|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:42 am
|
|
|
|
AEtherclaw Shadowed Intent AEtherclaw Shadowed Intent AEtherclaw Shadowed Intent I do not really care all that much, I myself probably wont be too heavily effected, and as the old saying goes "too little, too late" how would the end of the world not effect you? Because it will not happen in my lifetime... you seem to fail to grasp the increasing rate at which these cataclysms are occurring and beyond that, how selfish. I knew people wouldn't like what I had to say, and yes it is selfish, however, if the world is going to end in 3-5 thousand million years anyway so why bother saving something that is already doomed? more like 3-5 decades, if not years at the current rate of things. odds are we are living at the end of the world band we could of stopped it just afew decades ago, the only way to save it now would be if all nations where to immediately and completely outlaw all fossil fuels no questions asked. this is the end of the world
What you say is true, and although I was talking about the utter destruction and incineration of the entire earth you are completely right...however we both know that the government isn't going to do a damn thing, possibly because they are thinking like me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:47 am
|
|
|
|
Collapsing New Igloos GilAskan While environmentalism is a worthy cause for concern, I feel the recent "Go Green" trend within popular media and consumerism is shallow and misguided. Some standards of the modern "green" movement are actually worse for our environment, but the perceived "greenness" makes the act popular. Not to be rude, but could you please elaborate?
It's not rude at all.
Environmentalism could be described as any number of values and beliefs which advocate the protection and preservation of the natural world, including but not limited to the protection of endangered species, ecosystems, and environmental conditions (atmosphere, soil content, etc.).
For the most part, I myself associate the term "Green" with a consumerist trend that promotes environmentalist sentiments, but uses those sentiments as a selling point rather than a moral or business principle. Also, sometimes, "Green" products and lifestyle choices are endorsed under the belief that they are beneficial to the environment, when in reality, they are not; these products and lifestyle choices, however, remain popular because the users feel socially responsible, not knowing what hypocritical damage they may be wreaking.
The easiest example is that of ethanol, which has recently come under fire, but will still work fine as an example.
Cars release carbon when they burn gasoline. Carbon is an insulator, a green-house gas as it were. Bad for the environment. Supporters of ethanol (which is still viewed by many as a "green" product) claim that ethanol burns clean, and therefore, is better for the environment.
However, ethanol-grade corn is hard to grow. In order to increase yields, corn farmers almost exclusively use certain fertilizers to grow the ethanol-grade corn. These fertilizers release a certain nitrogen/oxygen blend into the soil, which is good for the plants; the fertilizers also release large amounts into the air. This oxygen/nitrogen blend is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an insulator; literally, using these fertilizers to make ethanol is 300 times worse for the environment than burning the same amount of gasoline.
This isn't to say that the consumer's heart is in the wrong place. Many people genuinely wish to help the environment, and many people feel socially responsible for the Earth's condition. However, many big businesses are willing to take advantage of these feelings, and in turn, the "Green" movement of the last few years in popular consumer culture is a corporate-driven push to prey on ill-informed consumers who will buy anything they're told is "green", even if it's of poor quality or of no environmental benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:44 am
|
|
|
|
GilAskan AEtherclaw more like 3-5 decades, if not years at the current rate of things. odds are we are living at the end of the world band we could of stopped it just afew decades ago, the only way to save it now would be if all nations where to immediately and completely outlaw all fossil fuels no questions asked. this is the end of the world Unlikely. The world won't "end" until our sun dies. The world changes, certainly, but it won't really end. We as humans love to believe in our own power. As much as we may not want to admit it, we don't have that big a hand in what happens to our planet. Compared to the sun, we're nothing. The world is certainly going to change though. The sun has had fewer than usual sunspots on it's surface for an unusually long period of time, which may result in unpredictable weather shifts. Unpredictable being a key word. i'm stupid. what's a sunspot and what's it supposed to do? they never teach us anything at the school i go to... crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:38 am
|
|
|
|
Ayame_Rikimayu i'm stupid. what's a sunspot and what's it supposed to do? they never teach us anything at the school i go to... crying
Sunspots are appearing and disappearing areas on the surface of the sun. They have lower temperature and light levels than the rest of the sun, but have high magnetic fields and heavy radiation. Put in front of a black background, sunspots would actually be bright enough to instantly blind a human; however, compared to how bright the sun is, they actually appear black to us when viewed through telescope.
Sunspots have intense magnetic fields, as said. This magnetic radiation alters all weather on earth, and largely affects the conditions of outer space within our planetary system. These sunspots can also affect electronics and radio communications on earth, and can influence how life (humans, animals, and plants alike) behaves.
It is believed that sunspots will begin a new cycle this year, which will affect the weather; some have suggested that turbulent weather of the last few years can be attributed to the sunspot cycle ending. One way or another, the peculiar activity of the sunspots will affect earth one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:10 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:16 am
|
|
|
|
GilAskan Collapsing New Igloos GilAskan While environmentalism is a worthy cause for concern, I feel the recent "Go Green" trend within popular media and consumerism is shallow and misguided. Some standards of the modern "green" movement are actually worse for our environment, but the perceived "greenness" makes the act popular. Not to be rude, but could you please elaborate? It's not rude at all. Environmentalism could be described as any number of values and beliefs which advocate the protection and preservation of the natural world, including but not limited to the protection of endangered species, ecosystems, and environmental conditions (atmosphere, soil content, etc.). For the most part, I myself associate the term "Green" with a consumerist trend that promotes environmentalist sentiments, but uses those sentiments as a selling point rather than a moral or business principle. Also, sometimes, "Green" products and lifestyle choices are endorsed under the belief that they are beneficial to the environment, when in reality, they are not; these products and lifestyle choices, however, remain popular because the users feel socially responsible, not knowing what hypocritical damage they may be wreaking. The easiest example is that of ethanol, which has recently come under fire, but will still work fine as an example. Cars release carbon when they burn gasoline. Carbon is an insulator, a green-house gas as it were. Bad for the environment. Supporters of ethanol (which is still viewed by many as a "green" product) claim that ethanol burns clean, and therefore, is better for the environment. However, ethanol-grade corn is hard to grow. In order to increase yields, corn farmers almost exclusively use certain fertilizers to grow the ethanol-grade corn. These fertilizers release a certain nitrogen/oxygen blend into the soil, which is good for the plants; the fertilizers also release large amounts into the air. This oxygen/nitrogen blend is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an insulator; literally, using these fertilizers to make ethanol is 300 times worse for the environment than burning the same amount of gasoline. This isn't to say that the consumer's heart is in the wrong place. Many people genuinely wish to help the environment, and many people feel socially responsible for the Earth's condition. However, many big businesses are willing to take advantage of these feelings, and in turn, the "Green" movement of the last few years in popular consumer culture is a corporate-driven push to prey on ill-informed consumers who will buy anything they're told is "green", even if it's of poor quality or of no environmental benefit. Unless ethanol-grade corn is very partial to the fertilizer mentioned, I wonder if a large concentration of compost could produce a similar corn output with fewer repercussions. If cities were to, say, implement weekly collections for plant-based food waste, similar to recycle bins, maybe that could reduce dependence on that fertilizer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:09 am
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Unless ethanol-grade corn is very partial to the fertilizer mentioned, I wonder if a large concentration of compost could produce a similar corn output with fewer repercussions. If cities were to, say, implement weekly collections for plant-based food waste, similar to recycle bins, maybe that could reduce dependence on that fertilizer?
Compost, as far as I understand it, could be just as effective. However, the cost of collecting, the time required, and the cost of shipping it and distributing it would deter most corn farmers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:32 am
|
|
|
|
GilAskan -Resurrected Writer- Unless ethanol-grade corn is very partial to the fertilizer mentioned, I wonder if a large concentration of compost could produce a similar corn output with fewer repercussions. If cities were to, say, implement weekly collections for plant-based food waste, similar to recycle bins, maybe that could reduce dependence on that fertilizer? Compost, as far as I understand it, could be just as effective. However, the cost of collecting, the time required, and the cost of shipping it and distributing it would deter most corn farmers. Well, I heard not too long ago that some communities already have community compost piles that local farmers can purchase from, but those usually apply to those with farmers' markets.
Also, back on the subject of fuel, I heard that cars that can run on diesel can also run on cooking oil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:05 am
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- GilAskan -Resurrected Writer- Unless ethanol-grade corn is very partial to the fertilizer mentioned, I wonder if a large concentration of compost could produce a similar corn output with fewer repercussions. If cities were to, say, implement weekly collections for plant-based food waste, similar to recycle bins, maybe that could reduce dependence on that fertilizer? Compost, as far as I understand it, could be just as effective. However, the cost of collecting, the time required, and the cost of shipping it and distributing it would deter most corn farmers. Well, I heard not too long ago that some communities already have community compost piles that local farmers can purchase from, but those usually apply to those with farmers' markets. Also, back on the subject of fuel, I heard that cars that can run on diesel can also run on cooking oil. wait... cooking oil... as in Crisco?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Ayame_Rikimayu -Resurrected Writer- GilAskan -Resurrected Writer- Unless ethanol-grade corn is very partial to the fertilizer mentioned, I wonder if a large concentration of compost could produce a similar corn output with fewer repercussions. If cities were to, say, implement weekly collections for plant-based food waste, similar to recycle bins, maybe that could reduce dependence on that fertilizer? Compost, as far as I understand it, could be just as effective. However, the cost of collecting, the time required, and the cost of shipping it and distributing it would deter most corn farmers. Well, I heard not too long ago that some communities already have community compost piles that local farmers can purchase from, but those usually apply to those with farmers' markets. Also, back on the subject of fuel, I heard that cars that can run on diesel can also run on cooking oil. wait... cooking oil... as in Crisco? It was either that or griddle grease. I'm not sure which.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:22 pm
|
|
|
|
Ayame_Rikimayu Katanas Blade I know you guys won't like me saying this, but I think the world is completely ********. And there is a chance the world will actually end soon. Like a 1 in 150,000,000,000,000 chance, but a chance none-the-less. I read an article online a while back, I'm trying to find the link again. ::EDIT:: Large Hadron ColliderTiny black holes? those articles were filled with scientific jibber-jabber, but all i got from it was that there's this thing in space just floating around and bumping into everything, and its causing little balck holes to pop up? correct me if i'm wrong. The article I read made a lot more sense than these. The LHC is a huge machine used to study dark matter (I think). It takes really fast pictures of beams of something spinning around and colliding. The fear is that these beams colliding will create black holes that will suck the earth up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|