Curse

Onarik Amrak · Dec 14, 2007, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blizzard.

Once Bush (he's like.. like... something) gets out of office, I think the U.S. can pay the debts over time, clean up the country a bit, get the hell out of Iraq, and do some other major damage support.

As for the other countries with over-crowded populations... they should make a law (this may be bad, but in my opinion, IS NEEDED) where people can only have a certain amount of babies. Like 3 would be good, and people would understand is you accidently had sextuplets or something..

Your uninformed opinion is awesome.

1. Clearing out of Iraq might have some nasty consequences later on, if not for Americans, for the Iraqis.
2. China already has a 1-child policy, and while it works... it promotes sexism.
3. The problem with population often has to do with poverty. Poor countries often have a lot more kids, but few survive to old age, which is very different to highly developed countries, which have very different population pyramids, and generally have an aging population.

OI-812 · Dec 14, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

1. Clearing out of Iraq might have some nasty consequences later on, if not for Americans, for the Iraqis.

I could go into a whole new and very lengthy discussion about Iraq, but in the interests of this thread and its well-being I think I'll refrain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

2. China already has a 1-child policy, and while it works... it promotes sexism.

Sexism was already rampant before the "1-child law" in China. Always has been, always will be probably. India is just as sexist. Gotta love human beings with neolithic mindsets living in our modern world. (Not that we have any shortage of them here, mind you)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

3. The problem with population often has to do with poverty. Poor countries often have a lot more kids, but few survive to old age, which is very different to highly developed countries, which have very different population pyramids, and generally have an aging population.

And then we have brainless idiots - erm, I'm sorry, "good Samaritans" who are wasting who-knows-how-much time and money trying to make sure that these children in these third world countries get to have lives as long as ours. Would be fine, except the people who are making all those kids in those third world countries aren't going to slow down their reproduction rate.

That seems to be a serious problem with the human race in general - most of us have an "aww, that's so unfair, I'll make it better" disease that compels us to do stupid shit like increase longevity in the populations of these third-world countries, as well as waste huge amounts of time and money taking care of the seriously mentally infirm and such - human beings that will NEVER be able to offer any kind of contribution to the human race, human beings that are just sitting there, taking up space, crapping themselves and bathing in their own drool. To be fair to the spineless big-hearted morons out there, there are new advances in the medical field that have shown promise in treating and possibly curing things like autism - but there are a lot of cases where medicine can't help, and won't help.

....anyways, there's also the issue of "peak oil" which may or may not be a myth (I'm inclined to think the latter is the case). A worldwide oil shortage on an even larger scale than the one we are currently in (which is being artificially induced by the damn greedy Arabs/OPEC partially) will crank international tensions up a few more notches, and even as it encourages us to find cleaner alternative fuels the catastrophic effect it could have on the world's economy is a little scary, especially when you consider the side effects from such a situation - clearcutting forests in a desperate effort to wring resources from the land, etc. People are wonderfully panicky animals, and it really won't take much to send us into a downward spiral, right back into the Dark Ages...

lakatz · Dec 14, 2007, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

Your uninformed opinion is awesome.

1. Clearing out of Iraq might have some nasty consequences later on, if not for Americans, for the Iraqis.

But anyone with an IQ over 90 and a basic understanding of the dynamics between the different religious groups in Iraq could figure out that was going to happen before we went in. It was abundantly clear. And, as many vital young American lives as have sadly been lost in Iraq, the Iraqis have and will continue to suffer the consequences of our president's decision much much more than Americans... except for American oil businessmen of course.

Ahh... might that have some connection to our president's delegation's rejection of the emission norms proposed at the Bail climate conference?... she said sarcastically.

I'm sorry. I'm getting angry. And it's because I did all I could to convince any fellow Americans I could reach that going into Iraq would only open the gates of hell... that unfortunately the people there, without the threats imposed by a secular Sunni dictator, would start killing each other. Was I wrong? And now that our government is responsible for many more deaths and injuries than Hussein ever was and for millions of displaced people and is actively and openly engaged in torture I don't want to hear "but... but... but... Hussein was a tyrant."

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

.....and even as it encourages us to find cleaner alternative fuels the catastrophic effect it could have on the world's economy is a little scary, especially when you consider the side effects from such a situation - clearcutting forests in a desperate effort to wring resources from the land, etc. People are wonderfully panicky animals, and it really won't take much to send us into a downward spiral, right back into the Dark Ages...

Clearcutting forests for energy? Are you serious? LMAO... that's patently absurd. We're harnassing wind, solar and thermal energy for starters... and finding so many more clean alternatives. We don't need trees for energy. Au contraire... we're actively planting them to absorb the CO2 we're releasing into the atmosperhere.

Btw, I'm not even going to address the ethnocentric/white supremacist remarks about people with no purpose for one big reason... this is a thread about the environment. I've already gone off topic with my rant about the Iraq situation, and I want to try to stay on topic.

Onarik Amrak · Dec 14, 2007, 05:00 PM // 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

But anyone with an IQ over 90 and a basic understanding of the dynamics between the different religious groups in Iraq could figure out that was going to happen before we went in. It was abundantly clear. And, as many as young vital American lives have sadly been lost in Iraq, the Iraqis have and will continue to suffer the consequences of our president's decision much much more than Americans... except for American oil businessmen of course.

That's something I forgot to mention. I also don't think that bringing the war to Iraq was a good idea. It was a terrible idea. But, now that you're there, you can't just pack up and leave and expect them to work things out for themselves.

lakatz · Dec 14, 2007, 05:20 PM // 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

That's something I forgot to mention. I also don't think that bringing the war to Iraq was a good idea. It was a terrible idea. But, now that you're there, you can't just pack up and leave and expect them to work things out for themselves.

I agree. I don't believe we can leave it to the rest of the middle east to sort out either because, as it is, the peace between them all is tenuous at best. Turkey is poised... Iran is poised... everyone is poised. Yup... the gates of hell are open.

But... that's the last I want to say on the subject of war in the middle east since Ensoriki asked us to stay on topic (environment). I know I went off topic with my rant, but steam was coming out my ears and I had to do something. I wasn't angry because of what you said. It was because this tragedy could have been avoided if it weren't for blind faith. Albert Einstein said, "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." And God was he ever right. Anyway... I'm sorry.

OI-812 · Dec 14, 2007, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

Clearcutting forests for energy? Are you serious? LMAO... that's patently absurd. We're harnassing wind, solar and thermal energy for starters... and finding so many more clean alternatives. We don't need trees for energy. Au contraire... we're actively planting them to absorb the CO2 we're releasing into the atmosperhere.

WE'RE harnessing these wonderful energy sources. THEY probably aren't. They being the resource-starved countries we were talking about in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

Btw, I'm not even going to address the ethnocentric/white supremacist remarks about people with no purpose for one big reason... this is a thread about the environment. I've already gone off topic with my rant about the Iraq situation, and I want to try to stay on topic.

First off: Ethnocentric and white supremacist? Where do you come up with this s**t? Where in my post did I say ANYTHING that could be called "white supremacist" in nature?

ensoriki · Dec 14, 2007, 09:36 PM // 21:36

World Wild Oil shortage? Pfft, not even close.
Everyone knows theirs oil's Up North and Down South.
Hopefully do to the protection of the poles, people won't go after them for oil.
However places near the poles are up for grabs.
Nunavut is going to be pushing out diamonds and oil, somebody is bound to find oil just outside Antarctica as well.

You get up and leave Iraq americans, Iraq will just be delayed in growth.
Then when they get up to speed their going to start industrial bull crap and say that they didn't get a chance to do it before >.>

Hell actually, if we quickly removed americans and then replaced them with other forces, this could probably work itself out better.
This arms race for oil is absurd, people with brains know we don't need nearly as much oil as we try to get, with current modern ways of obtaining energy

wetsparks · Dec 14, 2007, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

Eliminating stupid people would be good for humanity.

There's a difference between uneducated (not by choice) and idiocy.

Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson?

My first thought was the Jackass movies.

And about Iraq, I think we should have just sent in the Navy SEALS to kill all of Saddam's family/advisers/anyone else involved and let Iraq find its way out. Would have saved a lot of lives and 4 trillion dollars of national debt.

lakatz · Dec 14, 2007, 10:03 PM // 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

WE'RE harnessing these wonderful energy sources. THEY probably aren't. They being the resource-starved countries we were talking about in the first place.

Of course, you weren't referring to Kenya as one of those resource-starved country... right? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622435/

Quote:

First off: Ethnocentric and white supremacist? Where do you come up with this s**t? Where in my post did I say ANYTHING that could be called "white supremacist" in nature?

To wit:

Quote:

as well as waste huge amounts of time and money taking care of the seriously mentally infirm and such - human beings that will NEVER be able to offer any kind of contribution to the human race, human beings that are just sitting there, taking up space, crapping themselves and bathing in their own drool.

Good point... you're right... that's not about ethnocentricity or white supremacy. It's pack animal mentality. Lucky for us humans with our higher intelligence... we've risen above such mentality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

...This arms race for oil is absurd, people with brains know we don't need nearly as much oil as we try to get, with current modern ways of obtaining energy

QFT

Onarik Amrak · Dec 14, 2007, 10:04 PM // 22:04

It's hard to take you seriously when your prose is so awful, ensoriki.

Of course there are oil deposits in the Arctic and Antarctic. It's just not economically viable for extraction. However, this is changing as a side effect of global warming, thawing some of the regions. For example, Iceland is pretty happy with its thawing landscape making mining operations much less expensive.

Antarctica is supposed to be a no development zone, as outlined in the Antarctic Treaty System.

In respect to modern ways of harnessing energy, that's not true. Fossil fuels are still the most economic way of generating power on a massive scale. Hydroelectricity is great but not all countries have huge waterways capable of generating the required amounts of energy to supply a nation. Wind power is pathetic in terms of output compared to other sources. Solar isn't quite there yet. Not to mention to the energy produced by a home solar panel in 4 years is equal to the energy required to make it.

Then you have ethanol for cars. Seems like a nice solution, but you need a lot of energy and water to grow crops. Fertilizer and pesticide runoff into waterways is another environmental problem. Burning ethanol for fuel isn't a clean solution anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

And about Iraq, I think we should have just sent in the Navy SEALS to kill all of Saddam's family/advisers/anyone else involved and let Iraq find its way out. Would have saved a lot of lives and 4 trillion dollars of national debt.

That would pretty much amount to the same problem.

1. Power vacuum.

2. Huge infighting.

3. Huge sum of money spent in foreign aid and peace keeping.

wetsparks · Dec 14, 2007, 10:11 PM // 22:11

but it wouldn't have cost thousands of US lives and 4 trillion dollars. the government would act sad, the UN would shame a lot of countries into promising a couple hundred million or maybe billions in support. even with the US there, we aren't exactly helping as the Iraqis are intent on killing us because we are outsiders and they think we are going to try to rule them for cheap oil.

Onarik Amrak · Dec 14, 2007, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

but it wouldn't have cost thousands of US lives and 4 trillion dollars.

So instead millions more Iraqis would die.

Are American lives that much more important?

ensoriki · Dec 14, 2007, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

That seems to be a serious problem with the human race in general - most of us have an "aww, that's so unfair, I'll make it better" disease that compels us to do stupid shit like increase longevity in the populations of these third-world countries, as well as waste huge amounts of time and money taking care of the seriously mentally infirm and such - human beings that will NEVER be able to offer any kind of contribution to the human race, human beings that are just sitting there, taking up space, crapping themselves and bathing in their own drool. To be fair to the spineless big-hearted morons out there, there are new advances in the medical field that have shown promise in treating and possibly curing things like autism - but there are a lot of cases where medicine can't help, and won't help.

QFT.

The problem with leaving Iraq, is that you leave them now, they're going to need a crutch. Who's to say within 70 years after leaving them, they're population does not boom, under developed countries breed a lot usually.

Quote:

In respect to modern ways of harnessing energy, that's not true. Fossil fuels are still the most economic way of generating power on a massive scale. Hydroelectricity is great but not all countries have huge waterways capable of generating the required amounts of energy to supply a nation. Wind power is pathetic in terms of output compared to other sources. Solar isn't quite there yet. Not to mention to the energy produced by a home solar panel in 4 years is equal to the energy required to make it.

You know this might sound crazy,
but methane can be used for energy, to power cars, etc.
Problem is as far as I know Methane can be powerful shit...
But you know, of NASA's using it...everyones got to use it =P

Onarik Amrak · Dec 15, 2007, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

You know this might sound crazy,
but methane can be used for energy, to power cars, etc.
Problem is as far as I know Methane can be powerful shit...
But you know, of NASA's using it...everyones got to use it =P

That's still a fossil fuel.

...Unless of course you don't mind having a hose up your butt to harvest it for personal use.

makosi · Dec 15, 2007, 12:32 AM // 00:32

In the developped world clean technology exists although it is not effectively promoted or developed on a large scale.

In the United Kingdom, off the Eastern coast of Scotland there are BP, Shell and other companies drilling crude oil which is notorius for its carbon emissions when processed in to energy. The tax revenue from these companies is massive - and doubled since Hurrican Katrina hit America.

Our primitive country prides itself on the National Health Service [NHS] providing free health care to all citizens at the point of use. Needless to say this does not come cheap. It is suffering from underfunding, overcrowding, staff are protesting and it is at breaking point.

Let's go solar, hydro and wind-powered. The initial costs are high but they are easily maintained, renewal sources of energy and environmentally friendly. Private Finance Initiatives [PFIs] help to span the high, initial development costs by collaborating with the Private Sector who use their expertise, finance and resources to ease the burden on the Government.

As supplies of renewable energy increases, demand follows and thus the demand for non-renewable energy (namely crude oil and coal) declines. The Government's good friends at BP and Shell look at Gordon Bown with contempt and use their financial and corporate supremacy to defame the ruling parties and harrass the public in to consuming coal and crude oil once again. The Labour Party panic at election time when propaganda wars from these capitalist elitists spreads like wild-fire. Feeble attempts at knocking renewable energy have been made, such as "wind turbines are eyesores" and spoil the preserved Scottish scenery and National Parks. Dams have been critizied for being unsafe and harmful to ecosystems and Solar panels are allegedly inefficient in British climes.

In conclusion, public services will suffer as crude oil and coal mining ends due to the shortage of funding lost by the extreme revenue drop. Politicians will be severely condemned as a result and the current Government will suffer reputation loss.

Politics comes before morality. There's no way to fix that.

Slightly off-topic fact:

Should a working citizen require inhalers for his/her Athsma, he/she must pay £6.88 for these inhalers. Should a heroin addict require Methodone, he/she gets it for free as well as syringes, sterilizers and other 'mandatory' safety items so they don't catch anything.

Terrible system.

Onarik Amrak · Dec 15, 2007, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Our primitive country prides itself on the National Health Service [NHS] providing free health care to all citizens at the point of use. Needless to say this does not come cheap. It is suffering from underfunding, overcrowding, staff are protesting and it is at breaking point.

It's a little off-topic but public health care is in the crapper in quite a few countries.

Lack of funding is the biggest problem.

The portrayal of Canadian health care in Denys Arcand's films paints a dismal state of affairs.

makosi · Dec 15, 2007, 12:42 AM // 00:42

The health care is a lot worse in other countries. We have the best in the world according to statistics. It's very rosy to outsiders looking in but they do not see the mess it's in.

The NHS principle is 'nice'. Free for all [lies] and available at the point of use [more lies] but it is extremely outdated.

ensoriki · Dec 15, 2007, 12:50 AM // 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

That's still a fossil fuel.

...Unless of course you don't mind having a hose up your butt to harvest it for personal use.

Methane is plentiful, as far as I know.
and is a good alternative for oil/other natural gases

Quote:

Methane in the form of compressed natural gas is used as a fuel for vehicles, and is claimed to be more environmentally friendly than alternatives such as gasoline/petrol and diesel. Research is being conducted by NASA on methane's potential as a rocket fuel. One advantage of methane is that it is abundant in many parts of the solar system and it could potentially be harvested in situ, providing fuel for a return journey

Its better than current fuel, and not only that...if NASA is using it, its powerful.
and all though this is wild considering we have not reached that far.
Because Methane is plentiful on other planets, if we Ever Did run out (unlikely)
we could restock....this would take many years for us to run out anyways

[card]Early in the Earth's history—about 3.5 billion years ago—there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere as there is now. The earliest methane was released into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. During this time, Earth's earliest life appeared. These first, ancient bacteria added to the methane concentration by converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane and water. Oxygen did not become a major part of the atmosphere until photosynthetic organisms evolved later in Earth's history. With no oxygen, methane stayed in the atmosphere longer and at higher concentrations than it does today.[/card]
High Methane existed before, and life can still survive with it (although perhaps not us, but life will continue on earth) at high quantities. It's also balanced very well by plants.

[card]Methane has been detected or is believed to exist in several locations of the solar system. It is believed to have been created by abiotic processes, with the possible exception of Mars.[/quote]
Methane is our connection....TO ALIENS!!!

Quote:

Apart from gas fields an alternative method of obtaining methane is via biogas generated by the fermentation of organic matter including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste (including landfills), or any other biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic conditions. Methane hydrates/clathrates (icelike combinations of methane and water on the sea floor, found in vast quantities) are a potential future source of methane. Cattle belch methane, accounting for 16% of the world's annual methane emissions to the atmosphere. The livestock sector in general (primarily cattle, chickens, and pigs) produces 37% of all human-induced methane". However animals "that put their energies into making gas are less efficient at producing milk and meat". Early research has found a number of medical treatments and dietary adjustments that help limit the production of methane in ruminants.

Industrially, methane can be created from common atmospheric gases and hydrogen (produced, perhaps, by electrolysis) through chemical reactions such as the Sabatier process, Fischer-Tropsch process. Coal bed methane extraction is a method for extracting methane from a coal deposit.

A recent scientific experiment has also yielded results pointing to one species of plant producing trace methane.

Methane is naturally produced by humans and other organisms and can be industrially made.
Much less of a worry than Oil which takes a long time to be created.

As Methane is cheaper, fuel prices would be able to go down.

Quote:

Methane is a chemical compound with the molecular formula CH4. It is the simplest alkane, and the principal component of natural gas. Methane's bond angles are 109.5 degrees. Burning one molecule of methane in the presence of oxygen releases one molecule of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of H2O:

Do you not see the awesome ness of that?
It creates freaking water!

makosi · Dec 15, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Methane contributes to the hole in the O-Zone layer. Cows fart methane. Seriously.

http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html

Down with cows!

lakatz · Dec 15, 2007, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

QFT.

The problem with leaving Iraq, is that you leave them now, they're going to need a crutch. Who's to say within 70 years after leaving them, they're population does not boom, under developed countries breed a lot usually.

The sad thing is Iraq didn't used to be an underdeveloped country. It used to be one of the most affluent countries in the middle east. Oil rich countries usually are. We have the UN economic sanctions to thank for their descent into poverty, and the deaths of at least 1,000,000 Iraqis, most of them children BEFORE George W's war.