Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here?

Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=67)
-   -   The Future of the Human Race. (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17384)

Beebs 08-19-2009 10:27 AM

Spectacular; now we can either let those countries, people, families, whatever the group or individual may be achieve a higher standard of living through mutually beneficial agreements (the only kind that exists between enlightened self interesteded parties), or through one party trying to "do whats best for the other"

Nobody can do whats best for the other party, unless both parties are getting what they want out of the deal it is useless; it is useless from a results standpoint and from an ethical standpoint.

Essentially the freedom of mutual agreement/free exchange/whatever you want to call it is always going to both produce better results and be ethically preferable.

Like I said, look at human achievement, from the start of time until today, and the huge majority of things that actually help the world (insulin, every fucking gadget you ever have, do, or will own, domesticating animals, you name it) was done out of self interest.

If you look at the actual results of things done out of self interest compared to the actual results of things done out of "its best for the world" Those of us who "rape the planet with barely any concern for their effects on the environment for a couple thousand years until all the resources are gone or the environment can no longer sustain the almost 7 billion people on the planet." are THE ONLY REASON life continues to exist.

Not even taking into account the ethical preferability of a system based around personal rights and responsibilities.

Mr. Blonde 08-19-2009 10:31 AM

I'm curious: what do you speculate is the future of the human race?

Beebs 08-19-2009 11:56 AM

Long term, extinction.

Even if the earth was untouched by man or other animal, it's time is finite, stars explode and die, taking their planets with them.

Either we die in a cataclysmic event before that, find a way to live elsewhere, or die with with the earth.

First one leaves us dead first, third one leaves us dead second, second one leaves us dead eventually. The universe is expanding, essentially at one inevitable point matter and energy as we know it will not be sustainable, let alone life, let alone human life.


Short term; we continue to adapt as needed through the force of self interest, the force that is the singular reason we ever became alive, ever became human, and ever became a civilization.

Mr. Blonde 08-23-2009 09:00 AM


Kind of related, really interesting video series. I'm only on part 5 now but it is pretty fricking cool and puts some of this in understandable terms for those of us who aren't quantum theorists.

Right now they're going over the ability of particles to be superpositioned, which is an amazing feat in itself but even more mind blowing is that when they are OBSERVED, they behave differently.

If you watch the video they will explain it a lot better, but the fact that the tiniest fucking particles can change how they behave simply by "knowing" they are being observed is absolutely crazy.

Mr. Blonde 09-14-2009 09:15 AM

Finally got stumble to work again on wikipedia. This is a good article.

Space colonization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Blonde 09-19-2009 11:08 PM

kinda cool.


Mr. Blonde 10-03-2009 10:03 AM

TED has some pretty amazing videos about the future of the human race, the environment, etc.

Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies' | Video on TED.com

Dent 10-04-2009 06:57 PM

Think I discussed this with GWB, conclusion was extinction via nasty ass virus.
I read something about how the technological 'god' would be a species being able to wipe each other out (via whatever.. everyone has access to futuristic nukes/something) and none of them doing it, anyone know what i'm talking about? I don't.



Edit :
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs (Post 383215)
are THE ONLY REASON life continues to exist.


with letters that big and white, it must be true!
could there come a point at which what is best for a single person is best for humanity? where everyone wants the same thing?
humanity has never had to deal with overpopulation, if we don't manage to colonize other worlds and don't want to be wiped out maybe everyone will strive for the same thing.

All I know is my ancestors were the best fuckers this planet has ever seen

Mr. Blonde 01-26-2010 02:00 AM

James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. - By Johann Hari - Slate Magazine

This is a great article.

I'd like to hear from the more conservative members of the board who have previously contributed in this thread (UB, F3lix, GWB) on it. (And the Copenhagen Summit for that matter)

EDIT: My bad, GWB never commented in here! GWB, seeing as how in one thread Beebs referred to you as the only one saving the world, perhaps you'd like to join the thread?

EDIT2: That came out a little more caustic than intended or necessary. Sorry, I was just worked up after the article. By no means am I blaming anybody about this, but being so far away it's just frustrating to see all the shit going on back home and the corporate corruption from both parties, and you three seem to be the most monetary-driven on the board, who would care the most if something affected their income.

f3lix 01-26-2010 02:03 PM

The Al Gore's of the world love to show video of the ice caps having big chunks falling off, because seeing is believing, right? What they aren't telling you is that (as all of us but Shaw know) about 90% of those ice caps are underwater. That 90% is actually growing. But that won't appeal to the shock and awe masses. If it were truly as serious as this guy makes it out to be, governments would ban the use of the currently used fuels. Politicians like Obama would LOVE to go down in history as the savior of the planet, stemmed from his presidency giving us the legislation that saved the world from global warming.

DDTempest 01-26-2010 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f3lix (Post 387703)
The Al Gore's of the world love to show video of the ice caps having big chunks falling off, because seeing is believing, right? What they aren't telling you is that (as all of us but Shaw know) about 90% of those ice caps are underwater. That 90% is actually growing. But that won't appeal to the shock and awe masses.

Source?

My friend the polar bear doesn't believe you ...

http://www.nubblies.net/forums/pictu...&pictureid=351

Mr. Blonde 01-26-2010 08:26 PM

There you have it folks. Global warming is fake because politicians always do the right thing, even if it's extremely unpopular now, so history will shine upon them.

Beebs 01-26-2010 10:35 PM

I don't see much about the article that makes it stand out, what exactly is there to respond to?

Copenhagen summit was an exercise in masturbation from the start, basically a giant wealth redistribution system via crippling the economies of the "evil" nations (read: white, non-stoneage ones) while doing nothing about those who actually pollute the most and will continue to do so.

"Pollution reparations" really? Sorry about the mess we made while establishing everything that makes the modern world liveable.

DJ FC 01-27-2010 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 387698)
I'd like to hear from the more conservative members of the board who have previously contributed in this thread (UB, F3lix, GWB) on it. (And the Copenhagen Summit for that matter)

EDIT: My bad, GWB never commented in here! GWB, seeing as how in one thread Beebs referred to you as the only one saving the world, perhaps you'd like to join the thread?


I started reading this thread today. I agree with everything Beebs has to say: our future lies in the incentives of individual men.

Mr. Blonde 03-09-2010 12:18 PM

Well, then our future on this planet is most certainly doomed. People are too selfish.

George Monbiot, an influential environmental activist, wrote this recently:

The Unpersuadables
Posted March 8, 2010
In fighting for science, we subscribe to a comforting illusion: that people can be swayed by the facts.


By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 9th March 2010.

There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(1), will do nothing to change this view.

The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald Warner dismissed scientists as “white-coated prima donnas and narcissists … pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the role of mad cranks … The public is no longer in awe of scientists. Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to them any more.”(2)

Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists - with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world. But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”(3). He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells us to trust nothing; to believe only what can be demonstrated. This contradiction is fatal to public confidence.

Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they’ll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals which publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-Century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.

But there’s a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology - from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No – casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn’t far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell(4). Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.

Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead us out of the wilderness. “We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince … We need to be taught to believe by a true believer”(5). Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to persuasion.

In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research on misinformation(6). This shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government’s claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had WMD.

There’s a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January(7). It shows that people tend to “take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd.” Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for example, “tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire.” Those with more egalitarian values are “more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted.”

These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor: race, gender, class, income, education or personality type. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. “As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarized, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information.”(8) The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained.

While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing line lies isn’t quite right. It doesn’t describe the odd position in which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts, I now spend much of my time defending the scientific establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most divisive project I’ve ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts, the more virulent the abuse becomes.

This doesn’t bother me – I have a hide like a glyptodon – but it reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative titles, they can reach across to the other side. But in doing so they will surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them. As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as likely to kick against science as those who respect it.

Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don’t want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life’s work.

DDTempest 03-09-2010 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 389007)
“any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

This is the short version of the article. The question is how many people are able to believe in magic if it can't be explained simply?

Fruitacious B 03-09-2010 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDTempest (Post 389020)
This is the short version of the article. The question is how many people are able to believe in magic if it can't be explained simply?

BDH

Der Fuhrer 03-09-2010 06:46 PM

That was pretty gay. You may or may not believe in BDH's shit and all, but you don't need to bring that shit from another thread into this one. If you don't have anything worth contributing then stfu and lmb. Now I have to read this fucking article and contribute something, thanks a lot asshole.

Ok I didn't read it all, but I read enough. Climate change is bullshit. It's all a lie to scare you. Its called the iron triangle of environmental doom and gloom. Three entities form this triangle. Environmentalists and the politicians they support (liberal fags), sceientists who have staked their careers on this fallacy, and the media. Environmentalist groups want to scare you because then you'll join their cause, and give them membership dues. Higher members = more money = more power. Sceientists want to scare you because if you're scared, probably most people are scared. Scared people are far more likely to give you grant money to do your bullshit research. The media wants you to be scared because scary sells. If you're scared to death you will probably buy their newspaper or magazine that has an article pertaining to what you're terrified about.

Once global warming never materializes, and humans are still here and doing their thing, the concept, the idea, hell even the terminology "global warming" will just disappear and be forgotten...you just won't hear about it anymore. But guess what? In a few years after that happens, there will be something else that's going to kill us all. Oh no!

I have loads and loads of empirical data to back these claims up. Do not fuck with me I can assure you I will make a fool of you.

Also, read super-freakonomics, the solution for the non-existent problem of global warming already exists, and would only cost $100 million...I think, but if thats not correct, I know its not at all a very big number in terms of government spending.

Mr. Blonde 03-09-2010 07:45 PM

I will admit, I don't know nearly enough about climate science as I wish I did. I would have to devote nearly all of my free time to be able to properly recite the data I want to. That being said, i'm currently applying to schools for another bachelors in conservation biology, I have no doubt in my mind this is the field I will be working in in less than three years.

That being said, i'm certainly not going to take your empirical data claims on your word on promises of being made a fool of. I'd like to read them anyway if you get some time to post them.

Global warming is a very hot topic indeed. I generally try to stay away from "WE'RE CAUSING IT WE'RE WARMING THE PLANET" argument, namely in light of lots of contradicting data that at the very least makes claims like this unable to measure. (examples: the world temperature lowered from 1940-1970: :Access : A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature : Nature , the release of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere by volcanoes, etc. etc )

Unfortunately, we simply don't fully understand the entire scope of all the environmental processes of how a planet works. However, I certainly don't think that this is all any big conspiracy theory manufactured by the liberal intelligentsia, and a claim like that can just as easily be combated with the claim (fact, really) that the conservative elite don't want to stop burning fossil fuels or enact more costly environmental restrictions, at least not until they absolutely have to, and by then it will likely be too late anyways.

Whether the burden of blame for global warming belongs to humans or natural planetary fluctuation, the bottom line is that we are killing ourselves. We are raping the planet as it has never been raped before. Between the massive amount of forests and jungles we have cut down, the ridiculous amount of poisonous fumes pumped into the atmosphere every single second by 24-7 burning of fossil fuels, our rampant pollution and our general disregard for plant and animal life, global warming aside, we are definitely detrimentally affecting the planet on a large scale compared to natural processes.

Those interested might want to read up on the Holocene extinction event currently ongoing:

Quote:

Conservation biologists are dealing with and have published evidence from all corners of the planet indicating that humanity is living the sixth and greatest planetary extinction event....The global extinction rate is approximately 100,000 times higher than the natural background extinction rate...this period is unique because it is the first major extinction to be caused by another biotic agent over the course of the Earth's 4 billion year history.
One area i've particularly taken interest in is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and the overfishing concerns in the various world oceans.

This whole thing is simply mind boggling. For those of you not familiar, here's a good piece on it by VBS.TV :


Fruitacious B 03-09-2010 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer (Post 389030)
That was pretty gay. You may or may not believe in BDH's shit and all, but you don't need to bring that shit from another thread into this one. If you don't have anything worth contributing then stfu and lmb. Now I have to read this fucking article and contribute something, thanks a lot asshole.

You're welcome, and awfully serious.

oh, and fuck you, I'll post what I want.

Der Fuhrer 03-10-2010 12:33 AM

It just seems pretty lame to gang bang bash BDH in one thread, then bring it on over to another thread with an obscure reference to him that, in my opinion, was a pretty far stretch. Also, something about your avatar just really pisses me off. I'm not sure why exactly, but it does. I'm sorry that you did something stupid that forced my hand to chastise you like a 12 year old little girl. I just hope we can both learn and grow from this. BFFs?

I'll try to find the time to compile my data and organize it to make a logical, kick ass post. My house is a shit hole, literally, and I have a lot to clean. Hopefully I can get to it by this weekend.

Fruitacious B 03-10-2010 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer (Post 389064)
Also, something about your avatar just really pisses me off. I'm not sure why exactly, but it does.

Probably because mine has a gun, and yours is dead.

Der Fuhrer 03-10-2010 01:15 AM

Ich bin der Fuhrer. Ich bin deiner Fuhrer. Wie kann ich tod sein, wenn ich hier bin?

Ich fing an anzudenken, dass du eine Jude bist. Ich mochte lieber Jude in dem Grund liegen.

Mr. Blonde 03-29-2010 10:39 PM

DJ FC, does your quote here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ FC (Post 389971)
My ideal alternative: An absolute dictator. Somebody who is full of vision and kicks ass for our lifetime. That would be ideal for us. Our kids may be fucked, but who cares.

apply to situations like this?

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change | Environment | The Guardian

Quote:

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Mr. Blonde 04-10-2010 01:15 AM

The Climate Killers : Rolling Stone


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright © 2002-∞ - Nubblies.net