. Primates will team up and murder social outcasts and the weak. Baby birds will push their weaker siblings out of the nest. Starving bears will eat their extra cubs. Male ruminants will spar for a mate to the point of exhaustion or injury. The winner mates, the vulnerable loser is eaten by a predator.

This system facilitated biological evolution, which is ultimately an efficient and necessary process. But when you start applying human morality and utilitarianism to this, it begins to unravel a little. Humans have the capacity and the impetus to minimize harm at the cost of some of nature's depravity, and also some of its efficiency. Consider this:

The free market approach to the case of coots is business as usual; the natural, efficient order of things. Lay a surplus of eggs to hedge against predation, and cull the weak in order to survive. Sacrifice no growth or competitiveness for the sake of "humanity".

But the miracle of humanity is the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore abstract policy, providing a new approach, government. It brings the ability to make a rule: Coots may now only incubate as many eggs as they have the capacity to feed. Now, yes, you have a higher chance of any given coot losing all of their eggs to predators. Evolution and growth are now moderately less efficient. However, you no longer commit wanton murder and savagery at the opening of every new generation.

I would contend that while capitalism was a necessary and beneficial medium for the conveyance of civilization from primitive civilization to industrialization, its usefulness has diminished. As technology makes society exponentially more productive, and scarcity of resources becomes less an issue, we have the luxury of protecting human life from being ground to pulp by the economic machine. I think many places have already realized this (Denmark, Germany, Australia, etc), as their functional and highly effective governments create policy that make human life safer and more enjoyable, sometimes at the cost of efficiency.

And guess what? Does their entire society implode? Does everybody stop working and stay home and live off neetbux? No. They continue to pull ahead of places like the USA that are stuck in the industrial age with an industrial mindset. In many ways, the United States is, therefore, still a developing nation. Consider a world where we've managed to automate resource production and the vast majority of our services. Do you still think every human still needs to work 40 hours a week to drive consumption, profits, and capitalist machinery? What happens when artificial intelligence exists, and scarcity is no longer a thing? Is the free market still relevant? If so, how can you say that it's just as relevant now, as it was 100 years ago, with how productive we are? Can you even consider that maybe it's time to begin the transition and rethink the way we do things?

Of course, all of this depends on a sophisticated culture with respect for the rule of law, hard work, etc etc, and culture goes a long way toward explaining differences between denmark / USA / nigeria etc, but that's another discussion.

[TheBiznessTZ]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys know how efficient nature is, and that efficiency is what made market capitalism such a magnificent system to carry humanity through industrialization.

Also consider how fucking disgusting and depraved nature is. Consider the Coot, which is a duck-like waterbird. Coots will lay far more eggs than they could ever possibly feed, under the assumption that predators will eat some of them. Oftentimes, that doesn't happen, and 10-12 little coots will hatch that the parents can't feed. Over the next few weeks, when some of the coots ask for food, the parents will peck them. The weakest coots get pecked with increasing aggression until their parents either peck them to death, or they stop asking for food and slowly starve to death. This will occur until only enough young coots remain for the parents to feed, sometimes as little as 2-3.

This sickening brutality is universal in nature. Primates will team up and murder social outcasts and the weak. Baby birds will push their weaker siblings out of the nest. Starving bears will eat their extra cubs. Male ruminants will spar for a mate to the point of exhaustion or injury. The winner mates, the vulnerable loser is eaten by a predator.

This system facilitated biological evolution, which is ultimately an efficient and necessary process. But when you start applying human morality and utilitarianism to this, it begins to unravel a little. Humans have the capacity and the impetus to minimize harm at the cost of some of nature's depravity, and also some of its efficiency. Consider this:

The free market approach to the case of coots is business as usual; the natural, efficient order of things. Lay a surplus of eggs to hedge against predation, and cull the weak in order to survive. Sacrifice no growth or competitiveness for the sake of "humanity".

But the miracle of humanity is the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore abstract policy, providing a new approach, government. It brings the ability to make a rule: Coots may now only incubate as many eggs as they have the capacity to feed. Now, yes, you have a higher chance of any given coot losing all of their eggs to predators. Evolution and growth are now moderately less efficient. However, you no longer commit wanton murder and savagery at the opening of every new generation.

I would contend that while capitalism was a necessary and beneficial medium for the conveyance of civilization from primitive civilization to industrialization, its usefulness has diminished. As technology makes society exponentially more productive, and scarcity of resources becomes less an issue, we have the luxury of protecting human life from being ground to pulp by the economic machine. I think many places have already realized this (Denmark, Germany, Australia, etc), as their functional and highly effective governments create policy that make human life safer and more enjoyable, sometimes at the cost of efficiency.

And guess what? Does their entire society implode? Does everybody stop working and stay home and live off neetbux? No. They continue to pull ahead of places like the USA that are stuck in the industrial age with an industrial mindset. In many ways, the United States is, therefore, still a developing nation. Consider a world where we've managed to automate resource production and the vast majority of our services. Do you still think every human still needs to work 40 hours a week to drive consumption, profits, and capitalist machinery? What happens when artificial intelligence exists, and scarcity is no longer a thing? Is the free market still relevant? If so, how can you say that it's just as relevant now, as it was 100 years ago, with how productive we are? Can you even consider that maybe it's time to begin the transition and rethink the way we do things?

Of course, all of this depends on a sophisticated culture with respect for the rule of law, hard work, etc etc, and culture goes a long way toward explaining differences between denmark / USA / nigeria etc, but that's another discussion.

Just read all posts in this thread. Just wanted to quote the best post made.