|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 8:36:17 GMT -5
Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff Once again I have to disagree with this, since we still need to buy groceries and clothing and whatnot. What we SHOULD do is stop making everything in China and quit buying their worthless plastic shit that breaks two seconds after you get it home or poisons you. Let's get back to making QUALITY products here in the USA. skyfire: I don't think support is the proper word here; I believe in global warming, but I don't support it. See what I'm saying? Probably not.At the moment I'm living in Europe and most of the things here are also made in China. But they are designed and specced here to european standards and the quality is good. The crap for sale in the US is made to US designs and specs, hell, a lot of the factories are actually owned by US corps. Of course you're right, we still need to buy things, but hey, do we really need twenty t-shirts and a house full of gadgets and stuff we hardly use.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 1, 2009 8:43:19 GMT -5
Once again I have to disagree with this, since we still need to buy groceries and clothing and whatnot. What we SHOULD do is stop making everything in China and quit buying their worthless plastic shit that breaks two seconds after you get it home or poisons you. Let's get back to making QUALITY products here in the USA. skyfire: I don't think support is the proper word here; I believe in global warming, but I don't support it. See what I'm saying? Probably not.At the moment I'm living in Europe and most of the things here are also made in China. But they are designed and specced here to european standards and the quality is good. The crap for sale in the US is made to US designs and specs, hell, a lot of the factories are actually owned by US corps. Of course you're right, we still need to buy things, but hey, do we really need twenty t-shirts and a house full of gadgets and stuff we hardly use. No. I think you misunderstood me though; we need to buy essentials. Probably I should've been clearer about that.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 8:50:34 GMT -5
At the moment I'm living in Europe and most of the things here are also made in China. But they are designed and specced here to european standards and the quality is good. The crap for sale in the US is made to US designs and specs, hell, a lot of the factories are actually owned by US corps. Of course you're right, we still need to buy things, but hey, do we really need twenty t-shirts and a house full of gadgets and stuff we hardly use. No. I think you misunderstood me though; we need to buy essentials. Probably I should've been clearer about that. I understood, just didn't express myself very well sorry
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 8:59:30 GMT -5
Even if I were to (foolishly) believe what you are saying is in any way true, how is science in its willingness to correct a potential mistake or continually reconfiguring data to get the most accurate readings possible worse than latching onto early 19th century racism and refusing to change for 150 years? Science doesn't claim to have the answers, religion does. Science shouldn't be blamed for owning up to the truth or for NOT making definitive claims. Which is why NASA refuted it, rather than claiming " some critics of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration claim...."
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 9:05:05 GMT -5
At the moment I'm living in Europe and most of the things here are also made in China. But they are designed and specced here to european standards and the quality is good. One of the things that amazed me was the differences between my Ford and the Fords being sold overseas. It's not so much that American auto manufacturers can't make a decent, reliable car. It's that they won't unless forced to by the powers that be. Competition will increase quality in a free market my everlovin' arse!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 1, 2009 9:43:12 GMT -5
Wow, that is cynical. The more nearsighted point of view would be that certain established industries were the incumbents complete with lobbying power and a vested interest to stifle competition with emerging technologies instead of embracing them. It's about as insane (and myopic) as Ford lobbying for relaxed construction, safety and mileage standards. The pennies you save now come back to bite you in the ass a thousand fold a couple of decades later... you try living in the states and not be cynical though my guy isn't and really, I can't think of many people who have less reason to be cynical than him And then there are the industries who stand to make money from solutions. Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff I typed in a big reply to this and lost it upon submission, so apologies if this is short or snippy or anything like that. The thing is in this case that we do actually need things to address the issue. Reducing demand, while the easiest, most obvious, most immediate, and [edit: one of the] more effective ways of dealing with the issue, it is actually insufficient. Computers and air travel each contribute about 2% of anthropological carbon emissions. Cement and steel contribute far more than that still and are required for infrastructure, not just cars. The vast bulk of transport, heating, communications, refrigeration and such like are all needs not excesses or luxuries, and demand reduction while highly effective especially when the supply/demand chain is in deficit or stretched, is simply not enough to fix things... Globally population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Electricity consumption is expected to rise 180%, with most of this in developing countries. Unchecked at present rates anthropological CO 2 emissions are expected to reach 62Gt p/a by then, and to limit CO 2 concentrations to 550ppm, assuming all current carbon sinks continue to work at present rates which in itself is highly optimistic, assuming all that, we need to reduce our emissions to 1/4 of that. Demand management cannot account for more than a small fraction of this.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 10:01:02 GMT -5
you try living in the states and not be cynical though my guy isn't and really, I can't think of many people who have less reason to be cynical than him And then there are the industries who stand to make money from solutions. Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff I typed in a big reply to this and lost it upon submission, so apologies if this is short or snippy or anything like that. The thing is in this case that we do actually need things to address the issue. Reducing demand, while the easiest, most obvious, most immediate, and [edit: one of the] more effective ways of dealing with the issue, it is actually insufficient. Computers and air travel each contribute about 2% of anthropological carbon emissions. Cement and steel contribute far more than that still and are required for infrastructure, not just cars. The vast bulk of transport, heating, communications, refrigeration and such like are all needs not excesses or luxuries, and demand reduction while highly effective especially when the supply/demand chain is in deficit or stretched, is simply not enough to fix things... Globally population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Electricity consumption is expected to rise 180%, with most of this in developing countries. Unchecked at present rates anthropological CO 2 emissions are expected to reach 62Gt p/a by then, and to limit CO 2 concentrations to 550ppm, assuming all current carbon sinks continue to work at present rates which in itself is highly optimistic, assuming all that, we need to reduce our emissions to 1/4 of that. Demand management cannot account for more than a small fraction of this. maybe we should redefine need
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 1, 2009 10:09:11 GMT -5
maybe we should redefine need Or we could try to service our needs in a reasonable, sustainable and responsible manner. Unfortunately the bit that got lost was me agreeing with you about exactly how effective divesting crap is, but unfortunately it's not even close to sufficient to address the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 10:15:17 GMT -5
At the moment most of the worlds resources are being used to service the "north" and quite a bit of effort is being expended to keep it that way. Can't have those third world peoples using their own resources can we!!
I don't see a problem with fulfilling the basic needs of the "south" and reducing the gross waste of the "north".
That will be far better than the exploitative, cruel and wasteful system we have now.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Apr 1, 2009 13:16:32 GMT -5
At the moment I'm living in Europe and most of the things here are also made in China. But they are designed and specced here to european standards and the quality is good. One of the things that amazed me was the differences between my Ford and the Fords being sold overseas. It's not so much that American auto manufacturers can't make a decent, reliable car. It's that they won't unless forced to by the powers that be. Competition will increase quality in a free market my everlovin' arse! Agreed. European ford fiestas for example are decent, whereas US ford fiestas would get into a crash with a bicycle and come out worse for wear.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 1, 2009 13:38:40 GMT -5
When did we begin looking for coherent answers from fundies?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 1, 2009 13:45:22 GMT -5
Why are Christians against the concept of global warming. it makes no sense Because a perfect god created a perfect world so perfectly that his perfect creations could never unperfect his perfect world. To say that the earth will not just be a great place to live no matter how bad we rape the resources and do nothing in return smacks that concept in the face with a baseball bat
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 1, 2009 13:53:59 GMT -5
Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff Once again I have to disagree with this, since we still need to buy groceries and clothing and whatnot. What we SHOULD do is stop making everything in China and quit buying their worthless plastic shit that breaks two seconds after you get it home or poisons you. Let's get back to making QUALITY products here in the USA, so that it lasts longer and we don't need to buy so much all the time. Also, how exactly are we supposed to combat global warming WITHOUT using technology, for developing alternative (renewable) fuels, I'd like to know? skyfire: I don't think support is the proper word here; I believe in global warming, but I don't support it. See what I'm saying? Probably not.that will never happen, the second someone tosses quality into a product whether it cost anything or not, they jack the price up. All companies try to price gouge where they can
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 15:19:15 GMT -5
Why are Christians against the concept of global warming. it makes no sense Because a perfect god created a perfect world so perfectly that his perfect creations could never unperfect his perfect world. To say that the earth will not just be a great place to live no matter how bad we rape the resources and do nothing in return smacks that concept in the face with a baseball bat And yet, when you ask why there's so much suffering in this world, they say that's the fault of man.
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on Apr 1, 2009 17:15:07 GMT -5
The argument I always hear is that this passage of Genesis tells us that the Earth was made for people to use, so by not using the natural resources that God gave us at every possible opportunity we are actually disobeying God.
|
|