@Huck: I see what you mean now as far as the bias and the meaning behind your words. Thank you for explaining.
That being said, my essay was, in short, designed to give a baseline understanding of my views on Global Warming. A lot of what you've just said is implied in the article.
@PhrozenDragon: While our technological advancements have created a lot of waste, over the years we've learned a lot. We've moved from Coal plants to alternate forms of energy, we've started developing less carbon-emitting forms of transportation, and we've found ways to reuse some trash we've created. That's a decent start.
To sum up what I've tried to express in the original post is this: Global Warming was a fad. An idea that turned from caution into an profiteering agenda. While we can give merit to the fact that it helped increase awareness, the goal from a political standpoint was a scheme. While this may have changed since it was first presented, it does not remove the fact that there are still people who are trying to gain some kind of extra profit by staying "Green".
Huck is also right on the fact that most people "recycle" not to help the Earth, but to feel better about themselves. Though, in theory, if everyone pitched in and helped, the impact would be worthwhile.
I've started noticing people wearing their "I'm reducing my carbon footprint by driving a Prius" like a bloody badge of honor. It makes me sick.
Human nature is only fallible in so much that it conflicts with your idealisms, which are limited, shallow, and biased to your limited experiences and perceptions of what is. What you may consider making the world a better place, others consider tyranny, oppression, and counterproductive.
Though I find it hard not to take offense to your stamps of my personality and ideals, I believe that I half agree with part of this statement. Yes, what I consider making the world a better place could very well be interpreted as tyranny, oppression, and counterproductive... but that does not, in turn, make my idealisms limited or shallow. Yes, what I feel is right may very well be different than what you or other people's beliefs are.
Human nature is also extremely sophisticated: to reduce humans to barbarians without understanding the complexities behind our sociology is like reducing ants to annoyances without looking at their major biologic accomplishments.
I believe you misunderstand me. I never once claimed that we were nothing more than barbarians. The fact that we can have a rational and reasonable debate on a subject that is open to interpretation belies quite the opposite. When we speak of human nature, however, we're not speaking on a sociological level. We are speaking of the set of inherent characteristics that define how humans act and react with the world around it, including feeling and thinking, on a homocentric level, not societal. We are intelligent creatures, do not get me wrong, but to see the same characteristics repeated over and over again by individuals or groups throughout history, and not learning from these errors (or the consequences that undoubtedly follow) is foolish at best.
And to separate yourself from "normal" people is equally as ignorant. Your philosophies are far from uncommon- and your ranting far from unique.
I am far from unique, and there are possibly many others who share my ideals, but I am not one to say "I am different than you because X philosophy and Y mindset". I have not stated, or implied, that I am better than anyone, or that my thoughts herein are superior. These are my thoughts, ideas, and philosophies. Take them how you wish.
I mean no offense with any of this, but I see this kind of argument used day in and day out among my peers. It is more fundamentally an issue of responsibility and accountability: two things which many young adults seem absolutely devoid of (which I'm sure is not a novel nor modern occurrence).
I understand your situation, but please do not take this topic or any of the replies as similar issues. Take them with an open mind, and please, try to convince me that I'm wrong (while staying on topic) if that is how you feel. I'm trying to stimulate intellectual discussion, not to gather unbidden or unnecessary affection from my peers.
The past millennium has been wrought with power struggles and personal welfare above all else. Survival of the fittest // sharpest tongue // wealthiest. There needs to be change, but nobody is stepping up to do it. I'm half tempted to start m'self.
And the Romans didn't?
Where are the Romans now? They're in history with the rest of every other civilization that was once great... but died off in a similar fashion due to internal power struggles.
Even if I were to step into global renaissance mode and begin to try, on a macro level, to reorganize the world to help face the threats that are posed today, and make things better for everyone, and somehow it worked.... after I die off, there will be a power struggle. People would follow me because they'd believe in me (or they'd follow me because they're mindless drones who just follow the crowd), but when I'm gone (as I'll inevitably be), how long can that trend continue?
Human nature is fallible. Human nature defies all logic. Human nature has no rules, guidelines, or sophistication. This is the reason we can't have nice things.
While I agree that there is an issue with people who are over-reacting to the situation (and blowing it out of proportion), but I also believe that there are some things we can, as a whole, help to prolong human existence and survivability, without destroying the world in the process.
Unfortunately, I'm torn. On the one hand, groups that are making money off of the mindless and "hive-mind" of general society are "preying on the weak"... which isn't that much of a bad thing in some instances. On the other hand, it's become normal for everybody and everything. Awareness has increased, but so has the profitability.
In addition to all of this, we are still growing at an alarming rate. I feel that overpopulation, once a strange idea, can potentially impact us even worse than it is right now (read: Supply and Demand on the Labor and Product market). There are many problems on the horizon that need to be tackled, and I don't think our higher ups are doing a great job at it. The past millennium has been wrought with power struggles and personal welfare above all else. Survival of the fittest // sharpest tongue // wealthiest. There needs to be change, but nobody is stepping up to do it. I'm half tempted to start m'self.
Not at all. I understand my weaknesses. Where I see no value in loads of money or dominion over others (as in, I'm content with where I am at personally), I also do not value life in the same way most people do. I also believe in "means to an end", and "sacrificing for the greater good, even if it is my own life". What must be done to aide our ailing societies needs to be done soon.
It was really a last-minute thing (and was prompted by accusations of a friend on how I wasn't very 'eco-friendly' because I don't own a Prius, don't recycle all the time, and am not a vegan), as well as a call to explain my thoughts on the subject. This short essay was written in about 30 minutes while on my lunch break... so expect it to be a bit scatterbrained. I do love constructive criticism, as well as well-formed debate. Lets see where this goes amongst my peers.
The hype of the Global Warming phase has begun to dwindle. For this, I am relieved. Global Warming, a misnomer at worst, was, in my opinion, a struggle for the gain of power and profit by which the use of faulty and/or short term data was grossly over-exaggerated to cause public outcry (knowing how the public will react to "imminent danger").
To tackle this subject, we must take an analytical approach to the problem. First off is recognition that there is a problem. From there, we should seek how it is a problem, where the problem is occurring, and how we can fix it.
Global warming is described as "the increase of the average temperature of Earths near-surface air and oceans since the mid 20th century and its projected continuation". According to most of the scientific community, the average global temperature has risen between one to three degrees since 1990. This is fact. The global temperature has risen a few degrees in the past two decades, according the surface temperature analysis from satellites in orbit since the late 1970's. The fear is that too many man-made emissions will cause what is known as the "Greenhouse effect", causing a sharp incline to the aggregate global temperature, making Earth uninhabitable. The question, however, lies in the cause. How much have we (as humans) contributed to this, and how much of it is the Earth's natural cycle?
It has been proven that the Earth undergoes many cycles (akin to that of a SIN wave on a co-ordinate scale as X approaches infinity, and X is measured in Time). This can be easily noticed by the geothermal anomaly known as El Nino, and by the Milankovitch cycles, which are the "collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth." (source)
Billions of dollars have been poured into research on the subject of Global Warming, from tests to analysis and predictions. Many of the tests have returned inconclusive due to time being a limiting factor (being that there is not enough time to fully study changes and cycles on such a broad level ). Though a lot of time and money was spent on this project as a whole, there are many members of the scientific community that feel that there is a rift in communication between the scientific data, and the interpretation by members who are not a part of the community (source)
I feel that current science is inconclusive at best, dealing with the climate change. People perceive immediate change and panic (as is the common reaction to change in general society [note: speaking strictly as an American in an American society]), but since our perception is narrow and limited on the basis of time (being unable to observe long periods of time to better understand the change in the long run) it is easy to make claims based on short-term data, and extrapolate from that data ideas that are weak and, in terms of being truly relevant to time, inherently false.
Does this mean I disagree with the idea of Global Warming? In some ways. I frown upon those who bought into the hype, but I agree with some changes being made to become "green" and efficient, but for reasons not fully related to Global Warming. Alternative uses of energy, be it renewable via; aero, hydro, or solar power, and recycling are good ideas. Also, finding cleaner ways to use currently available forms of energy (for example, a coal plant that releases 98% less toxic smoke than its predecessors) will help keep pollution down. Unfortunately, Mexico City and Los Angles are suffering from this problem. I also agree that there are some global issues at hand... droughts that have lasted several years, deforestation caused by: wildfires, a shift in climate patterns (which could stem from a number of different things), and human interaction.
Do I think there is a problem with human interaction with the environment? Yes. Do I feel that we are in imminent danger? In fifty to a hundred years if we remained stagnant in our ways and practices, sure. Do I feel that the hype around Global Warming is silly? Yes. However, I will say that the hype around Global Warming has increased awareness of how volatile we can be to nature in all areas, and that is at least a good benefit. One of these days, the idea behind Global Warming will stop being used as a crutch to garner more capital from governments and its citizens.
You know, I remember playing the game, and my first unique was Azurewrath. I was so excited! A unique crystal sword! Then I got angry. Azurewrath, Tyreal's weapon... was just a crystal sword. Shortly thereafter I had Griswold's Edge... and I was happy again... but Azurewrath stuck in the back of my head... And then they released the upgraded weapon... and I was very happy again XD
>.< My boss and I are arguing over who should get to play their music... and trying to find some sort of middle ground. He wants to listen to Beatles, I want to listen to Dethklok. Where is the middle ground?
Don't forget that the drops are on a person to person basis... like a credit system (or, at least that what I thought).... so it's easier to bypass items that you don't want // need. That'll also fix the problem of people just sitting behind to clean up the scraps.... if you call that a problem.
0
Life's too short to get pissed off at some random guy who lives halfway across the world for a few words on the internet.
0
0
That being said, my essay was, in short, designed to give a baseline understanding of my views on Global Warming. A lot of what you've just said is implied in the article.
@PhrozenDragon: While our technological advancements have created a lot of waste, over the years we've learned a lot. We've moved from Coal plants to alternate forms of energy, we've started developing less carbon-emitting forms of transportation, and we've found ways to reuse some trash we've created. That's a decent start.
To sum up what I've tried to express in the original post is this: Global Warming was a fad. An idea that turned from caution into an profiteering agenda. While we can give merit to the fact that it helped increase awareness, the goal from a political standpoint was a scheme. While this may have changed since it was first presented, it does not remove the fact that there are still people who are trying to gain some kind of extra profit by staying "Green".
Huck is also right on the fact that most people "recycle" not to help the Earth, but to feel better about themselves. Though, in theory, if everyone pitched in and helped, the impact would be worthwhile.
I've started noticing people wearing their "I'm reducing my carbon footprint by driving a Prius" like a bloody badge of honor. It makes me sick.
0
Though I find it hard not to take offense to your stamps of my personality and ideals, I believe that I half agree with part of this statement. Yes, what I consider making the world a better place could very well be interpreted as tyranny, oppression, and counterproductive... but that does not, in turn, make my idealisms limited or shallow. Yes, what I feel is right may very well be different than what you or other people's beliefs are.
I believe you misunderstand me. I never once claimed that we were nothing more than barbarians. The fact that we can have a rational and reasonable debate on a subject that is open to interpretation belies quite the opposite. When we speak of human nature, however, we're not speaking on a sociological level. We are speaking of the set of inherent characteristics that define how humans act and react with the world around it, including feeling and thinking, on a homocentric level, not societal. We are intelligent creatures, do not get me wrong, but to see the same characteristics repeated over and over again by individuals or groups throughout history, and not learning from these errors (or the consequences that undoubtedly follow) is foolish at best.
I am far from unique, and there are possibly many others who share my ideals, but I am not one to say "I am different than you because X philosophy and Y mindset". I have not stated, or implied, that I am better than anyone, or that my thoughts herein are superior. These are my thoughts, ideas, and philosophies. Take them how you wish.
I understand your situation, but please do not take this topic or any of the replies as similar issues. Take them with an open mind, and please, try to convince me that I'm wrong (while staying on topic) if that is how you feel. I'm trying to stimulate intellectual discussion, not to gather unbidden or unnecessary affection from my peers.
0
Where are the Romans now? They're in history with the rest of every other civilization that was once great... but died off in a similar fashion due to internal power struggles.
Even if I were to step into global renaissance mode and begin to try, on a macro level, to reorganize the world to help face the threats that are posed today, and make things better for everyone, and somehow it worked.... after I die off, there will be a power struggle. People would follow me because they'd believe in me (or they'd follow me because they're mindless drones who just follow the crowd), but when I'm gone (as I'll inevitably be), how long can that trend continue?
Human nature is fallible. Human nature defies all logic. Human nature has no rules, guidelines, or sophistication. This is the reason we can't have nice things.
0
Unfortunately, I'm torn. On the one hand, groups that are making money off of the mindless and "hive-mind" of general society are "preying on the weak"... which isn't that much of a bad thing in some instances. On the other hand, it's become normal for everybody and everything. Awareness has increased, but so has the profitability.
In addition to all of this, we are still growing at an alarming rate. I feel that overpopulation, once a strange idea, can potentially impact us even worse than it is right now (read: Supply and Demand on the Labor and Product market). There are many problems on the horizon that need to be tackled, and I don't think our higher ups are doing a great job at it. The past millennium has been wrought with power struggles and personal welfare above all else. Survival of the fittest // sharpest tongue // wealthiest. There needs to be change, but nobody is stepping up to do it. I'm half tempted to start m'self.
Not at all. I understand my weaknesses. Where I see no value in loads of money or dominion over others (as in, I'm content with where I am at personally), I also do not value life in the same way most people do. I also believe in "means to an end", and "sacrificing for the greater good, even if it is my own life". What must be done to aide our ailing societies needs to be done soon.
0
Human Nature is... at best, retarded.
0
2
To tackle this subject, we must take an analytical approach to the problem. First off is recognition that there is a problem. From there, we should seek how it is a problem, where the problem is occurring, and how we can fix it.
Global warming is described as "the increase of the average temperature of Earths near-surface air and oceans since the mid 20th century and its projected continuation". According to most of the scientific community, the average global temperature has risen between one to three degrees since 1990. This is fact. The global temperature has risen a few degrees in the past two decades, according the surface temperature analysis from satellites in orbit since the late 1970's. The fear is that too many man-made emissions will cause what is known as the "Greenhouse effect", causing a sharp incline to the aggregate global temperature, making Earth uninhabitable. The question, however, lies in the cause. How much have we (as humans) contributed to this, and how much of it is the Earth's natural cycle?
It has been proven that the Earth undergoes many cycles (akin to that of a SIN wave on a co-ordinate scale as X approaches infinity, and X is measured in Time). This can be easily noticed by the geothermal anomaly known as El Nino, and by the Milankovitch cycles, which are the "collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth." (source)
Billions of dollars have been poured into research on the subject of Global Warming, from tests to analysis and predictions. Many of the tests have returned inconclusive due to time being a limiting factor (being that there is not enough time to fully study changes and cycles on such a broad level ). Though a lot of time and money was spent on this project as a whole, there are many members of the scientific community that feel that there is a rift in communication between the scientific data, and the interpretation by members who are not a part of the community (source)
I feel that current science is inconclusive at best, dealing with the climate change. People perceive immediate change and panic (as is the common reaction to change in general society [note: speaking strictly as an American in an American society]), but since our perception is narrow and limited on the basis of time (being unable to observe long periods of time to better understand the change in the long run) it is easy to make claims based on short-term data, and extrapolate from that data ideas that are weak and, in terms of being truly relevant to time, inherently false.
Does this mean I disagree with the idea of Global Warming? In some ways. I frown upon those who bought into the hype, but I agree with some changes being made to become "green" and efficient, but for reasons not fully related to Global Warming. Alternative uses of energy, be it renewable via; aero, hydro, or solar power, and recycling are good ideas. Also, finding cleaner ways to use currently available forms of energy (for example, a coal plant that releases 98% less toxic smoke than its predecessors) will help keep pollution down. Unfortunately, Mexico City and Los Angles are suffering from this problem. I also agree that there are some global issues at hand... droughts that have lasted several years, deforestation caused by: wildfires, a shift in climate patterns (which could stem from a number of different things), and human interaction.
Do I think there is a problem with human interaction with the environment? Yes. Do I feel that we are in imminent danger? In fifty to a hundred years if we remained stagnant in our ways and practices, sure. Do I feel that the hype around Global Warming is silly? Yes. However, I will say that the hype around Global Warming has increased awareness of how volatile we can be to nature in all areas, and that is at least a good benefit. One of these days, the idea behind Global Warming will stop being used as a crutch to garner more capital from governments and its citizens.
0
True story
0
=D
0
0
1
The RSS image next to "View New Content".... doesn't seem to work to actually use the RSS. Any suggestions?
Ah, figured it out, I thought it was just a mouse-over, not a list.... but I gots it!
0
I JUST GOT MY ASUS G73JH-A2 LAPTOP TODAY! WEEEW!!!