Hi. Wow...

[The Voice of Time]

There are various hidden costs not accounted for in such an analysis. It's not merely the capital cost of applying the technology, but the loss of value of fossil fuel reserves - and further costs making cars, gas pipes and gas heater, power stations and so on compatible with a new fuel source.

What loss of value? I don't understand what all this means. There's no loss of value by building something new ^^

Action in the course of another rationale is necessary. Common acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality and the survival ethic provide that rationale.

Survival ethics? Survival ethics is what creates isolationism, xenophobia, scarcity propagation and egocentrism. It is what creates fear and poverty. People are willing to believe they are poor, so they will stop consuming and in so doing degrade their life quality, people will see the world outside as being full of terrors and bad dreams, so they will shut their borders, they will shut their doors, not walk out in the night, not stand up against tyranny... the obsession with survival is what creates misery. Only when we can stop worrying about surviving can we have a decent enjoyable life, and you don't get that security by doomsday prophesies.

P.S. Why is a cat not called a dog? Because there's an arbitrary relationship between signified and signifier, between name and object.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. And excuse me for now but I'm not in the mood for monologues, so I'll skip your video.

[homegrown]

The Voice of Time,

No. You don't understand. You haven't understood anything I've said. That's not my responsibility. It's yours.

hg.

[The Voice of Time]

You can't complain I don't agree with you. That's silly.

[homegrown]

Might I suggest you read Socrates argument with a hedonist. Or Descartes 'Mediations on First Philosophy.' These are easy reads and good introductions. You aren't ready for me babe. No offence.

[The Voice of Time]

I'm not into classics very much. And I don't bait projection defence mechanisms.

[reasonvemotion]

We are using 30% more of our natural resources than what nature can produce.

The cycle gets to a point where we will experience the world facing mass extinction.

30,000 species, which includes insect life, vanish every year.

Pollution. Equates to making money, so the continuation is assured.

Not to mention global warming, oceans rising.

We are destroying the earth. Scientists warn there are major concerns, but we are beyond the point of no return.

[Arising_uk]

We are using 30% more of our natural resources than what nature can produce.

Which ones?

The cycle gets to a point where we will experience the world facing mass extinction.

Theres been quite a few of these already. Approx 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, why should we be different?

30,000 species, which includes insect life, vanish every year.

See above.

Pollution. Equates to making money, so the continuation is assured.

Pollution equates to industrialization. The communist states were some of the worst polluters.

Not to mention global warming, oceans rising.

Its going to get warmer regardless as we're in at the end of a glacial period. IF the oceans are goin gto rise it'll be because the ice over landmasses such as Antartica melt but this will expose a huge landmass.

We are destroying the earth. Scientists warn there are major concerns, but we are beyond the point of no return.

Maybe but its going to get hotter anyway so what do you suggest?

The Earth will not be destroyed, I think you mean this current bio-sphere and even then it'll only be the one that supports us, another will probably occur. But you and I will be long dead before any of this occurs in any significant way.

[Arising_uk]

and.....

And what?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I just checked her post.


She used every word BUT - and.....





How could you quote a word she didn't use?








...........................................................................................................................................








.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...What will happen when the oil supply ceases. Imagine the chaos.

There will be great change when this happens. As we approach this point the other resources will become cost-effective to use, so methane hydrates, nuclear, solar, tidal, etc. Plus theres still a lot of coal about.
The real question is why not change now? Answer: Greedy capitalists that want to squeeze every last drop out of their oil infrastructure, tooling for new technologies leave business's in the red for years. That's how the standard and shell moguls shut down ford's ethanol back in the day. Damn those fucks.
So they just become??
Coal is the dirtiest fuel of them all, talk about air pollution, carbon footprint, and thus global warming, wow! Sure there's talk of clean coal, but where is it?

We are already over populated, how can this be resolved? War, worldwide? or some horrible new disease, that spreads like wild fire.

Apparently we've been stabilizing. The best way so far of reducing births is prosperity and education for women.

Water?

This is an issue.

Food?

As is this but this might be doable as we're getting to the stage were we can grow protein. Theres also a real problem with land compaction.

All this has a use by date.

Maybe maybe not.

How can any of this be remedied, other than going elsewhere, perhaps another planet and then that would be for the wealthy only.

Its always been this way, its only been a brief blip were we've been thinking otherwise.

So the rest of us can kiss our existence goodbye.

Maybe maybe not but it might be a reduced existence for the sheltered wealthy in the 'West'.
Talk about ethics: the ones that cause the problem, are the ones that are saved??

Unless, someone can offer a realistic solution, I can't see a remedy in sight.

The realistic solution is pretty much as homegrown mentions, start listening to science and drop religion and ideology.
You forgot one, politics must be dropped as well, and as I've said in the past, governments should be ran by scholars (science) as they are the only ones equipped to actually know how to steer the ship of progress, or rather they're the only ones that could possibly do so with any degree of real success, in terms of global equilibrium.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There are various hidden costs not accounted for in such an analysis. It's not merely the capital cost of applying the technology, but the loss of value of fossil fuel reserves - and further costs making cars, gas pipes and gas heater, power stations and so on compatible with a new fuel source.

What loss of value? I don't understand what all this means. There's no loss of value by building something new ^^
I think he's referring to milking the current energy infrastructure versus the cost of tooling for a new technology.

Action in the course of another rationale is necessary. Common acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality and the survival ethic provide that rationale.

Survival ethics? Survival ethics is what creates isolationism, xenophobia, scarcity propagation and egocentrism. It is what creates fear and poverty. People are willing to believe they are poor, so they will stop consuming and in so doing degrade their life quality, people will see the world outside as being full of terrors and bad dreams, so they will shut their borders, they will shut their doors, not walk out in the night, not stand up against tyranny... the obsession with survival is what creates misery. Only when we can stop worrying about surviving can we have a decent enjoyable life, and you don't get that security by doomsday prophesies.
No, that's what has created these things in the past in a world initially divided, we are now talking of a time where the fact that we are all one is seen through the eyes of our shared problems. I'm sorry to tell you this but the days of only concerning oneself with a decent enjoyable life are over, that is if you really want to live at all. We've reached the final crescendo, the final curtain call. It's not all fun and games anymore.

P.S. Why is a cat not called a dog? Because there's an arbitrary relationship between signified and signifier, between name and object.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. And excuse me for now but I'm not in the mood for monologues, so I'll skip your video.

[SpheresOfBalance]

We are using 30% more of our natural resources than what nature can produce.

Which ones?

The cycle gets to a point where we will experience the world facing mass extinction.

Theres been quite a few of these already. Approx 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, why should we be different?

30,000 species, which includes insect life, vanish every year.

See above.

Pollution. Equates to making money, so the continuation is assured.

Pollution equates to industrialization. The communist states were some of the worst polluters.
I think she's referring to not spending money that's required in making the dirty, clean, so as to maximize profits, if not, it is a problem.

Not to mention global warming, oceans rising.

Its going to get warmer regardless as we're in at the end of a glacial period.
So you're saying, "what the hell, we didn't start the fire that's raging out of control, so why not throw accelerant on it?"

IF the oceans are goin gto rise it'll be because the ice over landmasses such as Antartica melt but this will expose a huge landmass.
So what, the flat white, the most reflective pigment of them all, is responsible for the majority of reflecting the suns rays back out into space, while water/land absorbs the energy, not to mention that ice/snow is cold.

We are destroying the earth. Scientists warn there are major concerns, but we are beyond the point of no return.

Maybe but its going to get hotter anyway so what do you suggest?
Apathy? If a kids on heroin, do you say "so what he'll do it again anyway?"

The Earth will not be destroyed, I think you mean this current bio-sphere and even then it'll only be the one that supports us, another will probably occur. But you and I will be long dead before any of this occurs in any significant way.
So you either don't have any progeny, or don't care about them, and theirs? Nice!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

.



I just checked her post.


She used every word BUT - and.....





How could you quote a word she didn't use?








...........................................................................................................................................http://i.imgur.com/GmF5o07.gif








.

I think she was wanting a summation. Inferring that the point was not clearly underlined. That AUK never made a possible resolution, clearly. Of course I could be wrong, been there done that.

[reasonvemotion]

The realistic solution is pretty much as homegrown mentions, start listening to science and drop religion and ideology.

and what changes can we expect to eventuate by doing this?

[reasonvemotion]

I think she was wanting a summation. Inferring that the point was not clearly underlined. That AUK never made a possible resolution, clearly. Of course I could be wrong, been there done that.

Thanks Spheres, you are right.

Let me explain the Pollution issue, which I did not make clear.

What I meant was, if a great deal of money is being made, but in the process creating pollution, despite protests, pollution will remain, as money is the dictator in today's world.

The world won't be destroyed, but many humans will be. Why? Greed.