I'd like to do two things with this thread. I'd like to hear some opinions on the somewhat controversial issues that I'm going to write about, and I'd also like to hear how people are reacting to these issues.
The first issue is Global Climate Change. If you're still not convinced that it's happening and that it's bad and that humans are a primary cause, then I'll gladly point out that the Pentagon keeps climate change in mind when doing long-term planning, and here's a good spot to start learning about the science. In short, climate change is going to rock civilization as we know it hard. In the last 50 years, the world has made tremendous progress in making developing nations healthier and more prosperous, but all this progress is very fragile. Widespread droughts and floods will catapult Africa back to the stone-age (which they left less than a century ago, but still). Developed nations will be forced to spend tons of money on adapting to change, by helping farmers that lost their crops, by saving major cities from inundation, by dealing with a refugee problem that is many orders of magnitude larger than what we see today. Living expenses will increase, jobs will be lost, and the weak will suffer terribly. Rich and powerful men will find additional ways of securing their place in society, taking advantage of the economical shocks to reap a profit while others starve.
The second issue is Peak Oil. The world's oil reserves are limited, and most experts aren't shy about telling people that the good days are over. $100 barrels will eventually seem impossibly cheap. Significant economical impacts will be felt within the decade, and if the 70's oil crisis was any indication the consequences will be severe. A positively huge sector of the economy thrives on cheap oil, and there will be a lot of expensive restructuring when the stuff starts to run dry. Combine this with a Climate Change scenario and a great depression or a long recession appears unavoidable.
Both these issues bring up the harrowing spectre of War. Civil wars, international wars, illegal wars, cold wars, when a group of people feel threatened they often lash out according to their ability. A lot of people today have the ability to lash out in very damaging ways. None of the countries I've ever lived in have had a war on its own soil since WWII. I shudder to think that this might change. War is the greatest evil humankind can muster, but it requires real motivation before it can really get going.
Alongside these two titanic issues, there's a smattering of problems caused by globalization and technology. Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty. People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels. Bird Flu is a lethal global pandemic waiting to happen. There's suitcase nukes and bio-warfare vials, built in secret labs, and we don't know who all controls them. National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media. The Dalai Lama still cannot go home, but millions pay attention to Britney's personal problems.
Is the world falling apart? Can the exponential rate of growth that human invention has experienced from year 0 to year 2008 be maintained another century? All around me there are wonderful people doing wonderful things, yet the problems the world will face are completely unprecedented, and this atheist has no one to trust that things will be alright. Nothing except his own meager abilities, and that is a small comfort.
So what does this forum think about all this?
Are humans capable of overcoming these challenges? (I think they can, but it won't be pretty)
Are these problems overstated?
What Would Jesus Do?
Most importantly, what are you doing to make the world a better place?
(I'll answer my own questions in due time, don't worry)
Big issues in the world
Moderator:Metacrock
-
QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Big issues in the world
PO by far is the biger issue then GCC. PO will come in to effect long before GCC does. also soving PO will sove much of GCC precieved problems
Re: Big issues in the world
I'd like to do two things with this thread. I'd like to hear some opinions on the somewhat controversial issues that I'm going to write about, and I'd also like to hear how people are reacting to these issues.
Very well.
The first issue is Global Climate Change. If you're still not convinced that it's happening and that it's bad and that humans are a primary cause, then I'll gladly point out that the Pentagon keeps climate change in mind when doing long-term planning,
So, the fact that the Pentagon keeps climate change in midn whoslt makign plans proves that the alarmist prdictiosn made by some (SUch as Al Gore) are accurate?
I beleive that both Natural flixuation and Human-caused alteration conspire togather align with Solar activity and other notable factors to create a compelxe web of reactions that affect weather, and do not blame Humanity soley. TO my knoweledge, neither does the Pentagon. Begn midnful of damage is nto equel to saying Mankind bares the bulk of the reponcibility.
and here's a good spot to start learning about the science.
In a few click sof my mouse, I can find other websites htat refute this.
In fact, just recently I was told we arne't really goign to enter a Global Heat wave, but a new Ice Age.
And many ofthe best sicnetisist inthe world predicted an Ice Age in the 1970's too.
Lets not assume that all fo what we think will hapen base do the autority of a few soruces will become a reality.
In short, climate change is going to rock civilization as we know it hard.
Unless we are mistaken.
In the last 50 years, the world has made tremendous progress in making developing nations healthier and more prosperous, but all this progress is very fragile. Widespread droughts and floods will catapult Africa back to the stone-age (which they left less than a century ago, but still).
I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.
Developed nations will be forced to spend tons of money on adapting to change, by helping farmers that lost their crops, by saving major cities from inundation, by dealing with a refugee problem that is many orders of magnitude larger than what we see today. Living expenses will increase, jobs will be lost, and the weak will suffer terribly. Rich and powerful men will find additional ways of securing their place in society, taking advantage of the economical shocks to reap a profit while others starve.
Speculation is unwarrented. A thtis point our Economic situaiton is not hampered by the GLobal Warign threat, but by our own stupidity in spending. I have yet tobe convenced of the doomsday Scenario. Inthe apst, we have been told that Californa will fal intot he sea, the Plate ektonics iwll grealty alter the earhts surface submergign areas and elevatign enw land masses, a New Ice Age will hit, solar Flare actigivy willeradiate the Earth, and a host of other disasters that never happened.
From what I can tell, this is the same sort of thing.
The second issue is Peak Oil. The world's oil reserves are limited, and most experts aren't shy about telling people that the good days are over. $100 barrels will eventually seem impossibly cheap. Significant economical impacts will be felt within the decade, and if the 70's oil crisis was any indication the consequences will be severe. A positively huge sector of the economy thrives on cheap oil, and there will be a lot of expensive restructuring when the stuff starts to run dry. Combine this with a Climate Change scenario and a great depression or a long recession appears unavoidable.
Actually, we have alternative fuels, they simply arne't developed sicne it woudl mean the end of Petroleum-based profits.
However, if the Petroleum becomes scarce enough, I'm sure the Companies will suddenlty unveil the new and improved Electric car, or the better than ever car that runs on Vegitabel pil, o the Car powered by Hydrogen ( the most abundant thing in the known Universe).
I highly doubt Petroleum is the problem here.
Both these issues bring up the harrowing spectre of War.
DOubrful, and again needless speculation.
Civil wars, international wars, illegal wars, cold wars,
How, exaclty, can a war be Illegal? I always wondered that.
At nay rate, speculation, still.
when a group of people feel threatened they often lash out according to their ability. A lot of people today have the ability to lash out in very damaging ways. None of the countries I've ever lived in have had a war on its own soil since WWII. I shudder to think that this might change. War is the greatest evil humankind can muster, but it requires real motivation before it can really get going.
But, your doomsda scenario is based enturley upon false premises, and I dn't think you relaly examien the issues. I'll explain in deapth if I can later. I say if I canbecoase often make onlien promises I cant keep, beause of Realworld obligaitons.
But if I am free, I'll tell you wat Ithink in full.
Alongside these two titanic issues, there's a smattering of problems caused by globalization and technology.
Ph really/? Perhap the solution si the end of modern Globilisaiton and the abolition of the stupid Socialist-based concept behidn it.
Then we can go back to EMpries.They may have a bad reputaitonnowm but they rend to be better in he long run than what we see coming.
Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty.
Not as much as in the rest of Europe, where freedom is taken awya inthe name of freedom and peipel go along wiht it.
People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels.
I'm glad you mentioned Brussels. Perhaops, just perhaps, if the United Kingdom woudl extract itself from the European Union, a doomed attemto at reviving the socialist ideologies that lead tothe Soviet Union while buildign a Federated Europe ala the USA, and if the UK can remmeber her past, and reunite wiht the OCmmonwealth insetad of the disasterous EU, then perhaps it can turn itself around.
Brittain shoudl rule her own, and preside over her cCHildren, in a joiend confederaiton fo the iwlling. SHe shoudl not bow her knee to the European Nightmare that quells the soul.
Long Live the Queen, and God save her, and let her once mroe be a Dread Soverign with power, and then yo'll see thigns se to rights.
As for Wahsington, Americans brign this upon themselves wththe mad dash toward enfdless Democracy.
They shoudl rmemeber htier Republcian roots.
Both shoudl recall the teahcigns of th Lord,a nd return to God and his guidance. As mucha s you will disagree iwht this, you have to admit that the US, beign mroe reliigou than Europe, is mro epowerful, and the UK was at her hight when her Kingds and Miisters proudly mentioend God in public address.
No nation stands apart from Gods allowance, and ony those under his guidance prosper.
Bird Flu is a lethal global pandemic waiting to happen.
We shall see.
There's suitcase nukes and bio-warfare vials, built in secret labs, and we don't know who all controls them.
If we dn't know, wh d we speculat eupon the dangers of them?
National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media.
You'd think it'd be the other way round. The use of igital media allows worldwide conneciton and access to the enture planet form the ocmforts of oens own home, which opens up new ways of thinkign tot he common man. This, somehow, reasserts National Identity?
That said, I'm not buyign the currentnotion that Naitonalism is equel to danger.
I can still sing "Rule Brittania" quiet well, in fact.
The Dalai Lama still cannot go home, but millions pay attention to Britney's personal problems.
Millions also pay attention tot he Dali Lama. But how on earth can we really expect the common man to do anythign abotu it? As its been this wya for years, of ocurs en one tlaks of it constantly.
Also, I think Spears has lost the warm appriciation fo the majrity.
Is the world falling apart?
Perhaosm but it has before. Look at the Roman Emoire. We managed though after it.
Now its the STupid Democracy garbage rippign us apart, and the fal e Ideals we try to force upon the world an dinto reality.
But, we will survive.
Can the exponential rate of growth that human invention has experienced from year 0 to year 2008 be maintained another century?
There is no year Zero on the Calender.
And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.
Natural patrtern really.
All around me there are wonderful people doing wonderful things, yet the problems the world will face are completely unprecedented, and this atheist has no one to trust that things will be alright. Nothing except his own meager abilities, and that is a small comfort.
Then perhaps you shoudl rethink your positions. One of hwich your Atheism and the worldview that it inhabits and is a part of.
So what does this forum think about all this?
I cannot speak fo r the forum but I've told in part. I'll tell in full later.
Are humans capable of overcoming these challenges? (I think they can, but it won't be pretty)
God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome. That said soem fo the problems are blown out of all proportion.
Are these problems overstated?
Yes.
What Would Jesus Do?
I'm not certain, but I know hat I can do with what he taught us.
Most importantly, what are you doing to make the world a better place?
I help where I can.
Im enterign Psycology.
(I'll answer my own questions in due time, don't worry)
I thoguth you had, so wasn't. Now I'll wait fo your answers.
Very well.
The first issue is Global Climate Change. If you're still not convinced that it's happening and that it's bad and that humans are a primary cause, then I'll gladly point out that the Pentagon keeps climate change in mind when doing long-term planning,
So, the fact that the Pentagon keeps climate change in midn whoslt makign plans proves that the alarmist prdictiosn made by some (SUch as Al Gore) are accurate?
I beleive that both Natural flixuation and Human-caused alteration conspire togather align with Solar activity and other notable factors to create a compelxe web of reactions that affect weather, and do not blame Humanity soley. TO my knoweledge, neither does the Pentagon. Begn midnful of damage is nto equel to saying Mankind bares the bulk of the reponcibility.
and here's a good spot to start learning about the science.
In a few click sof my mouse, I can find other websites htat refute this.
In fact, just recently I was told we arne't really goign to enter a Global Heat wave, but a new Ice Age.
And many ofthe best sicnetisist inthe world predicted an Ice Age in the 1970's too.
Lets not assume that all fo what we think will hapen base do the autority of a few soruces will become a reality.
In short, climate change is going to rock civilization as we know it hard.
Unless we are mistaken.
In the last 50 years, the world has made tremendous progress in making developing nations healthier and more prosperous, but all this progress is very fragile. Widespread droughts and floods will catapult Africa back to the stone-age (which they left less than a century ago, but still).
I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.
Developed nations will be forced to spend tons of money on adapting to change, by helping farmers that lost their crops, by saving major cities from inundation, by dealing with a refugee problem that is many orders of magnitude larger than what we see today. Living expenses will increase, jobs will be lost, and the weak will suffer terribly. Rich and powerful men will find additional ways of securing their place in society, taking advantage of the economical shocks to reap a profit while others starve.
Speculation is unwarrented. A thtis point our Economic situaiton is not hampered by the GLobal Warign threat, but by our own stupidity in spending. I have yet tobe convenced of the doomsday Scenario. Inthe apst, we have been told that Californa will fal intot he sea, the Plate ektonics iwll grealty alter the earhts surface submergign areas and elevatign enw land masses, a New Ice Age will hit, solar Flare actigivy willeradiate the Earth, and a host of other disasters that never happened.
From what I can tell, this is the same sort of thing.
The second issue is Peak Oil. The world's oil reserves are limited, and most experts aren't shy about telling people that the good days are over. $100 barrels will eventually seem impossibly cheap. Significant economical impacts will be felt within the decade, and if the 70's oil crisis was any indication the consequences will be severe. A positively huge sector of the economy thrives on cheap oil, and there will be a lot of expensive restructuring when the stuff starts to run dry. Combine this with a Climate Change scenario and a great depression or a long recession appears unavoidable.
Actually, we have alternative fuels, they simply arne't developed sicne it woudl mean the end of Petroleum-based profits.
However, if the Petroleum becomes scarce enough, I'm sure the Companies will suddenlty unveil the new and improved Electric car, or the better than ever car that runs on Vegitabel pil, o the Car powered by Hydrogen ( the most abundant thing in the known Universe).
I highly doubt Petroleum is the problem here.
Both these issues bring up the harrowing spectre of War.
DOubrful, and again needless speculation.
Civil wars, international wars, illegal wars, cold wars,
How, exaclty, can a war be Illegal? I always wondered that.
At nay rate, speculation, still.
when a group of people feel threatened they often lash out according to their ability. A lot of people today have the ability to lash out in very damaging ways. None of the countries I've ever lived in have had a war on its own soil since WWII. I shudder to think that this might change. War is the greatest evil humankind can muster, but it requires real motivation before it can really get going.
But, your doomsda scenario is based enturley upon false premises, and I dn't think you relaly examien the issues. I'll explain in deapth if I can later. I say if I canbecoase often make onlien promises I cant keep, beause of Realworld obligaitons.
But if I am free, I'll tell you wat Ithink in full.
Alongside these two titanic issues, there's a smattering of problems caused by globalization and technology.
Ph really/? Perhap the solution si the end of modern Globilisaiton and the abolition of the stupid Socialist-based concept behidn it.
Then we can go back to EMpries.They may have a bad reputaitonnowm but they rend to be better in he long run than what we see coming.
Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty.
Not as much as in the rest of Europe, where freedom is taken awya inthe name of freedom and peipel go along wiht it.
People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels.
I'm glad you mentioned Brussels. Perhaops, just perhaps, if the United Kingdom woudl extract itself from the European Union, a doomed attemto at reviving the socialist ideologies that lead tothe Soviet Union while buildign a Federated Europe ala the USA, and if the UK can remmeber her past, and reunite wiht the OCmmonwealth insetad of the disasterous EU, then perhaps it can turn itself around.
Brittain shoudl rule her own, and preside over her cCHildren, in a joiend confederaiton fo the iwlling. SHe shoudl not bow her knee to the European Nightmare that quells the soul.
Long Live the Queen, and God save her, and let her once mroe be a Dread Soverign with power, and then yo'll see thigns se to rights.
As for Wahsington, Americans brign this upon themselves wththe mad dash toward enfdless Democracy.
They shoudl rmemeber htier Republcian roots.
Both shoudl recall the teahcigns of th Lord,a nd return to God and his guidance. As mucha s you will disagree iwht this, you have to admit that the US, beign mroe reliigou than Europe, is mro epowerful, and the UK was at her hight when her Kingds and Miisters proudly mentioend God in public address.
No nation stands apart from Gods allowance, and ony those under his guidance prosper.
Bird Flu is a lethal global pandemic waiting to happen.
We shall see.
There's suitcase nukes and bio-warfare vials, built in secret labs, and we don't know who all controls them.
If we dn't know, wh d we speculat eupon the dangers of them?
National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media.
You'd think it'd be the other way round. The use of igital media allows worldwide conneciton and access to the enture planet form the ocmforts of oens own home, which opens up new ways of thinkign tot he common man. This, somehow, reasserts National Identity?
That said, I'm not buyign the currentnotion that Naitonalism is equel to danger.
I can still sing "Rule Brittania" quiet well, in fact.
The Dalai Lama still cannot go home, but millions pay attention to Britney's personal problems.
Millions also pay attention tot he Dali Lama. But how on earth can we really expect the common man to do anythign abotu it? As its been this wya for years, of ocurs en one tlaks of it constantly.
Also, I think Spears has lost the warm appriciation fo the majrity.
Is the world falling apart?
Perhaosm but it has before. Look at the Roman Emoire. We managed though after it.
Now its the STupid Democracy garbage rippign us apart, and the fal e Ideals we try to force upon the world an dinto reality.
But, we will survive.
Can the exponential rate of growth that human invention has experienced from year 0 to year 2008 be maintained another century?
There is no year Zero on the Calender.
And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.
Natural patrtern really.
All around me there are wonderful people doing wonderful things, yet the problems the world will face are completely unprecedented, and this atheist has no one to trust that things will be alright. Nothing except his own meager abilities, and that is a small comfort.
Then perhaps you shoudl rethink your positions. One of hwich your Atheism and the worldview that it inhabits and is a part of.
So what does this forum think about all this?
I cannot speak fo r the forum but I've told in part. I'll tell in full later.
Are humans capable of overcoming these challenges? (I think they can, but it won't be pretty)
God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome. That said soem fo the problems are blown out of all proportion.
Are these problems overstated?
Yes.
What Would Jesus Do?
I'm not certain, but I know hat I can do with what he taught us.
Most importantly, what are you doing to make the world a better place?
I help where I can.
Im enterign Psycology.
(I'll answer my own questions in due time, don't worry)
I thoguth you had, so wasn't. Now I'll wait fo your answers.
-
QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Big issues in the world
Thanks for the long reply!
This is the answer I feared I might get. I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future. You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth. However, your own Bible contains many instances where God allows or even ordains conflict and destruction. Who is to say what God will or will not do in a particular situation?
Anyway, I hope you accept the premise that IF the IPCC scientists are essentially correct, THEN it's important to deal with the consequences as early as possible. Since I'm convinced of the reality of the threat, speculation is not unwarranted. Smarter groups of people than I have done very fancy speculations, and it's really their ideas that I'm presenting here.
This is the answer I feared I might get. I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future. You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth. However, your own Bible contains many instances where God allows or even ordains conflict and destruction. Who is to say what God will or will not do in a particular situation?
Look, you're just going to have to trust me on this, but I'm working right now on an atmospheric modelling program. As an interested scientist in a closely related field, I'm telling you that the mainstream global warming science is good. If you're going to believe any random blog, make it Realclimate.org because it is the best. I sincerely doubt you can find a site that actually refutes their position on the science. Now, to quickly refute this Ice Age baloney: The "Global Cooling" hysteria in the 1970's was never supported by scientists, it was almost purely a media circus. There were a grand total of 3 papers published, all very preliminary research, all calling for caution and patience as more data was collected. Quite unlike the current scenario, I might add, where the media sometimes finds itself cautioning scientists that they're being hysterical. Secondly, "Global Heat wave" is not an accurate term. I use "Global Climate Change" because it really is climate change on a global level, and it is driven by heating. If you actually spent the time to read up on climatology, you'd learn that the science supporting a new Ice Age is weak, at best. Crap, I said I wasn't going to debate this.In a few click sof my mouse, I can find other websites htat refute this.
In fact, just recently I was told we arne't really goign to enter a Global Heat wave, but a new Ice Age.
And many ofthe best sicnetisist inthe world predicted an Ice Age in the 1970's too.
Anyway, I hope you accept the premise that IF the IPCC scientists are essentially correct, THEN it's important to deal with the consequences as early as possible. Since I'm convinced of the reality of the threat, speculation is not unwarranted. Smarter groups of people than I have done very fancy speculations, and it's really their ideas that I'm presenting here.
Oh yes, not a problem. All this requires is essentially replacing all vehicles and all the infrastructure that moves petroleum products about. Do you think that's easy? Yes, there are solutions, but they aren't really here yet. And think of the developing nations, that have a harder time getting advanced technology.However, if the Petroleum becomes scarce enough, I'm sure the Companies will suddenlty unveil the new and improved Electric car, or the better than ever car that runs on Vegitabel pil, o the Car powered by Hydrogen ( the most abundant thing in the known Universe).
I highly doubt Petroleum is the problem here.
Indeed. I'm not anti-religion. The culture and charity work done in the name of religions are both very fine examples of the best in humanity.I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.
Well, I disagree completely. I've lived in the Netherlands, the US, and Sweden, and done a fair bit of traveling besides. Good ol' socialist Sweden is by far the freeest society that I've encountered.Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty.
Not as much as in the rest of Europe, where freedom is taken awya inthe name of freedom and peipel go along wiht it.
I'd also prefer that the European Union would take a step back. It's not very democratic, and I think it causes as many problems as it solves. Let things go back to the EG, where countries could opt out of agreements more easily.People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels.
I'm glad you mentioned Brussels. Perhaops, just perhaps, if the United Kingdom woudl extract itself from the European Union, a doomed attemto at reviving the socialist ideologies that lead tothe Soviet Union while buildign a Federated Europe ala the USA, and if the UK can remmeber her past, and reunite wiht the OCmmonwealth insetad of the disasterous EU, then perhaps it can turn itself around.
Define powerful. When it comes to keeping its population healthy, happy, and educated, the US lags Europe. When it comes to sheer military and economical power, then the US leads Europe. Keep your "power". Christ might make countries "powerful", but humans make them good places to live.you have to admit that the US, beign mroe reliigou than Europe, is mro epowerful, and the UK was at her hight when her Kingds and Miisters proudly mentioend God in public address.
Yeah, you're right. Digital media probably does more harm than good to the concept of national identity. But the low cost of entry to publishing on the internet has opened the doors to lots of indie artists, so I'd say the internet is definitely a double-edged sword in this.National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media.
You'd think it'd be the other way round. The use of igital media allows worldwide conneciton and access to the enture planet form the ocmforts of oens own home, which opens up new ways of thinkign tot he common man. This, somehow, reasserts National Identity?
That said, I'm not buyign the currentnotion that Naitonalism is equel to danger.
Actually, this isn't true. Ray Kurzweil is a scientist who has studied the way technology has progressed through the ages, and it has been exponential basically the entire time. It's like Moore's Law, but more universal. For more info, look up his presentation on TED.com.And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.
Natural patrtern really.
Well, I'm double screwed, aren't I? I don't believe in God (if I did I wouldn't put this nightmare scenario past him), and my scientific sensibilities are convinced that severe Climate Change/Peak Oil consequences are practically inevitable. Are you sure you're not twisting your interpretation of these issues to fit a preconceived notion of what God will allow?God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome.
Re: Big issues in the world
Thanks for the long reply!
You are welcome.
This is the answer I feared I might get.
Fear is somethign we must face, I'm afraid.
I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future.
I always must wonder why peopel assume that a clear-thinking person must somehow arrive at the same conclusions they do.
It also implies that I am not a clear thinking person, and implicates a reason for such a fog in my thinking in beleifs I hold that you donot share.
I dfind this rathe runjustified.
You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth.
I never actually said that, and your making an assumption about somethign you have not been givenr eason to speculate on.
However, your own Bible contains many instances where God allows or even ordains conflict and destruction. Who is to say what God will or will not do in a particular situation?
You are correct. However, sicne I never said God won't put obsticles in the way of Civilisaiton on Earth, isn't your point rather moot?
Look, you're just going to have to trust me on this, but I'm working right now on an atmospheric modelling program.
I see. So, I am to put my faith in you, andby Faiht I mean the Sam Harirs-Richard Dawkisn Definition. "Beleif withotu evidence".
I'm sorry, but given the number of experts who have made statement sin the past of this or that climate change over the last century or so that all failed to materialise, I think that soem sceptisism is warrented.
As an interested scientist in a closely related field, I'm telling you that the mainstream global warming science is good.
So was the new Ice Age Data.
Which was supported by the most Brilliant midn sint he world back int he 1970's.
What happened to that?
If you're going to believe any random blog, make it Realclimate.org because it is the best.
I'm not beleivign any Random Blog. In fact, I'm not even convinced by the clamour in the Scientific Community, precicely because I have not been shown clear evidence, only speculation based on fragmentary Data.
My sceptisism is base dupon this. You seem, however, to think its based on what I think God will allow and do, and now that I just get Random Blog entries.
Isn't that a bit presumptuous?
I sincerely doubt you can find a site that actually refutes their position on the science.
I'd wager you are sincerely wrong. But what woudl count as an Actual Refutaiton? If your convenced already, it'd be pretty hard ot refute it. That is my expeirnce anyway.
Now, to quickly refute this Ice Age baloney: The "Global Cooling" hysteria in the 1970's was never supported by scientists, it was almost purely a media circus.
They'll say the sam ehting when this GLobal Warming phase pases. They'll say it was never supporte dby Scientissts, and only lunes attatcked to it to make a media Frenxy.
However, Brilliant Scinetisst where attatcked to the GLobal Coolisg Fiasco.
It even has proponants today in repsected fields on CLimate and Meteorology.
There were a grand total of 3 papers published, all very preliminary research, all calling for caution and patience as more data was collected.
False. Even in recent eyars many still hold tot he theory, and many more papers wher epublished.
Quite unlike the current scenario, I might add, where the media sometimes finds itself cautioning scientists that they're being hysterical. Secondly, "Global Heat wave" is not an accurate term. I use "Global Climate Change" because it really is climate change on a global level, and it is driven by heating. If you actually spent the time to read up on climatology, you'd learn that the science supporting a new Ice Age is weak, at best. Crap, I said I wasn't going to debate this.
Yes, too bad I beelive in God and am religious, that mustmean I am scientificlaly Illiterate.
Never study Sicnece, I just sit back and obey the CHurch.
(Sorry for the Sarcasm but I do acutlaly know about the Science involved.)
Anyway, I hope you accept the premise that IF the IPCC scientists are essentially correct, THEN it's important to deal with the consequences as early as possible. Since I'm convinced of the reality of the threat, speculation is not unwarranted. Smarter groups of people than I have done very fancy speculations, and it's really their ideas that I'm presenting here.
The otherhting I always wondered was this; Why is it that we asusme "Really smary guys" are always right?
Ether wasn't right, but was advance dby really smary guys. A Really Smary guy thoguht that Communism was a good idea,andhis name as Lennin. What abotu the Really Smark Freud? Are his theries still aplicable?
I'd prefer caution in any endeavour.
Oh yes, not a problem. All this requires is essentially replacing all vehicles and all the infrastructure that moves petroleum products about. Do you think that's easy? Yes, there are solutions, but they aren't really here yet. And think of the developing nations, that have a harder time getting advanced technology.
I'm old enoygh to remmeber a time when we didn't have Cellphones. I don't think new tehcnology is that slow in catchign on.
There would be a gradual turnover, form old to new, not an overnight transformation,but it can be done via standard market force.
It is the wya otf things.
Good. Now maybe you can conceed also that I may know the sicneces and dont think God won't let horrible disastes befall humanity.
Well, I disagree completely. I've lived in the Netherlands, the US, and Sweden, and done a fair bit of traveling besides. Good ol' socialist Sweden is by far the freeest society that I've encountered.
Good ole' Socialist Sweden sin't free if you want to, say, claim Homosexuality is Immoral. Or speak abotu Abortion beign Evil. Or tell others that they shoudl get married.
Sorry, it sonly free if you agree with the previaling govenrmentally approved cultural norms, and its gross national overhead willee its Economy fall apart.
I'm not big on Democacy either, but htats anlther thread.
And I doubt it'd be an understandable view rght off.
I'm sorry, but Happiness? Recent Psycological surveys of Europe have shown that its Suidcide and depresion rate is overall signifigantly higher than the US. I know the Dutch are saifd to be the Happiest of the worlds populace, but, they are also expeirncing a Religiosu Revival. Albeit Subdued in contrast to American-style verisons. ( But they are the Dutch after all.)
France, the UK, and even Socialist Sweden have much higher Depression and Sucidie ratings thanthe US, and the Bible-Belt and Midwest have fewer than the more Secular Regiosn inteh US.
Health is another factor that isn't uiet clpliciant to what I speak of.
I never said the US was perfect, after all, but int he US, you hsve a far mroe fircly individualistic culture and much grreater range of personal liberty, as well as a Popualce that still harbours hope for the future, which is somehtign Europe is missing.
Amwericans also tend ot be more helpful than all but the British, Norewegienas, and Dutch. The Dutch and Norwegieans are also amign the most Religious.
Yeah, you're right. Digital media probably does more harm than good to the concept of national identity. But the low cost of entry to publishing on the internet has opened the doors to lots of indie artists, so I'd say the internet is definitely a double-edged sword in this.
I'd also say that free expression is a good thing. WHoa re you to critisise twhat thy happen to promote, provide dit is not direclty harmful?
One man does not a fact make. As a Scentisst you shoudl know this.
No.
Just lost.
I don't believe in God
But sicne when does your beleif in God effect rather or not he actulaly exists?
(if I did I wouldn't put this nightmare scenario past him),
I detect another Athiest who thinks that, even though God doens't exist, if he did and was as described he'd be Evil.
Perhaops you shoul give God mroe of a benefit of a doubt. Rather than see him as some sort of Dictatorial and cruelk tyrant filled with Rage and wrath, perhaops try to see why he is decibed as Lovign and Merciful.
It'd certianly help you udnerstand CHristian argumnts more readily.
I am also ell awar of the usual "Evil Bible verses" abotu wars and destruction, but also abotytheir context.
and my scientific sensibilities are convinced that severe Climate Change/Peak Oil consequences are practically inevitable.
But you said yourself thta Humanity ill likely overcome it. Even if you did add that "It won' be pretty".
Don't you think it then a bit more practical t sort the problem out than fret over its consequences?
Are you sure you're not twisting your interpretation of these issues to fit a preconceived notion of what God will allow?
Give that my reply didn't feature a claim that God won't put undue burden on CIvilisation, no. Your presumign too much about my beleifs.
You are welcome.
This is the answer I feared I might get.
Fear is somethign we must face, I'm afraid.
I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future.
I always must wonder why peopel assume that a clear-thinking person must somehow arrive at the same conclusions they do.
It also implies that I am not a clear thinking person, and implicates a reason for such a fog in my thinking in beleifs I hold that you donot share.
I dfind this rathe runjustified.
You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth.
I never actually said that, and your making an assumption about somethign you have not been givenr eason to speculate on.
However, your own Bible contains many instances where God allows or even ordains conflict and destruction. Who is to say what God will or will not do in a particular situation?
You are correct. However, sicne I never said God won't put obsticles in the way of Civilisaiton on Earth, isn't your point rather moot?
In a few click sof my mouse, I can find other websites htat refute this.
In fact, just recently I was told we arne't really goign to enter a Global Heat wave, but a new Ice Age.
And many ofthe best sicnetisist inthe world predicted an Ice Age in the 1970's too.
Look, you're just going to have to trust me on this, but I'm working right now on an atmospheric modelling program.
I see. So, I am to put my faith in you, andby Faiht I mean the Sam Harirs-Richard Dawkisn Definition. "Beleif withotu evidence".
I'm sorry, but given the number of experts who have made statement sin the past of this or that climate change over the last century or so that all failed to materialise, I think that soem sceptisism is warrented.
As an interested scientist in a closely related field, I'm telling you that the mainstream global warming science is good.
So was the new Ice Age Data.
Which was supported by the most Brilliant midn sint he world back int he 1970's.
What happened to that?
If you're going to believe any random blog, make it Realclimate.org because it is the best.
I'm not beleivign any Random Blog. In fact, I'm not even convinced by the clamour in the Scientific Community, precicely because I have not been shown clear evidence, only speculation based on fragmentary Data.
My sceptisism is base dupon this. You seem, however, to think its based on what I think God will allow and do, and now that I just get Random Blog entries.
Isn't that a bit presumptuous?
I sincerely doubt you can find a site that actually refutes their position on the science.
I'd wager you are sincerely wrong. But what woudl count as an Actual Refutaiton? If your convenced already, it'd be pretty hard ot refute it. That is my expeirnce anyway.
Now, to quickly refute this Ice Age baloney: The "Global Cooling" hysteria in the 1970's was never supported by scientists, it was almost purely a media circus.
They'll say the sam ehting when this GLobal Warming phase pases. They'll say it was never supporte dby Scientissts, and only lunes attatcked to it to make a media Frenxy.
However, Brilliant Scinetisst where attatcked to the GLobal Coolisg Fiasco.
It even has proponants today in repsected fields on CLimate and Meteorology.
There were a grand total of 3 papers published, all very preliminary research, all calling for caution and patience as more data was collected.
False. Even in recent eyars many still hold tot he theory, and many more papers wher epublished.
Quite unlike the current scenario, I might add, where the media sometimes finds itself cautioning scientists that they're being hysterical. Secondly, "Global Heat wave" is not an accurate term. I use "Global Climate Change" because it really is climate change on a global level, and it is driven by heating. If you actually spent the time to read up on climatology, you'd learn that the science supporting a new Ice Age is weak, at best. Crap, I said I wasn't going to debate this.
Yes, too bad I beelive in God and am religious, that mustmean I am scientificlaly Illiterate.
Never study Sicnece, I just sit back and obey the CHurch.
(Sorry for the Sarcasm but I do acutlaly know about the Science involved.)
Anyway, I hope you accept the premise that IF the IPCC scientists are essentially correct, THEN it's important to deal with the consequences as early as possible. Since I'm convinced of the reality of the threat, speculation is not unwarranted. Smarter groups of people than I have done very fancy speculations, and it's really their ideas that I'm presenting here.
The otherhting I always wondered was this; Why is it that we asusme "Really smary guys" are always right?
Ether wasn't right, but was advance dby really smary guys. A Really Smary guy thoguht that Communism was a good idea,andhis name as Lennin. What abotu the Really Smark Freud? Are his theries still aplicable?
I'd prefer caution in any endeavour.
However, if the Petroleum becomes scarce enough, I'm sure the Companies will suddenlty unveil the new and improved Electric car, or the better than ever car that runs on Vegitabel pil, o the Car powered by Hydrogen ( the most abundant thing in the known Universe).
I highly doubt Petroleum is the problem here.
Oh yes, not a problem. All this requires is essentially replacing all vehicles and all the infrastructure that moves petroleum products about. Do you think that's easy? Yes, there are solutions, but they aren't really here yet. And think of the developing nations, that have a harder time getting advanced technology.
I'm old enoygh to remmeber a time when we didn't have Cellphones. I don't think new tehcnology is that slow in catchign on.
There would be a gradual turnover, form old to new, not an overnight transformation,but it can be done via standard market force.
It is the wya otf things.
Indeed. I'm not anti-religion. The culture and charity work done in the name of religions are both very fine examples of the best in humanity.I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.
Good. Now maybe you can conceed also that I may know the sicneces and dont think God won't let horrible disastes befall humanity.
Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty.
Not as much as in the rest of Europe, where freedom is taken awya inthe name of freedom and peipel go along wiht it.
Well, I disagree completely. I've lived in the Netherlands, the US, and Sweden, and done a fair bit of traveling besides. Good ol' socialist Sweden is by far the freeest society that I've encountered.
Good ole' Socialist Sweden sin't free if you want to, say, claim Homosexuality is Immoral. Or speak abotu Abortion beign Evil. Or tell others that they shoudl get married.
Sorry, it sonly free if you agree with the previaling govenrmentally approved cultural norms, and its gross national overhead willee its Economy fall apart.
I'd also prefer that the European Union would take a step back. It's not very democratic, and I think it causes as many problems as it solves. Let things go back to the EG, where countries could opt out of agreements more easily.People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels.
I'm glad you mentioned Brussels. Perhaops, just perhaps, if the United Kingdom woudl extract itself from the European Union, a doomed attemto at reviving the socialist ideologies that lead tothe Soviet Union while buildign a Federated Europe ala the USA, and if the UK can remmeber her past, and reunite wiht the OCmmonwealth insetad of the disasterous EU, then perhaps it can turn itself around.
I'm not big on Democacy either, but htats anlther thread.
And I doubt it'd be an understandable view rght off.
Define powerful. When it comes to keeping its population healthy, happy, and educated, the US lags Europe. When it comes to sheer military and economical power, then the US leads Europe. Keep your "power". Christ might make countries "powerful", but humans make them good places to live.you have to admit that the US, beign mroe reliigou than Europe, is mro epowerful, and the UK was at her hight when her Kingds and Miisters proudly mentioend God in public address.
I'm sorry, but Happiness? Recent Psycological surveys of Europe have shown that its Suidcide and depresion rate is overall signifigantly higher than the US. I know the Dutch are saifd to be the Happiest of the worlds populace, but, they are also expeirncing a Religiosu Revival. Albeit Subdued in contrast to American-style verisons. ( But they are the Dutch after all.)
France, the UK, and even Socialist Sweden have much higher Depression and Sucidie ratings thanthe US, and the Bible-Belt and Midwest have fewer than the more Secular Regiosn inteh US.
Health is another factor that isn't uiet clpliciant to what I speak of.
I never said the US was perfect, after all, but int he US, you hsve a far mroe fircly individualistic culture and much grreater range of personal liberty, as well as a Popualce that still harbours hope for the future, which is somehtign Europe is missing.
Amwericans also tend ot be more helpful than all but the British, Norewegienas, and Dutch. The Dutch and Norwegieans are also amign the most Religious.
National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media.
You'd think it'd be the other way round. The use of igital media allows worldwide conneciton and access to the enture planet form the ocmforts of oens own home, which opens up new ways of thinkign tot he common man. This, somehow, reasserts National Identity?
That said, I'm not buyign the currentnotion that Naitonalism is equel to danger.
Yeah, you're right. Digital media probably does more harm than good to the concept of national identity. But the low cost of entry to publishing on the internet has opened the doors to lots of indie artists, so I'd say the internet is definitely a double-edged sword in this.
I'd also say that free expression is a good thing. WHoa re you to critisise twhat thy happen to promote, provide dit is not direclty harmful?
Actually, this isn't true. Ray Kurzweil is a scientist who has studied the way technology has progressed through the ages, and it has been exponential basically the entire time. It's like Moore's Law, but more universal. For more info, look up his presentation on TED.com.And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.
Natural patrtern really.
One man does not a fact make. As a Scentisst you shoudl know this.
Well, I'm double screwed, aren't I?God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome.
No.
Just lost.
I don't believe in God
But sicne when does your beleif in God effect rather or not he actulaly exists?
(if I did I wouldn't put this nightmare scenario past him),
I detect another Athiest who thinks that, even though God doens't exist, if he did and was as described he'd be Evil.
Perhaops you shoul give God mroe of a benefit of a doubt. Rather than see him as some sort of Dictatorial and cruelk tyrant filled with Rage and wrath, perhaops try to see why he is decibed as Lovign and Merciful.
It'd certianly help you udnerstand CHristian argumnts more readily.
I am also ell awar of the usual "Evil Bible verses" abotu wars and destruction, but also abotytheir context.
and my scientific sensibilities are convinced that severe Climate Change/Peak Oil consequences are practically inevitable.
But you said yourself thta Humanity ill likely overcome it. Even if you did add that "It won' be pretty".
Don't you think it then a bit more practical t sort the problem out than fret over its consequences?
Are you sure you're not twisting your interpretation of these issues to fit a preconceived notion of what God will allow?
Give that my reply didn't feature a claim that God won't put undue burden on CIvilisation, no. Your presumign too much about my beleifs.
-
QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Big issues in the world
Sorry if you were offended by that. I'm well aware that everyone thinks "a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do", and it's an almost meaningless statement. However, I do think that your trust in God might play a role in your interpretation of the evidence.ZAROVE wrote: I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future.
I always must wonder why peopel assume that a clear-thinking person must somehow arrive at the same conclusions they do.
It also implies that I am not a clear thinking person, and implicates a reason for such a fog in my thinking in beleifs I hold that you donot share.
I dfind this rathe runjustified.
What did you mean when you said "God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome"? Clearly, I misunderstood something...You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth.
I never actually said that, and your making an assumption about somethign you have not been givenr eason to speculate on.
No, that isn't true. That is not what happened in the 1970's, unless "the most brilliant minds" translates to "Newsweek" and "Science News" journalists.As an interested scientist in a closely related field, I'm telling you that the mainstream global warming science is good.
So was the new Ice Age Data.
Which was supported by the most Brilliant midn sint he world back int he 1970's.
What happened to that?
Honestly, I'd love to find real science that contradicts the mainstream opinion, because I'd much rather be right than wrong about a big issue like this. Once, I did see a paper that suggested the Sun was more at fault than previously assumed. That paper said the Sun caused up to 35% of the warming in the last 50 years, the rest being caused predominantly by human GHG. That's the strongest statement against human-caused warming that I've been able to find in recent literature. If you have something better, please point me to it because I'm honestly interested. If you'd like to see that paper I mentioned, I'm sure I could dig up the reference for you.I sincerely doubt you can find a site that actually refutes their position on the science.
I'd wager you are sincerely wrong. But what woudl count as an Actual Refutaiton? If your convenced already, it'd be pretty hard ot refute it. That is my expeirnce anyway.
This is simply not true. Can you find me references to some of these papers that support the notion that a new Ice Age is coming? The scientific community in the 1970's did not endorse the idea of global cooling. There was a report in 1975 by the NAS that said all predictions were premature at this point. The NAS report is basically a synthesis of the science at it stood at that point in time. That's it, the "Global Cooling Hysteria of the 1970's" is a myth, end of story.Now, to quickly refute this Ice Age baloney: The "Global Cooling" hysteria in the 1970's was never supported by scientists, it was almost purely a media circus.
They'll say the sam ehting when this GLobal Warming phase pases. They'll say it was never supporte dby Scientissts, and only lunes attatcked to it to make a media Frenxy.
However, Brilliant Scinetisst where attatcked to the GLobal Coolisg Fiasco.
It even has proponants today in repsected fields on CLimate and Meteorology.
There were a grand total of 3 papers published, all very preliminary research, all calling for caution and patience as more data was collected.
False. Even in recent eyars many still hold tot he theory, and many more papers wher epublished.
Sorry for being presumptuous, but terms like "global heat wave" throw up a red flag. Believing in the cooling myth throws up a red flag. I don't believe you when you say that you know the science. I've seen no indication that this is true, since you haven't even used any scientific arguments yet. Come on, aren't you going to blame the Sun or cosmic rays or volcanoes?Quite unlike the current scenario, I might add, where the media sometimes finds itself cautioning scientists that they're being hysterical. Secondly, "Global Heat wave" is not an accurate term. I use "Global Climate Change" because it really is climate change on a global level, and it is driven by heating. If you actually spent the time to read up on climatology, you'd learn that the science supporting a new Ice Age is weak, at best. Crap, I said I wasn't going to debate this.
Yes, too bad I beelive in God and am religious, that mustmean I am scientificlaly Illiterate.
Never study Sicnece, I just sit back and obey the CHurch.
(Sorry for the Sarcasm but I do acutlaly know about the Science involved.)
Indeed. I'm not anti-religion. The culture and charity work done in the name of religions are both very fine examples of the best in humanity.I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.
Good. Now maybe you can conceed also that I may know the sicneces and dont think God won't let horrible disastes befall humanity.[/quote]
Nope, I still don't think you know as much of the science as you claim. I'll concede that you think that God won't let horrible disasters befall humanity, but I question the relevance of that point. Will you concede that I might know a little about the Christian God, too? I think your idea of what God won't do is inaccurate.
First of all, the economy is doing fine (and isn't propped up on a huge foreign debt like America's). But you're right about freedom in Sweden, your "right" to be a sanctimonious jerk isn't upheld. This makes Sweden a terrible country, where you're forced to be tolerant of others. How about the right to enjoy nature anywhere you want as long as you're not bothering others? That's written right into the constitution. How about the right to medical care, the right to higher education, the right to a place to live? What a terrible injustice, to be free to live one's life without worrying about money for basic necessities.Good ole' Socialist Sweden sin't free if you want to, say, claim Homosexuality is Immoral. Or speak abotu Abortion beign Evil. Or tell others that they shoudl get married.
Sorry, it sonly free if you agree with the previaling govenrmentally approved cultural norms, and its gross national overhead willee its Economy fall apart.
Actually, this isn't true. Ray Kurzweil is a scientist who has studied the way technology has progressed through the ages, and it has been exponential basically the entire time. It's like Moore's Law, but more universal. For more info, look up his presentation on TED.com.And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.
Natural patrtern really.
One man does not a fact make. As a Scentisst you shoudl know this.[/quote]
He is the foremost expert of his field, and runs a large team that investigates this subject in a hundred different ways. One man does not generally make a fact, but in this case he has brought plenty of facts to bear. Check out that TED.com presentation, read a couple of his books, you'll see.
I think you misunderstand me. God is basically absent, he doesn't deal with the world much. He's not cruel or evil, he just lets cruel things happen in the world anyway. I see the Christian God as Loving and Merciful because he saves people from death and gives them grace. God isn't the cause of Peak Oil, but neither is He going to fix the problem for us.I detect another Athiest who thinks that, even though God doens't exist, if he did and was as described he'd be Evil.
Perhaops you shoul give God mroe of a benefit of a doubt. Rather than see him as some sort of Dictatorial and cruelk tyrant filled with Rage and wrath, perhaops try to see why he is decibed as Lovign and Merciful.
It'd certianly help you udnerstand CHristian argumnts more readily.
I am also ell awar of the usual "Evil Bible verses" abotu wars and destruction, but also abotytheir context.
Without realizing the consequences, how would you even recognize that a problem exists? You can't separate the solution to these problems from the consequences. I'm just advocating looking ahead, so we can calibrate our actions so they correspond to desirable consequences.and my scientific sensibilities are convinced that severe Climate Change/Peak Oil consequences are practically inevitable.
But you said yourself thta Humanity ill likely overcome it. Even if you did add that "It won' be pretty".
Don't you think it then a bit more practical t sort the problem out than fret over its consequences?
Re: Big issues in the world
QuantumTroll wrote:I'd like to do two things with this thread. I'd like to hear some opinions on the somewhat controversial issues that I'm going to write about, and I'd also like to hear how people are reacting to these issues.
The first issue is Global Climate Change. If you're still not convinced that it's happening and that it's bad and that humans are a primary cause, then I'll gladly point out that the Pentagon keeps climate change in mind when doing long-term planning, and here's a good spot to start learning about the science. In short, climate change is going to rock civilization as we know it hard. In the last 50 years, the world has made tremendous progress in making developing nations healthier and more prosperous, but all this progress is very fragile. Widespread droughts and floods will catapult Africa back to the stone-age (which they left less than a century ago, but still). Developed nations will be forced to spend tons of money on adapting to change, by helping farmers that lost their crops, by saving major cities from inundation, by dealing with a refugee problem that is many orders of magnitude larger than what we see today. Living expenses will increase, jobs will be lost, and the weak will suffer terribly. Rich and powerful men will find additional ways of securing their place in society, taking advantage of the economical shocks to reap a profit while others starve.
Yes, totally right on!
The second issue is Peak Oil. The world's oil reserves are limited, and most experts aren't shy about telling people that the good days are over. $100 barrels will eventually seem impossibly cheap. Significant economical impacts will be felt within the decade, and if the 70's oil crisis was any indication the consequences will be severe. A positively huge sector of the economy thrives on cheap oil, and there will be a lot of expensive restructuring when the stuff starts to run dry. Combine this with a Climate Change scenario and a great depression or a long recession appears unavoidable.
related issue since ff is the cause of GCC. we have to sove one to solve the other. So nows the time to do it.
Both these issues bring up the harrowing spectre of War. Civil wars, international wars, illegal wars, cold wars, when a group of people feel threatened they often lash out according to their ability. A lot of people today have the ability to lash out in very damaging ways. None of the countries I've ever lived in have had a war on its own soil since WWII. I shudder to think that this might change. War is the greatest evil humankind can muster, but it requires real motivation before it can really get going.
Alongside these two titanic issues, there's a smattering of problems caused by globalization and technology. Freedom is being curtailed in the US and the UK, traditionally known for their liberty. People feel alienated from their government, be it in Washington DC or Brussels. Bird Flu is a lethal global pandemic waiting to happen. There's suitcase nukes and bio-warfare vials, built in secret labs, and we don't know who all controls them. National identity is being eroded from the spread of English, but is reasserted by the empowerment of the individual through digital media. The Dalai Lama still cannot go home, but millions pay attention to Britney's personal problems.
I am really alarmed at the loss of civil liberty. if people understood that we have lost rit of habeious corpus, and what that means we would hve riots. people are too stupid and complacent.
Is the world falling apart? Can the exponential rate of growth that human invention has experienced from year 0 to year 2008 be maintained another century? All around me there are wonderful people doing wonderful things, yet the problems the world will face are completely unprecedented, and this atheist has no one to trust that things will be alright. Nothing except his own meager abilities, and that is a small comfort.
So what does this forum think about all this?
Are humans capable of overcoming these challenges? (I think they can, but it won't be pretty)
Are these problems overstated?
What Would Jesus Do?
Most importantly, what are you doing to make the world a better place?
(I'll answer my own questions in due time, don't worry)
there is a very good chance this is the end of humanity. We just have to hope God guides us to some new breakthrough. I don't buy the Hall Lendsy end time stuff.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Big issues in the world
the effects are here man. Its' already started. But these are two aspects of the same problem though. Warming is due to use of oil (among other things). Can't solve one without solving the other.rvhill wrote:PO by far is the biger issue then GCC. PO will come in to effect long before GCC does. also soving PO will sove much of GCC precieved problems
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Big issues in the world
zor,... zor... zor. what are we going to do with our little brilliant reactionary monarchalist right winger? You are such a bright guy, but so hung up on outmoded political fashions that really had any true representatives.
the vast consensus of the world scientific community supports the data on global warning. It's proven over and over again, in ever major study. Chuncks of ice the size of New Jersey are falling away from the polar ice caps.
this is one of the most backward aspects of the Bush administration, to doge the scetnfiic community and insist that science has to be wrong. the only scientists that still agree with Bush are the hacks who work for right wing propaganda groups.
the vast consensus of the world scientific community supports the data on global warning. It's proven over and over again, in ever major study. Chuncks of ice the size of New Jersey are falling away from the polar ice caps.
this is one of the most backward aspects of the Bush administration, to doge the scetnfiic community and insist that science has to be wrong. the only scientists that still agree with Bush are the hacks who work for right wing propaganda groups.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Big issues in the world
Fallacy: to think that the ice age data and it's apparent failure to materialize disproves Global warming. that's argument from analogy.
(1) ice age data was not wrong. I remember at the time the best theory was we have little ice ages and we have big ones, we don't know if we are in a little one or a big one. we apparenlty were in a little one.
(2) It was offset by warming. we are warming at a much faster rate than the cooling.
(3) ice data speculative because it requires analysis of the past from viewing cores of ice. But warming data is now. we can see it happening. It used to get cold in Texas in the winter.
(1) ice age data was not wrong. I remember at the time the best theory was we have little ice ages and we have big ones, we don't know if we are in a little one or a big one. we apparenlty were in a little one.
(2) It was offset by warming. we are warming at a much faster rate than the cooling.
(3) ice data speculative because it requires analysis of the past from viewing cores of ice. But warming data is now. we can see it happening. It used to get cold in Texas in the winter.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief