STUPID: 10 more former communist countries want to join NATO
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
I thought it was meant to reduce the damage done to mother nature, caused by the human race...
How ignorant to think such crazy things....
Maybe this kind of thought also made certain people decide not to follow the treaty.
I sure hope other countries do understand the meaning of the Kyoto treaty and will try to reduce the damage done to mother nature by us. And with 'us' I mean the world population.
How ignorant to think such crazy things....
Maybe this kind of thought also made certain people decide not to follow the treaty.
I sure hope other countries do understand the meaning of the Kyoto treaty and will try to reduce the damage done to mother nature by us. And with 'us' I mean the world population.
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
LastLegionary said:
I'm sorry, but that is such a incredible lame way of ignoring certain things. The intention of the treaty was good. The goals just weren't so achievable as thought they would be. But completely ignoring the treaty and doing NOTHING to prevent the exhaust of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a good way either.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Luis G said:
Yes, because that is the goal of the environmentalist philosophy. Environmentalism places "Mother Nature" ahead of man. What man needs in order to survive isn't important. Pristine nature is the ideal, and pristine nature means nature untouched by man. The industrial revolution was a turning point in the history of man. Before, man had always been a victim of natural forces. His ability to shape his environment was severly limited. The industrial revolution has shown us that there are no limits to man's power over nature.
Environmentalists are altruists. They resent the pride and selfishness implicit in the industrial revolution. They resent its glorification of man. They share, in essence, the outlook of Christians: man is an unclean, sinful creature. He was perfect as God made him, an ignorant, unreasoning animal, but his lust for knowledge and domination over the other creatures has turned him into something worse than a beast. This is the environmentalists' version of original sin: we think, therefore we sin.
How does this relate to Kyoto? The alleged purpose of the Kyoto Accord is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to stop global warming. The theory of global warming, however, is a hoax. There are numerous objections to it, but the most important is that there is simply no evidence that man is the cause of the slight warming trend observed in some measurements. The estimated effect on temperatures of reducing CO2 levels per the Kyoto Accords is extremely slight. The effect on the economies of the world, however, would be catastrophic. Nevermind just the limiting of industrial development itself. It is giving a world body regulatory control over each country's industries that would have the most significant impact. The dampening effect on economic development would stifle the world economy and eventually cause it to come crashing down around our ears.
So, Kyoto would put the world's economy in the hands of environmentalists for the purpose of controlling industrial development, which environmentalists have an inbred hatred for, and the end result would be the collapse of the world economy and the subsequent death of industrial development. When I see people who hate a thing reaching out to control it, and I know that their control must mean its demise, I conclude that their motive is precisely to bring about its demise.
Did I explain that well enough?
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
Yeah, you explained it, but I can't agree with you.
I'm not an environmentalist..but why is it that humans must live and destroy mother nature? It's not a matter of placing one in front of another.
What use is the earth if it's destroyed by the human race?
Are you simply ignoring the whole greenhouse effect? Are you neglecting the effects of global warming? Or are you just too selfish to leave the world in a decent matter to your children?
Leave all the problems to your children and grandchildren? Live on this planet like some parasite, destroying everything you leave behind?
May sound dramatically, but I hate that kind of attitude you're showing. Sorry.
I'm not an environmentalist..but why is it that humans must live and destroy mother nature? It's not a matter of placing one in front of another.
What use is the earth if it's destroyed by the human race?
Are you simply ignoring the whole greenhouse effect? Are you neglecting the effects of global warming? Or are you just too selfish to leave the world in a decent matter to your children?
Leave all the problems to your children and grandchildren? Live on this planet like some parasite, destroying everything you leave behind?
May sound dramatically, but I hate that kind of attitude you're showing. Sorry.
Yes you explained it fairly well.
However, i don't think that it necessarely (sp?) means the collapse of industries, it will just enforce goverments to make industries to follow certain rules about their wastes, making them more clean with the nature.
I don't know if CO2 is the cause of global warming, but i'm sure of something, ozone and CO2 in the atmosphere are not good for us.
However, i don't think that it necessarely (sp?) means the collapse of industries, it will just enforce goverments to make industries to follow certain rules about their wastes, making them more clean with the nature.
I don't know if CO2 is the cause of global warming, but i'm sure of something, ozone and CO2 in the atmosphere are not good for us.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Shadowfax said:
It's not a question of destroying it, it's a question of altering it. The way I see it, we improve on nature when we make it more inhabitable for humans. The way an environmentalist sees it, every alteration we make in nature is destruction.
I am not exaggerating when I say that either. I was listening to an environmentalist on National Public Radio one day, and he told the host that the only real way to solve our environmental problems would be for humans to stop having children for 100 yrs.
Think about that for a moment. The problem is man, the very existence of man, and the only way to solve it is to get rid of man. This attitude isn't unique to him, it's .
The environmentalist values pristine nature above all else. Pristine means untouched by man. The only place in their value system for man is as a primitive creature who lives like the other animals. Man as a reasoning creature who shapes his environment is a blight on nature, in their scheme of things. If that doesn't put nature ahead of man, what does it do?
We're not destroying the earth, we're making it more inhabitable for man. Far more people are able to live far longer now than were able to when the earth was an environmentalist's paradise.
I'm saying that the environmentalists' claims about these things are pure bunk. The Big Lie is that environmentalism is based on science. It's no more based on science than Creationism. It is essentially the same: religion masquerading as science.
I'm too selfish to want my children, or great-great-grandchildren, to grow up as savages, digging grubs out of the ground with a stick. I'm too selfish to want my children to grow up in a state dominated by people who think that man is a blight on the earth. I'm too selfish to consider the selfless sacrifice of man to nature a virtue. I'm too selfish to want to see the devastation that environmentalism would wreak upon the human race if it ever gained political dominance.
If the environmentalists ever took control of a country their ideology would drive them to commit atrocities that would make Hitler and Stalin blush. If you can kill millions by preaching that some men must be sacrificed for others, how many could you kill by preaching that all men must be sacrificed for nature? How many people would die in their attempt to create a world of
nature?
What you hate is your interpretation of my attitude, because what you've caricatured there isn't my attitude. You seem to think that I haven't thought through the issues, and that I don't care about the future. I can assure you that both are false.
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
I'm not saying that every alternation of nature is wrong. I'm saying that man must prevent to alter nature so much that it leads to the destruction of it.
Of course man will destroy some of the things which are available, but that's not the problem. The problem is that mankind is using the natural resources so agressively at the moment, that it will lead to it's own destruction in the long term!
I totally disagree which such rediculous points of view too. Problem with true environmentalists is that they tend to lose grip on reality. We've got to look at what can and can't be done to prevent too much destruction of nature.
Of course the problem is mankind, sure! But that's the price we pay for our existence. And there's nothing wrong with that. Mankind wants to survive, and we have the ability to do so. The question is: how do we use the resources available in such a way to assure that mankind can survive for the longest period as possible.
Getting rid of man isn't an option, 'cause mankind wants to survive.
All I'm saying, don't put mankind before nature, or nature in front of mankind!. Try to find a way where you can combine the two. I know, easily said, but hard to do.
Once again, I disagree with the point of view of the environmentalist. Like I said above, mankind must find a way to use the natural resources in such a way to assure it's own existence.
Of course we are making the earth more inhabitable for mankind. That's what we've been doing for centuries. But the current use of natural resources will damage nature in the long term in such a way, that it makes living a lot harder for mankind. The exhaust of such great amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause a significant warming of the Earth, that it make alternations necessary to prevent large floods and other effects like that.
That's a point we totally agree on then
Like I said before, I don't agree on the view of the environmentalists. But I am convinced that we must find a way to reduce the damage we are inflicting to nature to assure our own existence in the long term!
I too hope that the environmentalist never get that much political influence so that they can (try) to achieve their ideals. I think their intepretation is one that belongs in a dream world, and doesn't have any change of succeeding in Real Life.
Good to hear you too do care about the future. And I never had the idea that you hadn't thought about these things, otherwise you wouldn't have put such an effort in you replies, trying to explain your point of view.
I guess our ideas of what must be done to prevent too much damage to nature in the long term is different...
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
Luis G said:nah, i learned that in elementary school (6 years, from 6-12).
Sorry, I forgot after that first reply
So you learned that in elementary school? You're memory serves you well then
Most of my memories of the earlier years (0 ~ 12 yrs) have been...well...disappeared due to accesive use of alcohol
Allright, I admit, I learned that in the 1st class of High School...I had a lousy elementary school...a christian one, which totally focused on God and stuff like that. I don't think they even believed the earth had an atmosphere
Damn those short-sighted people
[edit: forgot to quote
]Global warming was a term created by Margret Thatcher in the 1970's to rile up support for Nuclear Energy. In return Briton got mundo amounts of nice fuel for NUKES.
She has a BS degree in Chemistry!
Global Warming may be happening but it is not from the CO2 emmited from tailpipes.
I am glad the US told the rest of this shit rock to take the Kyoto treaty and shuv it up their lilly white asses. All it was meant to do was give the US away. It was never meant to slow down CO2 production on a global scale! Only to slow it down in countries like Briton and the US. The rest of the world could give off more if they wanted and the overall CO2 levels emmited woudl not slow. Every nation supporting it would have a quota of CO2 they could produce and if they went over that quota they would have to pay into a global fund that would be distributed between smaller countries that did not produce their quota. That whole deal is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard of. Most people don't know a shittenthing about global warming but yet they support that it is the US's fault without even knowing the truth. i wrote a 20 page report regarding global warming and what affects man has on it. In the end after about 25 books and numerous hours online searching I came to the conclusion that man has very little to do with global warming except it gave it the name and horse shit theory.
You want the real culprit look at that big ball of hot GAS out in space we circle around every 365 days of the year.
She has a BS degree in Chemistry!
Global Warming may be happening but it is not from the CO2 emmited from tailpipes.
I am glad the US told the rest of this shit rock to take the Kyoto treaty and shuv it up their lilly white asses. All it was meant to do was give the US away. It was never meant to slow down CO2 production on a global scale! Only to slow it down in countries like Briton and the US. The rest of the world could give off more if they wanted and the overall CO2 levels emmited woudl not slow. Every nation supporting it would have a quota of CO2 they could produce and if they went over that quota they would have to pay into a global fund that would be distributed between smaller countries that did not produce their quota. That whole deal is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard of. Most people don't know a shittenthing about global warming but yet they support that it is the US's fault without even knowing the truth. i wrote a 20 page report regarding global warming and what affects man has on it. In the end after about 25 books and numerous hours online searching I came to the conclusion that man has very little to do with global warming except it gave it the name and horse shit theory.
You want the real culprit look at that big ball of hot GAS out in space we circle around every 365 days of the year.