Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Climate change
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 10 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Climate change

Dara wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
GaryB2 wrote:
I don't think anyone is debating the trend of the last 150-200 years. The planet does this. Always has.


No, this is precisely what scientists are saying - the latest changes are well out of line with any changes that occur natural. Man is clearly creating major disruption to the natural cycles. The only 'scientific' findings that have found anything to refute these claims have been heavily funded by rigt-wing/capitalist organisations.




We humans are carbon based life forms are we not?. We are organic. By mass, human cells consist of 6590% water (H2O), and a significant portion is composed of carbon-containing organic molecules. Oxygen therefore contributes a majority of a human body's mass, followed by carbon. Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but all of the above I have always assumed to be products and an integral part of the make up of our collective biosphere. In other words they are "natural". Is it not logical then to say that human beings and all their activity (necessary to the prime directive or not) is contained within this 'natural' framework?.

The real question here is are humans threatening their own existence through their own 'natural' processes?. I think you would have to be an ignorant fool to answer no to that one. If the concern is: are we humans endangering the planet we like to call The Earth? then in the same way the answer must surely be - no. We are certainly damaging the Earth's ability to continue to sustain MOST life forms on this planet - but permanently damaging the planet itself? - you have to define the term 'damage' to make any judgement about this. Billions of years of bombardment/climate change/heating and cooling have not 'damaged' the planet enough to make it unable to sustain life - that's an irrefutable fact. That's if the ability of a celestial to sustain life is important in any case. We humans have spent our entire existence preoccupied with celestial objects which do not support life of any kind as far as we know.

If you ask are we destroying the human race through our lack of ecological consciousness - I would say yes we are, but the jury is out as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing in the overall scheme of things. We humans are but a temporary infestation of a rather remarkable set of cosmological, planetary and biological coincidences and whether or not we leave any trace of our ridiculously short blip on the timeline of this planet is almost certainly purely academic in the cosmological view.

But it fills up time for a bored species until they disappear in a puff of un-smoke...







Yes, nicely put and I can't disagree with most of that. Life goes on, consciousness goes on - one way or another. It just all seems a tad careless if we humanoids were to - as you say - threaten our own existence - or at least the existence of millions of us, purely through ignorance and selfishness.

As to "Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus" - I'd add the most important part - our consciousness "we are such stuff as dreams are made on".

Oct 24, 2011, 23:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Climate change

vivakomeda wrote:
You'd think the imminent destruction of the planet


Nonsense. All the amassed destructive force of the human race could barely scratch the surface of this planet.

vivakomeda wrote:
You'd think the imminent civilization would remain a priority. It hasn't.


I agree, but this is too broad a generalisation. There is a percentage of humans who care about the continuance of their civilisation and are doing something about it. There is also a percentage who think the faster we wipe each other out the better, and of course there are those who don't give a toss about anything except themselves at this moment, this day, right now.

Statistics has always been a complete bore to me. I think Microsoft Excell is a creation of the malign negative force some call 'the Devil' and I would start to fall into a coma of boredom if I did any further research into this. All I can offer is my own opinion, and this I have attempted to do in this thread.

Oct 25, 2011, 00:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Climate change

vivakomeda wrote:
Indeed it would, hence my question.

Of course the heart of it is: are people's money where their mouths are, or are these "social movements" mere fashion?


Oct 25, 2011, 00:10


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Climate change

*burp*

Oct 25, 2011, 00:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Climate change

Harold Bissonette wrote:
Dara wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
GaryB2 wrote:
I don't think anyone is debating the trend of the last 150-200 years. The planet does this. Always has.


No, this is precisely what scientists are saying - the latest changes are well out of line with any changes that occur natural. Man is clearly creating major disruption to the natural cycles. The only 'scientific' findings that have found anything to refute these claims have been heavily funded by rigt-wing/capitalist organisations.




We humans are carbon based life forms are we not?. We are organic. By mass, human cells consist of 6590% water (H2O), and a significant portion is composed of carbon-containing organic molecules. Oxygen therefore contributes a majority of a human body's mass, followed by carbon. Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but all of the above I have always assumed to be products and an integral part of the make up of our collective biosphere. In other words they are "natural". Is it not logical then to say that human beings and all their activity (necessary to the prime directive or not) is contained within this 'natural' framework?.

The real question here is are humans threatening their own existence through their own 'natural' processes?. I think you would have to be an ignorant fool to answer no to that one. If the concern is: are we humans endangering the planet we like to call The Earth? then in the same way the answer must surely be - no. We are certainly damaging the Earth's ability to continue to sustain MOST life forms on this planet - but permanently damaging the planet itself? - you have to define the term 'damage' to make any judgement about this. Billions of years of bombardment/climate change/heating and cooling have not 'damaged' the planet enough to make it unable to sustain life - that's an irrefutable fact. That's if the ability of a celestial to sustain life is important in any case. We humans have spent our entire existence preoccupied with celestial objects which do not support life of any kind as far as we know.

If you ask are we destroying the human race through our lack of ecological consciousness - I would say yes we are, but the jury is out as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing in the overall scheme of things. We humans are but a temporary infestation of a rather remarkable set of cosmological, planetary and biological coincidences and whether or not we leave any trace of our ridiculously short blip on the timeline of this planet is almost certainly purely academic in the cosmological view.

But it fills up time for a bored species until they disappear in a puff of un-smoke...







Yes, nicely put and I can't disagree with most of that. Life goes on, consciousness goes on - one way or another. It just all seems a tad careless if we humanoids were to - as you say - threaten our own existence - or at least the existence of millions of us, purely through ignorance and selfishness.

As to "Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus" - I'd add the most important part - our consciousness "we are such stuff as dreams are made on".


Agreed Harold. Our consciousness is a rare beauty and it would be sad to lose that from the cosmos. If you believe that consciousness survives the physical frame then we have no real problem do we? - it is beyond the potential of destruction through human folly.

Yes, that is a pleasant thought if you filter out (or in forum terms - moderate) what consciousness survives us. After all we don't want the likes of the Osmonds or Michael Jackson or Celine Dion or (fill in blanks) plaguing human consciousness for all eternity - or do we?

Oct 25, 2011, 00:15


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Re: Climate change

Your best point yet

Oct 25, 2011, 00:16


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Re: Climate change

Naomi = disingenuous.

Something tells me she's in the 1%.

And that article is as vague and empty as the movement it's endorsing. Nothing concrete, nothing material. All ideals.

Oct 25, 2011, 00:19


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Climate change

vivakomeda wrote:
Your best point yet


Man, I'm back from a pub quiz and lost out because I didn't remember that Robert Johnson was one of the musicians (along with Hendrix, Cobain, Winehouse etc) who died at 27. Also failed on a John le Mesurier question - can you believe that?

Oct 25, 2011, 00:20


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Re: Climate change

Outrageous

Oct 25, 2011, 00:21


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Climate change

Harold Bissonette wrote:
Also failed on a John le Mesurier question - can you believe that?


Come on then Harold - what was the John le Mesurier question? - let's see if anyone here can get it - bugger all this tosh about climate change...

Oct 25, 2011, 00:23

Pages: 10 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index