|
Post by stolide on Apr 27, 2009 8:45:28 GMT -5
Heh
|
|
|
Post by mah on Apr 27, 2009 19:40:21 GMT -5
When referring to our carbon footprint I was trying to say basically that we shouldn't take out or put in the earth what wasn't already here. I just think that polluting our world shouldn't even be an issue looking at all of the stuff we have on a small scale that leaves nothing that wasn't already here behind, if we just turned all that stuff into a large scale industry then I think we'd be better people as a whole. Anyway I'm down for that umm seminar thing you guys are holding I hope I can be there I think I can. Edit: What vid were you talking about left I'd lke to see it .
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Apr 27, 2009 20:36:42 GMT -5
We take fossil fuels and burn them. The gas goes back to the earth. Nothing is leaving the planet, nothing is being put into the planet that wasn't already there. Your logic is flawed. Your point isn't.
The whole global warming thing is a bunch of bs, but it's not like we want to be breathing the waste of burnt fossil fuel either...
|
|
|
Post by mah on Apr 28, 2009 18:22:50 GMT -5
I see what you mean, I just seems like the amount of stuff we generate is excess like all the smoke from the factory's and stuff that would not normally be here is all I'm saying..well it would, but like in different elemental forms that I feel are more conducive to maintaining homeostasis on the planet but of course there are other things that will mess us up but I just would rather them be not self inflicted if we are indeed inflicting this damage upon ourselves
I look at it kind of like,excuse my language, shitting on your bed or putting toxic smoke in your airtight room that you live in. You wouldn't dump garbage where you sleep and we sleep on earth.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on Apr 28, 2009 22:18:03 GMT -5
"more conducive to maintaining homeostasis "
Again, in it's natural form, the earth is far from homeostatic. Inducing homeostasis would be as immoral as intentionally causing global warming or cooling. Incidentally, third world developing countries are cooling down due to sulfur pollution.
"I look at it kind of like,excuse my language, shitting on your bed or putting toxic smoke in your airtight room that you live in. You wouldn't dump garbage where you sleep and we sleep on earth. "
Very true, to an extent. Everything has waste. All actions lead to entropy. Nothing you can do about that. What can be done is to limit any waste you have. There is no way to get around people polluting the planet.
To quote my father (He's a water engineer who works with water utility companies, develops models of water flow in closed systems and works with water treatment, specifically the research of reverse osmosis for the desalination of water) "Dilution is the solution to pollution." Meaning, you take that toxic smoke, and spread it out over an area large enough such that it is not harmful. The pollution is there, and there will always be more. The problem is the concentration of pollutants. You take all the pollutants from the oceans, and put them in a swimming pool and it will be horrible and lethal to almost anything that goes in it. If you take a swimming pool and dump the water into the ocean, you won't even be able to recognize the chlorine that you had in there.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on Apr 30, 2009 22:11:35 GMT -5
Geez Im gone for 5 days and the forum degrades to. . . this. . .
Haha hows the advertising coming stolide?
|
|
|
Post by stolide on May 1, 2009 5:31:13 GMT -5
I posted a thread on a few sites. We might get around 10 people.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on May 2, 2009 18:13:23 GMT -5
Yipppeeeee!! Im gonna be gone again till thursday morn. But I shall be here in time for the seminar-o!
|
|
|
Post by stolide on May 3, 2009 11:07:29 GMT -5
It looks like it will be less than 10, so don't get your hopes up...
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on May 7, 2009 16:32:59 GMT -5
hopes are. . . up!
|
|
|
Post by stolide on May 8, 2009 10:07:28 GMT -5
And see where that got you?
Realists ftw.
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on May 8, 2009 15:47:54 GMT -5
Haha without optimism there would be no cake! Can you imagine a cake-less world? I can. Its horrible.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on May 8, 2009 16:09:46 GMT -5
With realists, there would be cake. There would be realistic estimates of how much cake one could consume in order to consume the maximum amount of cake over one's life time. Too much and you get heart disease and die though...
|
|
|
Post by lefttooth on May 8, 2009 16:15:23 GMT -5
touche.
Well, without optimism, we wouldnt have pacifists.
Wait. Optimism=pacifism?
Im now a realist.
|
|
|
Post by stolide on May 8, 2009 16:26:50 GMT -5
Took you long enough.
|
|