Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Climate change real according to Pentagon

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Obese Yanks selfishly drive round in big vehicles as do lazy UK lumps picking up their obese kids.

    Who's picking up the tab for the Wests lazy consumption? In the front-line are simple-living people on islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific where rising sea levels are threatening their existence.

    Will the west change its ways, not unless they're forced to and then it'll be too late.
  • JadedJaded Posts: 2,682 Boards Guru
    I don't understand this argument. How can you pollute or destroy a world that is already dead? Like Mars, or the Moon? Who cares if we use them to dump the waste instead of letting it stockpile here? Explain to me, WHY does it matter?
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    It won't be long before we are able to control the weather, and with the advent of terra-forming we can look to the heavens for planets to offload excess population.

    I thought you were talking about populating other worlds not using them as slagheaps. I still don't think it is a viable solution, we need to learn to be more sustainable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    I don't understand this argument. How can you pollute or destroy a world that is already dead? Like Mars, or the Moon? Who cares if we use them to dump the waste instead of letting it stockpile here? Explain to me, WHY does it matter?

    See a previous link to the Gaia hypothesis. The world isn't dead.
    As for humanity's dominance, yes we are physically weak. BUT our mastery of technology and machinery makes us the undoubtable masters of this planet. Sharks and crabs and insects may have been around for millions of years, but all they have done is simply existed. Humanity is constantly evolving and developing.

    Civilisation is moving forward in technology, but humanity is not biologically evolving. All we're doing is becoming weak, fat and lazy. If you want to see a society that's superior, strong and independant look at some of the few remaining tribes in rainforests.

    Humanity, can and often does percieve those around him, an insect has no knowledge of the world around it, desiring to do nothing more than drink blood, or eat our own waste.

    And? It's not like members of the human race have never drank blood and used cow shit for fuel. A lot of nutrients come from those sources.
    Humans have hope, dreams and ideas. Animals don't.
    They live sustainably because they lack the technology to do otherwise.

    Hence why I believe them to be superior. They don't need technology to survive.
    For thousands of years before we developed farming techniques the world's population of humans never rose beyond a few million. Our ranks were decimated by disease as the planet tried to kill us off.

    That's just nature.
    For all we know humanitys time should have ended with the Romans and we would have been replaced by another species. But it didn't, we developed medecines and surgical techniques to ensure our survival.

    :confused:

    Medicine didn't just exist in Rome, it's existed worldwide throughout many different societies. Uhm... je ne comprende pas...

    Explain further?

    Even an apocalyptical event wouldn't kill us all off, our technology would allow us to survive, maybe only a few thousand of us, but enough to repopulate the planet and regain control.

    You mean like nuclear fallout shelters?

    In the event of nuclear war cockroaches would survive too, they're tough little blighters.
    Originally posted by Ladymuck
    Who's picking up the tab for the Wests lazy consumption? In the front-line are simple-living people on islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific where rising sea levels are threatening their existence.

    Indeed, if we don't change our way of life in the west, people in less developed countries will suffer, such as tribes.

    Did y'all know that to provide the UK with enough paper for one year, you'd need a forest the size of Wales? i]Source - Friends of the earth[/i
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MoonRat
    They don't need technology to survive.

    Exactly.

    Take away our electricity and oil, then see how "advanced" we are...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Exactly.

    Take away our electricity and oil, then see how "advanced" we are...

    Yupyup. Summed up most of what I've said in on sentence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    I don't understand this argument. For all we know humanitys time should have ended with the Romans and we would have been replaced by another species. .
    what the hell is this supposed to mean? how would we be replaced?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    Humanity, can and often does percieve those around him, an insect has no knowledge of the world around it, desiring to do nothing more than drink blood, or eat our own waste.

    Humans have hope, dreams and ideas. Animals don't.

    Can you prove this, animal behaviour suggest differently, also try watch a dog sleeping.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Take away our electricity and oil, then see how "advanced" we are...

    The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians didnt have either, yet they still created vast civilisations.
    but humanity is not biologically evolving. All we're doing is becoming weak, fat and lazy.

    Humanity is not evolving because weve only bee around for a few thousand years. Evolution takes time.

    And anyway in place of growing sharper teeth or an extra finger like animals do, we take the short cut using technology.
    If you want to see a society that's superior, strong and independant look at some of the few remaining tribes in rainforests.

    If you want to see a bunch of savages living in huts with no concept of the wider world, look at the few remaining tribes in the rainforest.
    Hence why I believe them to be superior

    I cannot see how on earth you can come to this conclusion. The facts are in humanitys favour, they dominate the earth and have made all other species subservient to them.
    That's just nature.

    So is human technology and advancement.
    people in less developed countries will suffer,

    Nobody cares.
    Hence I believe them to be superior.

    Because they are big and strong? How shallow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by The Matadore


    Nobody cares.




    I care so you must be wrong......

    That was easy.

    Strange that people don't care about the fate of those in developed countries yet bleat and whine if they stopped trading with us, or at the perceived 'floods' of immigrants or when we get hit by terrorists, weird!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by The Matadore
    Nobody cares.

    You will when resource wars kick off and people rise up against the West. What do you think anti-American terrorism is about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by The Matadore
    Humanity is not evolving because weve only bee around for a few thousand years. Evolution takes time.

    Longer than a few thousand years I think you'll find. :eek2:
    And anyway in place of growing sharper teeth or an extra finger like animals do, we take the short cut using technology.

    Which we depend on instead of what we were born with. hence the arguement, sharks are superior to humans, they are born more powerful, are top of the food chain and aren't as wasteful.


    If you want to see a bunch of savages living in huts with no concept of the wider world, look at the few remaining tribes in the rainforest.

    Again I'm speaking of biology. Biologically these people are stronger and fitter, it makes sense. We're a nation of lazy bones.

    And why are these people savages? Compared to who? A covilisation that uses cluster bombs & missiles in civilian populated areas in Iraq? Quite different from a group of people who will kill an antelope to eat with a spear.

    I cannot see how on earth you can come to this conclusion. The facts are in humanitys favour, they dominate the earth and have made all other species subservient to them.

    If they were in humanity's favour then I'd be convinced. But they don't seem to be. Humans are over populating the earth, but they're still not superior.


    So is human technology and advancement.

    How so?


    Nobody cares.

    How do you know?
    Because they are big and strong? How shallow.

    A lot coming from somebody who calls tribes people 'savages'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Humanity is not evolving because weve only bee around for a few thousand years. Evolution takes time.

    We are still evolving, but in ways you cannot detect!

    If anything though, I cannot forsee any MAJOR changes in human evolution on Earth at least. There is no room for speciation any more!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    what the hell is this supposed to mean? how would we be replaced?


    For all we know some sort of disease should have killed us off thousands of years ago, but because of our advancement in technology we were able to survive. Every few decades you'll find a killer disease decimates the ranks of the animal kingdom, but not of humanity.
    Every year we find out about some new disease that threatens to kill us all, BUT we cope and create a new technology to fight it. Take the hospital super bug that was previously thought to be immune to anti-biotics. The techs have found a way of killing it.


    Every year another species vanishes off the face of the earth, yes it may be to do with us. BUT we are still here. Humanity, should have faced extinction millenia ago, at any point in time we could all be wiped out but we find a way of beating it.
    It's strange how the last real pandemic was nearly 100 years ago, whilst new diseases like Ebola are a lot more virulent but don't seem to have affected us.

    As for the destruction of other planets and "Gaia", a planet like Mars, with no eco system and no life cannot be said to be "alive". mars is a dead world, ripe for our use and colonisation, and why not. If it removes some of the strain on "Mother Earth" then surely it's a good thing.
    Who cares about the dead worlds as long as Earth survives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoonRat don't you prefer nice people to horrible people, people who have morals to those that have none?

    animals have zero morals, they simply do not function in that way, they are in most cases totally greedy and selfish with little compunction of killing others, they wouldn't even think about it, how can this lack of morality make them superior?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    For all we know some sort of disease should have killed us off thousands of years ago, but because of our advancement in technology we were able to survive. Every few decades you'll find a killer disease decimates the ranks of the animal kingdom, but not of humanity.
    Every year we find out about some new disease that threatens to kill us all, BUT we cope and create a new technology to fight it. Take the hospital super bug that was previously thought to be immune to anti-biotics. The techs have found a way of killing it.


    Every year another species vanishes off the face of the earth, yes it may be to do with us. BUT we are still here. Humanity, should have faced extinction millenia ago, at any point in time we could all be wiped out but we find a way of beating it.
    It's strange how the last real pandemic was nearly 100 years ago, whilst new diseases like Ebola are a lot more virulent but don't seem to have affected us.

    As for the destruction of other planets and "Gaia", a planet like Mars, with no eco system and no life cannot be said to be "alive". mars is a dead world, ripe for our use and colonisation, and why not. If it removes some of the strain on "Mother Earth" then surely it's a good thing.
    Who cares about the dead worlds as long as Earth survives?
    the bit i don't understand WW is ...'be replaced'. lots of creatures are being wiped out ...none are being replaced.
    asfor the mars thing ...i do believe some of you have had to much science fiction in your lives.
    mars is two years away at present. we cannot ship large numbers of people and materials there. the place isn't only dead it's hostile. we are a very very long way from having a colony on mars a very long way indeed. as for creating an atmosphere ...do you have any inkiling at all what that entails? trees and other vegetation on a massive scale ...trillions of insects and bacteria and fungi and etc etc ...oceans ...rivers etc etc ...this is only a tiny part of building a stable atmosphere.
    if you think having maybe ten men living in a bubble in your lifetime as having much chance of giving us somewhere to move to when we fuck this place over ...your wrong.
    the political instabilities here on earth mean funding for such a massive and long term project such as moving house on this scale almost guarantee it is a non starter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoonRat don't you prefer nice people to horrible people, people who have morals to those that have none?

    What are morals?

    If that question is personal then I judge people by my own standards and my own morals. As long as they don't hurt another living creature unless it's necerssery, I personally don't mind. It's the way I live my life.


    animals have zero morals, they simply do not function in that way, they are in most cases totally greedy and selfish with little compunction of killing others, they wouldn't even think about it, how can this lack of morality make them superior?

    Here's a question, have you ever seen any concrete proof that altruism and egoism exist? I certainly haven't. I used to believe humans to be above animals too until I studied psychology and came to the conclusion that altruism doesn't exist... well not in my opinion. If you want back up I'll gladly give it. :) Always happy to debate and all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by JsT
    To me this sounds a lot of over-hyped bullshit. The facts prove that climate change is affecting the Earth, but not to the levels that this report claims

    I think the great irony will be that Bush will probably shit himself over this report, yet he wouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol agreement.

    Its not over-hyped, its exactly the opposite. It was a leaked report that goes contradicts everything Bush has said about the environment, the pentagon were making a strategic analysis of how future wars will be fought and how climate change will affect the world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    We are still evolving, but in ways you cannot detect!

    If anything though, I cannot forsee any MAJOR changes in human evolution on Earth at least. There is no room for speciation any more!!

    Nope, we arent evolving anymore.

    There are no longer any selection pressures on the human race. For a species to evolve a specific feature of that species has to make it more likely to survive.

    For example bears with more fur might be more likely to survive when temperatures become colder, so over generations bears with more hair become the norm. and short haired bears do not survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore the species has a new feature: more fur.

    In humans everyone gets to reproduce, so no features are selected. Therefore no more evolution.

    Sorry for the long winded post!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by groovechampion
    Nope, we arent evolving anymore.

    There are no longer any selection pressures on the human race. For a species to evolve a specific feature of that species has to make it more likely to survive.

    For example bears with more fur might be more likely to survive when temperatures become colder, so over generations bears with more hair become the norm. and short haired bears do not survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore the species has a new feature: more fur.

    In humans everyone gets to reproduce, so no features are selected. Therefore no more evolution.

    Sorry for the long winded post!

    Yeahyeah. I know it sounds harsh, but the fact is that we're too comfortable and well looked after, so the fittest don't survive to produce offspring.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MoonRat
    Yeahyeah. I know it sounds harsh, but the fact is that we're too comfortable and well looked after, so the fittest don't survive to produce offspring.

    Why would we want to?

    Why on earth is survival of the fittest in anyway a good thing that anyone would want?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Why would we want to?

    Why on earth is survival of the fittest in anyway a good thing that anyone would want?

    Survival of the fittest means that we evolve better character traits and lose useless ones.

    Its pretty useful and its the reason why life on earth survives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^
    not entirely accurate, but never mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'survival of the fittest' is not how I'd describe the wanton destruction of our bio-sphere. The fittest in Amazonia were the flora/fauna and the native Indian tribes who'd adapted to the enviroment over many millenia. Corporate greed, a weak regional + federal government meant corruption and exploitation have thrived. the latest cash-crop requiring forest clearance is non-GM soya. I've checked with soya-milk firms where their soya sources are and would boycott any rogue product
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    ^
    not entirely accurate, but never mind.

    Like to elaborate why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We don't lose useless traits. We lose traits that are detrimental to our survival. There is quite a difference. Evolution is not directed, its blind and random.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because people don't die because they have bad traits, many more die through no fault of their own and at the hands of evil bastards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Want proof of our ability to adapt, cope and survive on this world?
    Domestication, we are the only species that is able to domesticate and use for our own benefit a wild animal.
    Take the dog, man's oldest and best friend, along with the horse they were among the first animals to be domesticated.

    M.R. When I talk about populating other worlds I mean in many years to come. However I believe that at the rate our technology is developing it may be sooner than we think. 70 years ago computers didn't exist. In the last 100 years mankind has created and invented more than in human history and we have been on this planet for about 40,000. For many thousands of years our greatest invention was a spear. How so that we go from being mud flinging savages for thousands of years to creating super computers, orbiting the planet and harnessing the power of the sun in only 70.

    show me an animal that has done that. Cockroaches have been around for billions of years. What was the last thing they created? Monkeys are ranked almost alongside us in terms of intelligence, they have been around longer than us....what was the last city they built called?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    show me an animal that has done that. Cockroaches have been around for billions of years. What was the last thing they created? Monkeys are ranked almost alongside us in terms of intelligence, they have been around longer than us....what was the last city they built called?

    But we can't exist without the very complex ecosystem that exists. The natural world is a very complex web of inter-relations that we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For many thousands of years our greatest invention was a spear. How so that we go from being mud flinging savages for thousands of years to creating super computers, orbiting the planet and harnessing the power of the sun in only 70.

    What's with all this calling people 'savages'? Because their technology is/was poorer than what we have in our own cooshy society?

    Animals don't need technology to prosper as they're physically equipped to deal with their environment.

    And what was the original arguement I put forward about the great white being biologically superior? They're the pinnacle of evolution, humans need their guns, their armour, they're pack animals that in all fairness and weak and helpless without technology.

    Great whites are powerful and beautiful creatures.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The facts are we are using resources faster then there can be replaced, we are damaging the environment to the point where it will be soon unable to repair the eco-system, many species have died out or are facing extinction and there is a growing body of scientists saying we have a problem

    What does it take to explain to people that the Human race as a species has systematically fucked this planet up and that at our rate of consumption we will be facing massive problems in the future which can be avoided if people actually start acting more responsible with this planet.
Sign In or Register to comment.