Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.
— karl stone
That, or fewer people? :chin: If there were no humans none of the issues we're discussing would have become problematic, would they? So focus clearly on the elephant in this topic: humans are the problem. The topic asks "how to save the world?", and there is an obvious answer.... :gasp: — Pattern-chaser
If that's what you truly believe - kill yourself! You are the only person on earth you have a right to say shouldn't exist. No? Hypocrite! — karl stone
As a side note, to answer some of the criticism of your scheme to use hydrogen, it is quite possible to produce fairly conventional fuel from solar. This would have advantages in not requiring a total transformation of present infrastructure. — unenlightened
You are quite right, though more careful use has a role also. But forests make their own water, or their neighbour's. There is a complex relationship, not fully understandable, between vegetation and aquifers, and there would be some effect also from large scale solar cells cooling the atmosphere and increasing rainfall. But enough is known about the cycle of desertification to understand that the loss of vegetation leads to erosion, faster runoff, and sets up a vicious cycle that can be reversed with careful management. It's not called 'the green movement' for nothing - caring for our green brothers that form the 'other' side of the carbon cycle that we are the consumer side of, has got to be the backbone of the solution. — unenlightened
There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem. — Pattern-chaser
No-one mentioned killing anyone, although that is certainly one possibility. — Pattern-chaser
VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. — Pattern-chaser
The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? — Pattern-chaser
VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. — Pattern-chaser
The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above. — karl stone
I say this without malice - but fuck you. — karl stone
In another thread awhile back I suggested that an important method for saving the world would be to produce far fewer men — Jake
VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. — Pattern-chaser
So, besides not eating meat, cycling to work, wearing my overcoat indoors - now you're telling me my kids are a problem. I say this without malice - but fuck you. Live your life as you choose - and bon voyage, but don't tell me that I'm not worthy of existence - because I fucking well am. — karl stone
There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem. — Pattern-chaser
I'd argue against it. It's too simplistic. It implies we have no choice but to destroy the environment, but that's not so. The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above. — karl stone
I'm neither telling nor asking you to do anything at all. Why do you think I am? — Pattern-chaser
I especially didn't tell you that you are not worthy of existence. I think you are worthy of existence, but I've been wrong before.... — Pattern-chaser
I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly — Pattern-chaser
- and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. — Pattern-chaser
But that's not the only possible solution, and it's not one that I personally recommend. — Pattern-chaser
Some things that would save the world provoke anger and insults from you. Why is this? — Pattern-chaser
Do you mean to ask how the world might be saved if we all stick to your beliefs? — Pattern-chaser
I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly :fear: - and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. — Pattern-chaser
Intelligent life is the first addition to the universe in 15 billion years — karl stone
I'm just passionate. I don't mean to cause anyone pain or harm. But there are times when it's necessary to bang on the table. — karl stone
I mean to say that adopting my beliefs will save the world. — karl stone
We'd be spoiling your thread to continue a discussion of socialism here; there's Tinman's thread on socialism and Fdrake's thread on Marx's value theory if we want to pursue the topic. — Bitter Crank
By the way, it was Salvador Allende who was the democratic socialist in Chile; General Pinochet was a run of the mill South American dictator after Allende. The US helped kill Allende in 1973. — Bitter Crank
By men, I mean human beings, both men and women, who also equally succumb to power trips. I think the major difference has been the persistence of gender roles over most people's personas. With time, greater realisation of equality between men and women will result in greater diffusion of previous gender-defined roles and attitudes. — BrianW
Personally, I'd have a political spectrum ranging from ideologue to scientist — karl stone
Doom mongers, who don't read other's posts - and so don't take on board repeated explanations of why, what's right about their ideas is subsumed under a paradigm with greater explanatory potential, while theirs reaches a false conclusion, should not expect to have their trolling acknowledged, less yet encouraged. — karl stone
Personally, you would endorse a science worshiping ideology. You are the spectrum! — Jake
So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality. — karl stone
I mean to say that adopting my "beliefs" will save the world. I'm not asking - I'm telling. — karl stone
If women were better suited to saving the world, they would not be passive by-standers as men sank everything into oblivion. Let's face it, neither men nor women know better when it comes to saving the world. — BrianW
Which brings me back to my point that, what's needed is more intelligence about managing human affairs. We need to be able to collectively realise the greater need, be able to collectively organise our priorities appropriately, be able to collectively overcome our personal limitations for the greater good, develop greater collective self-control to avoid unnecessary antagonism, etc, etc. — BrianW
Or killing everyone! — karl stone
First, thank you for re-engaging. In thanks I'll make a good faith effort to downscale my ornery bombastic belchings. Sorry for getting so wound up. — Jake
I agree to this, no problem. But that doesn't automatically equal more science being better in every case. My complaint is not with science which I see as being an effective tool, which like any tool is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My complaint is with our relationship with science. — Jake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.