This kind of thinking is becoming the norm

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by DoctorDave, Apr 21, 2012.

Page 10 of 13
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Half right. Industrialization has brought about great advances, but at a severe ecological price. It won;t go on like that forever, though. Unbridled pollution can be dealt with using the technology brought about by industry.

    And the Chinese are no fools, which is why they and ever other country in the world are trying to balance getting greener with meeting power demands. China does not desire being the most polluted country on the planet. Nobody does. It seems to be your vision for America though.
     
    red55, May 8, 2012
    #91
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    In the short term. The logical conclusion to your metaphor would be to then take some acorns and plant more trees along your way so that they could consume CO2 and emit oxygen and provide fuel for the next camper. Can you not see that it progress and environment protection are not mutually exclusive?

    What if I showed you the tiny hand-dug Manhattan refuse pits that served to dispose of all the islands human garbage in 1300 and then compared it to the mountains of garbage that New York exports to landfills in 15 states and dumps daily into the Atlantic Ocean?

    What if I showed you the carbon profile of a healthy primeval forest versus an urban megalopolis. Pretty damned carbon-negative, amigo.

    What if I showed you an island where all of the water that fell on it was enough to meet its needs. Now billions of gallons must be pumped in from long distances daily, converted into sewage and dumped into the rivers.

    If you cannot see destruction of habitat, then you are blind, sir.
     
    red55, May 8, 2012
    #92
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    if new york is a destroyed habitat, then it makes me wonder how it it one of the biggest population centers on earth. all the development has made it a perfect habitat for humans. all the consumption, all the emissions, all the energy use, it has made for a habitat that attracts people from all over the world.

    they are definitely compatible, as long as you dont force horrible things down our throat. if the market finds a way to make clean energy from algae that would be awesome. but if you force cap and trade on us, it will be terrible for poor people. but you dont care about poor people.

    basically every raw material is cheaper now than it was 30 years ago. we are not running out of resources. the only thing we even have to consider worrying about is fresh water.

    do you think melting the ice on northern greenland will make it more or less inhabitable? do you think a warmer and more carbon rich environment is bad for crops?
     
    martin, May 8, 2012
    #93
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    martin, May 8, 2012
    #94
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    if every human on earth tried desperately to make earth uninhabitable for humans, we could not do it. we could burn every farm, poison ever river, and it wouldnt matter. we cant even make the site of chernobyl uninhabitable for more than a few years.
     
    martin, May 8, 2012
    #95
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The original habitat was self-sufficient all on Manhattan. New York now survives only because a vast section of the planet is enslaved to the water, milk, food production, energy production, transportation, sewage, garbage disposal and all the other needs of New York. As a habitat, Manhattan sucks. It is just a place to live, a parasite upon the nation that it depends upon for everything.

    Leave your homoerotic fantasies out of this, Hoss.

    One: I am forcing nothing on you, stop whimpering. Two: Cap and trade has nothing to do with poor people at all. I have explained it exhaustively and you were not paying attention.

    Not true.

    Your ignorance of ecology is appalling.

    It would still be a useless tundra. Meanwhile the displaced water will flood millions of square miles of populated and arable land. Typical short-sightedness.

    In the fewer places left for them to grow, it could be bad or good. But the desertification of the planet has already begun. You can't grow crops in a desert.
     
    red55, May 8, 2012
    #96
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    red55, May 8, 2012
    #97
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    yes, i bet those folks doing those jobs like farming and working for long island railroad and the dept of sanitation really hate tht they are employed.

    also cities are far more efficient and less polluting. manhattan is far more efficient in terms of waste and energy use than baton rouge. cities are ideal habitats, not just for the residents, but for everyone. they are efficient. small homes, no cars, walking everywhere. by your stupid green standards, manhattan is about as good as it gets.

    ivory tower liberalism. you want to force your programs on everyone as long as it doesnt hurt you. you are a first world white person who has plenty of money to manage rising energy costs.


    even with less arable land, we will be fine. we have ore than enough food to feed the world now. too much, in fact. in any case, the way to stabilize population and level off our food needs is with economic advancement.
     
    martin, May 8, 2012
    #98
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934

    yes lets see what a blog titled "infectious greed" has to say.

    the fact is that basic resources are not becoming more scarce. the prices of simple things like metals and minerals and such are very stable and have been for a long time. oil spikes periodically, but that isnt necessarly due to scarcity, as we have previously discussed.

    either way, the earth's population might self correct eventually, its not something for little red to worry about.
     
    martin, May 8, 2012
    #99
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You are self-deluded. Manhattan is more efficient and less polluting than a primeval forest? GTF out of here! No cars? Hell, the garbage and sewage production alone make a mockery of your position.

    Trying to change the subject again . . . I don't blame you. Stop being hysterical and try to be logical.

    This is untrue. Population is rising and arable land is shrinking. This mutually exclusive situation will certainly reach an untenable point.

    When the climate changes, food production drops. You are making the erroneous assumption that status quo cannot change.
     
    red55, May 8, 2012
    #100
Page 10 of 13

Share This Page