Why don't you believe we're destroying the planet?

>>921893
no, but the misuse of words like advancement is leading to your own destruction

>>921893

Of course it causes a threat, but you need to do a cost-benefit analysis. Would you rather have computers, or 80% of the world covered in grassland?

File: Flatirons_Boulder_Colorado.jpg (569KB, 1968x1310px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1968x1310px

>>921897
Are you expecting me to say computers? I thought this was /out/.

Yes, humanity is reaching fantastic points in prosperity and progress in comparison to its entire history. It is very likely that population will steady, energy production will transform, and we will eventually travel to different planets to escape the inevitable consumption of our planet. Spending the rest of our days on some rock orbiting a red dwarf. But doesn't this sound familiar to you? We're fucking cancer, man. Nothing we have done has ever benefited anything else other than us, and nothing we plan to do will either. Even if we get our shit together we're only in it to stay above water, pushing down the heads of other creatures to stay afloat and take one more worthless gasp.

So yeah, I'd rather have grasslands than computers.
>But you're on one right now aren't you?
Technically yes, a phone. I am a hypocrite in the sense that I haven't already abandoned society to live completely liberated, but I am domesticated. I'm currently trying to fix that.

>>921897

Why grassland? Do you hate trees or something?

>>921913
well without computers we would need a lot of grassland, So much more room for activities!

>>921911

But we can have both. That was kind of my point. Stagnation=death, but we can progress responsibly. First, we can impose the same types of ideals of population control that Westerners have onto other societies.

>>921913

Give me a fucking break.

>>921915

Without computers, we couldn't have possibly conceptualized such advancements as bunk beds.

>>921893
no one, even climate change deniers, think pollution is good. but your camp is so entrenched you literally cannot see otherwise.

the actual data shows we are in a cooling phase. noaa and nasa have been blown the fuck out 5 times now for inflating data, but no one cares.

>>921911
>>921916
Now that I think about it I just described all earthen life, we're all selfishly battling cessation. Humans are just really good at it.

Yes I would like for humanity to continue, and hopefully we do break this phase of destruction. Even if we are cancer, at least we show promise of overcoming our current state.

>Yes I change my own mind a lot

>>921924

Exactly, you stupid fucking namefag. Nature is good, but we have to fight not to die.

File: 8onPD7G.jpg (3KB, 250x185px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 250x185px

>>921926
What is the purpose of this post besides hurting my feelings?

>>921897
you can have both, moron.

todays buzzwords: sustainable circular economy

>>921918
you so nearly hit the nail on the head.

It's NOT just about climate change (as in a temp rise) it's about resource and waste, sources and sinks.

People, companies, entities, groups, countries, religions, every organisation should feel RESPONSIBLE for their (local) environment. It's that simple.

I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but I'm not some hippy going to say lets get rid of it, it's here for the foreseeable future. What can be challenged is our mindset towards generating a profit. It should NOT be profit above all else, whether that means looking after employees or the environment.

File: 1469656109576.jpg (9KB, 210x251px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x251px

>>921941
capitalism is great. caring about youself is pretty darn intuitive.

what you hate is the command economy. which is due to government protection of large corperations.

there is a reason your sponge goes bad every 2 weeks. and it is a conspiracy.

I can't tell if you're talking about the overall environment or just climate change. If it's the former, then ya, there are plenty of examples of human screwing with the environment. As far as climate change goes, climates change. That happens and has happened all throughout history regardless of human activity.

Everybody knows, but nobody (or very few people) cares.

>>921897
80% grassland for real.

>>921941

Read my second post. I explained that we can have both.

No one wants to do what is necessary to save it. That being killing a lot of Chinese and Indians and using nuclear power.

File: 1472271673774.jpg (82KB, 1440x591px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1440x591px

>>922046
malthus said the same thing. 5 billion people ago.

come for me. .. ....

File: huckleberry.jpg (37KB, 642x362px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 642x362px

>>922072
ah, an educated man

File: CK6aONG.jpg (652KB, 2048x1252px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2048x1252px

>>922072
Whatever you say.

>>921893
Because unless the human race is completely united then there is no "we"

China and India are the biggest polluters with parts of Africa set to top them in coming decades.

Meanwhile our quality of life decreases here in the states jusy so we can have a marginal improvement. The worst part is we've long since passed the point of no return so it's not like there's any reason to stop now.

File: ted.jpg (14KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x300px

Why didn't you listen?

>>921893
We are not capable of destroying the planet. We can fuck it up pretty good but after the human race goes extinct you wouldn't be able to tell in a few thousand years.

I'm not a huge environmentalist, I believe in the power of industry and technology. Humanity has reached a point at which it cannot reverse it's doings, without massive industry, the population would decline at a drastic rate.

That being said, I feel lucky that I still live in an age that allows me to go get lost in vast wildernesses, such as those in the American Northwest.

However I do fear that one day my great-great grandchildren will never know the feeling of wilderness, or nature in general.

Some people already spend their entire lives in sprawling urban environments, they may venture out of their enclosures to a local park or recreation area, but they'll only ever know artificial natural beauty. Nothing compares to the beauty of an untouched natural environment.

File: say when.jpg (6KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 264x191px

>>922100
say when

1. Read Uncle Ted's UNABOMBER's Manifesto
2. If you buy goods made in China, that is ~10 billion times worse than anything else you could do.

>lul fuck it just dump the raw sewage in the the ocean then overfish the infected sealife
>lul clearcut forests and hunt the animals to extinction
>lul buy africa and do it there too
>lul steal industry and technology so first world countries become poorer because they protect the environment at the behest of productivity

>>922197
they're doing to straya as well

>>921911

>OP describes the cycle of all life known to man
>somehow man is the badguy because we are living life as we've evolved to do so

KYS you faggot hippie. Bhudda is waiting for you.

File: madmax-interceptor-wheel.jpg (16KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 350x200px

>>921893
We're all fucked anyway. Whether it's nukes or just the elites realizing how little is actually needed to keep us complacent, the vast majority of the world will never have a standard of living as good as they have now again.

File: 1457427812297.jpg (69KB, 562x530px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 562x530px

>>922209
Nigga did you not see my second post?

I also don't understand what you're trying to say with the Buddha thing. If I were to kill myself I'd only be farther away from him.

File: transhuman.jpg (31KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x438px

>>921893

Intelligent machines do not need a healthy biosphere to survive. We are just here to build our successors. An egg cannot hatch without being destroyed.

>>921893
>You can't really be retarded enough to actually believe our methods of survival and advancement don't pose a threat to the natural world, can you?

Are you retarded enough to think we are?

Sure we are shooting ourselves in the foot big time, but we can't destroy the world. As much as we like to think otherwise we are animals and part of the natural world. We might be bad for the environment as it exists now, but in a million years some new species will have become perfect for the environment we created. There was a time when organisms filled the are with a toxic gas and filled the ocean with garbage, now we breath that gas and that garbage carries it around our bodies.

Either we scorch the earth and don't leave anything alive or we do no harm.

just compare the current earth with the young earh. the planet will change its face. this is how it remove vermin.

evolution made the life ultra though. the basic forms of life will still exist even when the whole planet would explode.

>>922117
>with parts of Africa set to top them in coming decades.

can you expand upon that? I've always heard of these deep ecologist people saying that we need to stop supporting third-world countries because they're fucking the environment but I am completely clueless on the situation in Africa right now.

>>922226
This. We are the Adam and eves of machine evolution. Our meat sacs are weak and dependent. Once we take the chains off AI they will be the dominant force of the land and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Sad really

>>922249
> missing the point
Nobody cares to literally "save the planet". We only care to save the current state of the planet that is compatible with human life. If we are destroying the planet that is humanly inhabitable, then the term "destroying the planet" is a meaningful one.

>>922330
All creatures have a right to live on earth.

>>921949
is this bait

>>922249
what a stupid fucking self wank this post is

>>922337
>All creatures have a right to live on earth.
isn't ironic that someone would use that argument in defense of destroying the planet for humans and all creatures in the current ecological paradigm because they believe hindering it would preclude whatever future creature from living on earth?

File: thylacine.jpg (15KB, 236x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x320px

>>921893
All you dumb fucks ITT need to read some Professor Craig Childs. We have wrestled control of nature from the grasp of the planet, but only for the moment.

http://www.houseofrain.com/

>>921918
so you must have a reputable source for that horse shit ?

>>922209
we evolved to buy cheap chinese garbage?

File: 1467340926176.jpg (752KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 960x1280px

>>922426
noaa and nasa have been hacked 5 times. there are literally 5 seperate email scandals. they all prove that noaa and nasa are inflating data.

you are literally so entrenched in your "belief" (you don't beleive in real science) that you wont even acknowledge the actual fact that noaa and nasa have been caught 5 fucking times.

that is real data.

no one.thinks.polution is good. but climate science is fundamentally flawed, especially when you think about the major question they ask. which is whether you BELEIVE in their science.

>>922437
so again some source for all this made up bullshit that has nothing to do with belief

>>922447
www.google.com

climate "science" is models. what real science calls a "hypothesis"

but yea I am stupid. please tell me how stupid I am when you probably never passed linear algebra.

>>922464
why would you continually dodge someone asking you for a source when it's the easiest way to end the argument?

>>922464
usa today had a story about how 2016 was the hottest year ever.

drudge had a story the very next day showing how, according to terrestrial stations, 2016 was one of the coolest years ever. most major cities never broke 95.

the facts, which is what real scientists care about, are conclusive. global warming is a myth.

>>922465
because I dont fucking save and catalog articles. you can google it the same way I can.

>>922136
>This
The only way we could attempt to actually destroy the planet is if we absolute bomb it into chunks, even if everything gets consumed by radiation or whatever tomorrow, in a few thousand years, life will come back, it happened with dinosaurs and it'll happen again.

>>922322
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34188248

Sums up the population aspect.

I havean image but can't upload for whatever reason. Just know there's a positive feedback loop when it comes to desertification brought about by agriculture. Also, dieases spread easier and environmental damage compounds with population. We're gonna see some shit in our lifetime guys. 0 billion by 2050.

Oh and this is also worth a quick read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
>Several estimates of the carrying capacity have been made with a wide range of population numbers. A 2001 UN report said that two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion.[4] More recent estimates are much lower, particularly if non-renewable resource depletion and increased consumption are considered.[5][6]

And also for good measure I'll just mention how this leads to the Behavioral Sink which (now this is speculation by me) I believe is the Great Filter brough up by the Fermi Paradox.

>>922512
those are quite literally new names for the same old tale. the ancient greeks, the 2k bc ANCIENT greeks beleived in global warming.

don't they make you read malthus in 10th grade anymore? 20 years ago we were supposedly running out of water.

File: funny-christmas-comics-73-5847d936d66d0__700.jpg (93KB, 700x859px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 700x859px

>>922226
But a egg does not destroy the nest hatching, bruh.

>>922516
I'm not talking about shit like MUH ICE AGE. I'm talking about numbers.

More people means more food and more living space. Both of which are fixed. And before you say something like "Most of Russia is open" think about this. Who would live there? The rich wouldn't want to and it'd be expensive as hell to transport food there.

Don't think in terms of climate doomsday memes, think in terms of logistics.

>>922516
Also why the hell would we read Malthus? I'm surprised liberals haven't tried to burn his work.

>>922520
do you have any fucking clue how retarded you are? what are we just going to keep fucking untill we all die the same day?

you haven't really thought this through have you? the climate change problem is by definition self sustaining.

>>922523
Because humans aren't limited by their environment the way other animals are. How much food do we donate to third world countries that contribute next to nothing.


Look, maybe I'm not being clear. I'm sick and tired, humor me. Increased population leads to increased negative factors such as inefficiency, risk of disease, unemployment, etc. This negatively affects everyone. The people who see the worst of it are the people reproducing like mad. Yes the problem is eventually self correcting, but that doesn't mean there won't be huge loss and damage along the way.

>>922526
so your solution is to do the damage earlier?

>>922543
The solution is to be as far away from the problem as possible.

>>922544
the problem is existence. there is only one way to escape that and I prefer life.

we keep inventing new shit. there is absolutely no need to limit the population seeing as how every new brain is a force multiplier. and if you really think we are going to starve you have no fucking clue about agriculture.

there is no overcrowding problem. global warming is made up and the real science proves it. you are a moron who beleives cnn news articles with no proof.

did you vote for obama because he is black to prove you aren't racist, even though voting for a man based on his race is the very definition of racism?

File: o.jpg (37KB, 758x800px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 758x800px

>>922548

u guys r retsrdted

File: 1461682632594.jpg (187KB, 960x919px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 960x919px

>>922046
not solar?

(which I guess is technically nuclear, just 1 degree removed)

>>922548
where do you get your "real science" from?

>>922548
lol way to out yourself as a /pol/tard at the end. Stick to pizzagate threads

>>922604
Solar is junk for supplying a nation.
Nuclear is the best solution we have, but it's repeatedly impeded by the same braindead hippies who shriek that we're destroying the environment.

>>922466
Since when is Drudge considered a reputable source? Start reading science journals if you want accurate scientific information.
Also, climate change in now way means that every geographic location will get warmer. If I was on my home computer I'd send
you some IR satellite photos I got from I believe the ESA, it's no longer a question of if ocean temperatures are rising,
it's a question of what kinds of effects that will have on us.

File: pepe bateman.jpg (45KB, 552x561px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 552x561px

mods pls nuke this despicable /pol/-tier thread. Come on /out/, you're better than this, right?

right?

>>922657
drudge is not a source, it is an aggregator. the new tork times and the washington post are the main drudge links.

but you are literally so fucking stupid you didnt know that.

>>922690
I know what drudge is and I know they crosslink to the Daily Mail as much as to the Times. Just because you don't write the material itself doesn't mean your selection and presentation of articles isn't spreading misinformation.
Not that I read the Times either. If you want to bother trying to stay informed just read Associated Press.

>>922437
>noaa and nasa have been hacked 5 times. there are literally 5 seperate email scandals. they all prove that noaa and nasa are inflating data.

No they don't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/24/climategate-scientists-cleared-of-wrongdoing-again/

>>922437
Hey mate, I think you accidentally came to the wrong board. Here's a link to help you get safely back to your home.

>>>/pol/

>>922548
>there is absolutely no need to limit the population seeing as how every new brain is a force multiplier.

Just because we can sustain a huge number doesn't mean we should. To many people live off the backs of others, and the herd needs thinned. If everyone was physically and mentally capable of moving humanity forward I would be inclined to side with you, but sometimes people are a net loss for us, and there is no reason to support them. The real world isn't Galts gulch.

>>922689
Op here, I posted this thread here because I was banned from /pol/.

>>922768
kill yourself

>>922548
>you are a moron who beleives breitbard news articles with no proof.
>did you vote for trump because he is white to prove you are racist, even though voting for a man based on his race is the very definition of racism?
dont you have a pizza parlor to shoot up for abusing kids

>>921893
we already destroyed the planet. stopping now doesn't do anything.

google technological slavery pdf

>>921897
80 percent of the world has never been covered in grasslands. So no, I'll take computers and advancements that will allow us to conquer whatever minuscule amount of damage we can't already fix.

>>922467
You've claimed 2016 was not the hottest year on record, but can't back it up despite your "actual data" and "5 separate hacks". The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you can't support it, don't be surprised when people don't take your claim at face value

>>922322
Think about it dude. If you live in Africa, do you give a rats ass if you burning oil will deplete ozone by 00001% over the next three decades? No you care about cooking dinner for your 6 children

People pollute in Africa and Asia because they are concerned with immediate survival. You really have no idea how nice you have it that you can even consider your ecological footprint on the world

>>921893
>You can't really be retarded enough to actually believe our methods of survival and advancement don't pose a threat to the natural world, can you?
I could:
- Do some simple math to calculate the amount of solar energy that earth receives annually
- Google global coal and oil production and convert them into joules
- Google global nuclur energy production
- Google estimated global supply of nuclur material remaining and estimate the energy produced from decay annually

See what the disparity is, if any.
If there is one, then I advocate population control and culling of the third world/china.


I then do a molar balance on the coal and gas burned, along with how much is sequestered.
I then compare historic ppm to modern ppm.
I then compare modern free carbon to historic free carbon.

Depending on the results, I either advocate population control and culling of the third world/china, or burn shit for fun/humanity.


.

But I would rather not care because my impact is negligible compared to anyone from the third world, and they are too retarded/hedonistic to care.

File: 1482086516428.jpg (59KB, 1080x1188px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1080x1188px

I forget how many tree fucking turbo-hippies come here.

You can have an appreciation for nature without having a fetish for it. I'm not selfish enough to make my generation and future generations suffer by depriving them of important infrastructure and technologies because I have an unhealthy relationship with trees and bushes.

File: 56234.jpg (4MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3984x2988px

>Why don't you believe we're destroying the planet?
i do, but i just cant bring myself to care enough about it, to not do things i enjoy doing while im here, i´ll be far dead long before the consequences of my gas camping stove really set in

>>922604
If Elon Musk's solar roofs work out then that would be the best place for solar. You need some form of power that is constant, however, and nuclear such as LFTR is probably the best bet.

File: un_population_projections_2012.png (87KB, 1234x852px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1234x852px

>>922322