Depends on the society and the time.
Advertisement
by Lower Nubia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:39 pm
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Highever » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:17 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Kowani wrote:I believe most firefighters would prefer it if there weren’t fires, but hey.
Depends on the society and the time.
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:23 pm
by Chan Island » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:34 pm
Vetalia wrote:Yikes, Grapasia was already ghosted...wonder what they did.
But the problem isn't global warming, it's how fast said warming is happening. The ecosystem can adapt to more gradual changes without difficulty but the problem is we view it on a human timescale...100 years for us is a long time, but on the scale of the evolutionary mechanisms that allow organisms to adapt to climate change it's a fraction of a second at best.
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Auristania » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:37 pm
by Lower Nubia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:52 pm
Highever wrote:
I think we can safely assume modern fore departments are a bit past the days of the Five Points and the Toronto Circus Riot.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by US-SSR » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Grapasia wrote:A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#LifeThe PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.
It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.
by Tornado Queendom » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:01 pm
Grapasia wrote:A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#LifeThe PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.
It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:07 pm
Chan Island wrote:They were having fun in that toxic hot mess that is that incel thread.
Anyway, that's a good point. And we are seeing how those rapid changes are killing flora and fauna all over the place too. There has been no way for them to adapt in such a short time.
by Highever » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:08 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote:Grapasia wrote:A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life
It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.
Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."
That's environmentalism in a nutshell
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Tornado Queendom » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:10 pm
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:12 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote:Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."
That's environmentalism in a nutshell
by Chan Island » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:13 pm
Vetalia wrote:Chan Island wrote:They were having fun in that toxic hot mess that is that incel thread.
Anyway, that's a good point. And we are seeing how those rapid changes are killing flora and fauna all over the place too. There has been no way for them to adapt in such a short time.
And that's the problem, we're not talking changes that happen over even a few hundred years like, say, the Medieval Warm Period, this is happening in less than a human lifetime. The climate and corresponding weather where I live is measurably different than it was 20 years ago...it never really rains or snows normally here anymore, the steady kind that you can handle and even enjoy. Instead, it's torrential rains and truly biting cold with blizzards as the polar vortex breaks out and heads south (the polar vortex is another term I never heard regarding our weather before 2014).
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Tornado Queendom » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:13 pm
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:22 pm
Chan Island wrote:It's been years since it's snowed back in Luxembourg, and yet it snowed every year reliably while I was a kid down there. Very sad and disturbing trend.
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:26 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote:I know, but environmentalism basically wants an "equal-friendly" version of Communism. That's why I made that quote
by Highever » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:26 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote:Highever wrote:If the nutshell was completely artificial, misshapen, warped and not at all correct.
[sarcasm]Oh boy, am I getting a sense of Pride and Accomplisment from that response of yours.[/sarcam]
Seriously though, I use memes for the purpose of my points. Next thing you know, you will tell me to "go back to 4chan".
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Former Citizens of the Nimbus System » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:36 pm
Vetalia wrote:Tornado Queendom wrote:I know, but environmentalism basically wants an "equal-friendly" version of Communism. That's why I made that quote
Communism is an "equal-friendly" movement combined with the most insanely, fanatical, even religiously fanatical version of anthropocentric ideology ever imagined on this planet.
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:48 pm
Former Citizens of the Nimbus System wrote:I see that someone has been reading Bonhoeffer!
by Bombadil » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:45 pm
by Cekoviu » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:51 pm
Bombadil wrote:There's quite a good initiative here - https://showyourstripes.info - where you can select your country and see the heat shift over the past 150 years. Add in desertification and pollution and one can well imagine a lifeless planet, which is technically not good even for an unfeeling planet.
by Bombadil » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:56 pm
Cekoviu wrote:Bombadil wrote:There's quite a good initiative here - https://showyourstripes.info - where you can select your country and see the heat shift over the past 150 years. Add in desertification and pollution and one can well imagine a lifeless planet, which is technically not good even for an unfeeling planet.
I mean, most of the planets in our solar system - and probably the galaxy - are lifeless and they seem to be doing relatively well for themselves. Maybe it's time we take a page from their book.
by Cekoviu » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:59 pm
Bombadil wrote:Cekoviu wrote:I mean, most of the planets in our solar system - and probably the galaxy - are lifeless and they seem to be doing relatively well for themselves. Maybe it's time we take a page from their book.
There's also the possibility that Earth is the only planet in the universe to have sentient life, and I think it would be a shame if that ended is self-destruction.
In relation to another thread I was pondering on the idea of millennia ahead where Earth is known as the Genesis planet and within our timeframe the first man had left earth's confines. A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.
It would be a hallowed planet.
I'd rather that future than one where aliens come across a dead planet and pity the senseless lifeforms that destroyed it.
by Bluelight-R006 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:03 pm
by WayNeacTia » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:08 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:We’re certainly big contributors to it.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Big Eyed Animation, Cyptopir, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Ineva, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kyoto Noku, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Shrillland, Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Uiiop, Valles Marineris Mining co, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement