Thread: For Atmosfear

itt Atmosfear, sycld, Mr. E, and Think are all on the same side of an argument.

I dunno, I find that weird. I mean, me and Atmosfear sure, but throwing sycld and Think in there just makes it seem odd.

Do you think wind power is infinite? Do you think geothermal power is infinite? Do you think solar power is infinite?

These are all renewable sources with finite outputs that are currently affecting the ecological state of the earth. For every photon you absorb from the sun, there is one less photon reaching the Earth as heat energy, or photosynthetic fuel. For every joule you suck out of the wind in a turbine, that is one less joule coming out the other side to drive weather systems. For every joule of heat you pull out of geothermal sources, that's one less joule of heat warming the ambient temperature of the Earth.

You, like most people uneducated in science, want to change the system because you hear of the negative effects of the current system. What you never bother to think about is the negative effects of changing, which can easily and quickly outweigh the costs of the current system.

Have you considered what we would use to fuel a shift of this nature? Have you considered who actually owns fossil fuels? I'll give you a hint: the fat cats you seem to hate so much are effectively managing the retirement and pensions for every single upper-lower and middle class blue collar worker in America. You can't find a portfolio in this country that doesn't have eggs in the Big Oil basket... but why listen to the experts on these subjects when you can make snap judgments based on media reporting? Hell, why question the motives of the media?

You simply fail time and again to consider the full consequences of any of your proposals (and conveniently ignore most of them when you get enlightened.)

Yes, science is a terrible thing to defend

I already showed you Solow's work on sustainable development, why would you try to make up a new term to describe the same thing? Another example of me wasting my time here because I can't determine whether you are intentionally ignorant of theory or just uneducated (just kidding, we can see your opinion and recognize you are uneducated or worse, media-educated.)

Sustainable development calls for furthering technology (as we have done on our own with "clean coal," improved fuel efficiency, and the like) in order to present the same opportunity for success for future generations. You seem to believe, for some reason, that future generations will be working with identical technology and fewer natural resources, which is just plain dumb. We are more productive today with fewer natural resources and vastly improved technology than we were only 20 years ago.

Sustainable development doesn't call for wanton paradigm shifts, it calls for encouragement of scientific progress such that by the time we leave, future generations are in a position to make the same judgments we do in order to best manage their resources. We don't need to fanatically adopt new technologies in the next 5 years (only to destroy our economy) that will not compare to the technology available in 15 years.

There is obviously a need for some forecasting, as just-in-time delivery of energy solutions is currently impossible. But there are no renewable resources that can even come close to maintaining our current level of usage. The costs of energy are continuing to rise, giving firms motivation to streamline their energy usage in order to lower their cost. This will ultimately render natural resources either obsolete (due to higher costs associated with disposal) or more greatly efficient (due to improved technology finding more uses for it.) Either way, we can implement policies to internalize the negative externalities of public good consumption to drive this progress without having to use fucktarded, obsolete command-and-control methods.

You also seem to think that non-renewable natural resources (coal, namely) have inherent value. If we use up every last ounce of coal on the planet at the same time an alternative source of energy is developed (or energy consumption is reduced appropriately), then future generations are no worse off in terms of loss of natural resources. Oil sitting in the ground does nothing for future generations if they can't use it; we are better served by using these resources (and internalizing the negative externalities associated with them) in order to develop better alternatives rather than use awful alternatives and letting them sit in the ground.

Also nuclear power is the near-term solution to traditional fossil fuels that you insist on ignoring (possibly due to distractions due to the pain of dragging your knuckles all over this thread.)

And in the third post in a row, I'll go ahead and predict that just like every other post you've attempted (slow clap) you will ignore the heart of the argument in order to nitpick and change the subject even further away from the OP which, though I answered honestly and succinctly, just wasn't good enough for your trollbaiting.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

production of electricity produces far more damage to the environment than fucking deisel engines much less unleaded gasoline.

I'm gonna be a douche and point out that Deisel engines only turn out more soot then a gasoline engine, which is why they have a "dirtier" association.
They're actually much more efficient and actually turn out considerably less co2 then gasoline.

While that is true, Sion, especially on an industrial level (the major application of diesel obviously isn't in the consumer market), I was referring more to the direct effect on humans; the particulate pollution of diesel represents a greater hazard to humans than does dissipated CO2 output. Either way, coal is awful in comparison to either.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

While that is true, Sion, especially on an industrial level (the major application of diesel obviously isn't in the consumer market), I was referring more to the direct effect on humans; the particulate pollution of diesel represents a greater hazard to humans than does dissipated CO2 output. Either way, coal is awful in comparison to either.

Ah I misinterpreted, I thought you were reffering to the enviornment.
Carry on.

Originally Posted by Sion

Ah I misinterpreted, I thought you were reffering to the enviornment.
Carry on.

No, no, no, no, no. What atmosfear is saying is that they are worse for the environment, they just don't contribute to greenhouse gases more significantly. If particulate pollution doesn't count as an effect on the environment, then you must be talking about the "environment" that sensationalist media refers to.

Well technically I was referring to environmental hazards to humans but I think we are all agreeing here that coal is significantly worse than diesel or gasoline so it's basically a moot point, gentlemen.

Originally Posted by Think

you must be talking about the "environment" that sensationalist media refers to.

I was.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Well technically I was referring to environmental hazards to humans but I think we are all agreeing here that coal is significantly worse than diesel or gasoline so it's basically a moot point, gentlemen.

100% agreed.
Also, we need AI back.

Ok first off:

Do you think wind power is infinite? Do you think geothermal power is infinite? Do you think solar power is infinite?

Those are all the exact same power source, which is Solar. Do you know how much solar energy the earth receives daily? Its approximately 80-90 Terrawatts of energy! We on a planetary scale, use about 10 Terrawatts. Its much more then we require, the fact is that renewable energy sources don't get most of the funds to be able to expand to such a efficient solar cell.

Other facts you guys keep missing! Let's for one place some laws that we are bound too.

One law, the conservation of mass. No mass can be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Second law, this is an ecological law where the population of a given species increases with the increase in food supply. It works both ways, a decrease in population follows a decrease in food supply.

After having established these two laws, we can see that our population obviously is increasing (6 billion) is the estimate at the moment. How is this logical, when it took Homo Sapiens Sapiens 200 000 years to hit 1 billion and in 150 years we got to 6 billion? The point here is we are slowly transforming all biomass on this planet into human biomass. There is has to be a tipping point in balance somewhere, we require the living community on this planet to survive.

You think the atmosphere is stable on itself? Living organisms are keeping it at the concentration it currently is (not just trees).

Another thing, our current economy system is obviously flawed and everyone knows this. From the simple facts stated above that says the rich get richer while the poor get poorer its a game where only the people at the high end win and we in the middle are just pawns while we live on the losses of the rest of the world. Another point on this is we seem to consider that our resources are infinite, how is that even logical? Our system works from extraction to consumption to disposal. What other organism on this planet creates true ''waste'' apart from us? (simple display 20 mins video explaining it)

We've been creating components that have never been scene and can't be reassimilated by nature. It's there, forever (plastic). Or we've uncovered components that within the earths crust are non toxic, but are deadly when unearthened (plutonium, argon etc. from mining for Nuclear reactors.)

We need to do more biomimicry, live ecologically and think as a united species and not greedy individuals that this monetary system as created. Its the point kozzle is making, we need a new and better system. We need a new view on things, which is why he proposes that you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, its an anthropological book that gives you a new view, that you probably haven't seen or thought about before, its out there...but it requires the stitching of many pieces together to see the global image.

In order to have a sustainable future for the generations to come we require a new vision, this is what that book hopes to achieve. I highly support the ideas of Daniel Quinn, try and read it. its only 267 pages.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Ok first off:



Those are all the exact same power source, which is Solar. Do you know how much solar energy the earth receives daily? Its approximately 80-90 Terrawatts of energy! We on a planetary scale, use about 10 Terrawatts. Its much more then we require, the fact is that renewable energy sources don't get most of the funds to be able to expand to such a efficient solar cell.

Just an FYI, sucking out 10 terrawats from the Earth will definitely cause a climate shift.

Well, this thread got complicated

Originally Posted by Kozzle

Well there you have it. An expert on environmental science. Let me guess...economists know more than they do about the skullfucking we are delivering to the planet right

Economists probably have a better grip on the problem than psych majors.

you make a valid point in how our actions have an effect on the world around us, and changing our behaviors is an aspect of this dilemma. but the systems and consequences our actions have on the world around us are myriad and the repercussions of the changes and choices we make are difficult to understand properly. So while you probably have a good grip on how people think when they rape the environment and what aspects of that cause them to be that way, you don't really understand how changing a fuel source impacts the economy and our culture from top to bottom. It's not your field of study or expertise, and talking like you understand it makes you sound pompous and retarded.

Originally Posted by kozzle

It doesn't take a Ph.D to know that fossil fuel use is not necessary and could be easily replaced with much more natural and clean resources.

you see, with the situation as it is, it is in fact quite difficult to phase out fossil fuels, considering the demand and necessity for it, and replace it with something cleaner. The added difficulty, as Atmosfear pointed out earlier, is that with the knowledge we have from dealing with fossil fuels, we are obligated to ensure that we understand fully the repercussions and consequences of use for our next primary source of fuel, and using corn for fuel (as an example) is not particularly efficient.

economists have a better grasp of this, because any change in fossil fuel is going to be deeply an inextricably linked to the economy. for better or worse, money plays a big part in saying what we'll be using, and no amount of high-minded idealism will change that. The problem is that, generally speaking, economists aren't particularly concerned with environmental impact. But they have a good idea of what will happen to the economy that supports our culture and way of life if we make a foolish, drastic change rooted in idealism and good intentions rather than one that's well thought out.

Originally Posted by Kozzle

Well there you have it. An expert on environmental science. Let me guess...economists know more than they do about the skullfucking we are delivering to the planet right

lol, wow

I stopped reading this thread a long time ago. I was assuming complication from the length of the posts in this thread. I've never claimed to be an expert on environmental science, and am in fact not one, but I do know that global warming is even more overrated than global cooling was in the 70's and is a natural occurrence. While humans are accelerating it, so long as we don't get any worse it really isn't that big of a deal. That's all I have to say about that.

Originally Posted by Kozzle

I actually wasn't really directing that statement to you.

And apparently you didn't stop reading it long ago

....but you quoted me when you said it, lol

I skimmed until I got a gist so that I could say something for the sake of saying something, but getting into the specifics of solving fossil fuel dependence is pretty pointless, since the problem won't get solved until the oil companies and oil producing nations get to the point where they realize the well is almost dry and if they want to keep getting richer they will have to monopolize or oligopilize the next wave of energy.

CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE BOTH WRONG, BEHOLD MY RADICAL NEW SYSTEM WHICH COINCIDENTALLY IS NEVER IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE IT IS RETARDED AND IGNORES REALITY.

I will not get out of this hippy commune for as long as I can spend my days with you.

hey lehmur--

your gimmicks are not funny.

Hey sycld,

You're ruining my grooves, bitch.

Why would Sarah Palin be with His Holiness The Dalai Lama?

I'll tell you why (she isn't).

Christianity.

i am a horrible poster

Originally Posted by HopeYouLive

i am a horrible poster

But your username brings great hope.

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Obama calls himself a Christian.

gg.

You know who else did?

Hitler.

As a note if you rage against capitalism yet you're basing this rage on the environment then you're an idiot.

Stakeholder management is currently one of the most important fields of study in modern business and the companies that have done the best job with it are the ones who are consistently performing well. Compare the worldwide success of Coca-Cola to Pepsi; the major difference in the companies is that Coca-Cola is consistently heralded as one of the leaders in CSR. Even Wal-mart has been forced to integrate this process and consider its ethical and philanthropic responsibilities because the market is demanding this behavior.

Well yes, that's one way to make the liberals happy. "Buy now and a dollar goes to something of your choice! It can be meals-on-wheels (best option FYI but I digress), research on breast transplants, or a motherfucking save-the-goddamn-earth fund! Screw the elderly, SAVE THE TREES YOU HEARTLESS FAGGOT"

Of course in reality we know that if the Bratz doll producers announce that a dollar will go to getting puppies out of drainage ditches (possibly alive) that doesn't actually mean anything since the whole thing is quite literally just "feel good", it's an abstract situation where you can look like an asshole if you refuse to buy, and secondly that doesn't change the fact that the Bratz doll producers are helping to turn girls into whores