News Save our planet, what a bunch of hooey

[Kerrie]

Okay, so I am staying in the holiday inn express this past week, and there is a sign in my room next to the clean white towels stating in bold letters:

SAVE OUR PLANET

the sign ultimately is asking for the hotel guest to not use excess towels because it hurts our planet to wash unused towels...

it's not this specific deal i am griping about, but everywhere you go this whole propaganda of how the human race is destroying the Earth is a bunch of crap!

first off, if mother Earth decides to blow a few volcanoes, shake us up with some earthquakes, send some tornados our way or whatever she decides to do, do we really think then that we are destroying her? she can wipe us out in an instant! and if that major asteroid were to ever head our way and zoom in on the earth, then what? if anything, our pollution, our nuclear waste, whatever unnatural substances we put into our environment WILL KILL US and all of LIFE on this planet before we destroy earth...perhaps we should re-label our motto to say:

SAVE LIFE ON EARTH

end of my rant...i just think that people can be mindless with untrue statements used to promote the image of those who are "concerned"...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Kerrie, you have to understand what certain phrases and cliches, mean. "Save our planet", "Protect the earth", etc. are NOT referring to protecting the gravitational integrity of a planet floating around in the solar system. It IS referring to life on Earth.

And it is not logical to justify your crimes by saying "well, what if this happens?" The possibility that something could go horribly wrong due to factors out of our control is no reasons to do what damaging things we want to.

And I don't know how to respond to the tornadoes, earthquakes thing..it's not like Earth is a consciousness that you have a score to settle with.

 

[Kerrie]

what i am getting at is that the phrase save our planet, does not mean that at all, it should be save all of life on our planet...i am all for protecting the environment that sustains life, but it is a great pet peeve of mine when people half-mindedly blurt "save our planet" when our planet is perfectly capable of destroying us much faster then we can destroy it...

And I don't know how to respond to the tornadoes, earthquakes thing..it's not like Earth is a consciousness that you have a score to settle with.

this is just your opinion about it...the fact that our Earth can support life might just mean that it is life itself, not the life we know currently, but logically, if something can support life, then why couldn't it be alive or life itself?

 

[FZ+]

I would consider it a case of science making little sacrifices to get the point across to people. The majority of conservation efforts is to preserve biodiversity, or the state of the planet today. Saving the planet raises a heroic tone that you just don't get with "Save every amoeba" or "Prevent the gene pool from contracting." It's sad, but perhaps necessary due to human nature to sensationalise like this.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Okay, so I am staying in the holiday inn express this past week, and there is a sign in my room next to the clean white towels stating in bold letters:

SAVE OUR PLANET

the sign ultimately is asking for the hotel guest to not use excess towels because it hurts our planet to wash unused towels...

I think the hotel management should have been more honest and mentioned that as a business what they are primarily trying to do is cut expenses and avoid rate hikes. I stayed a couple of nights at a hotel in Paducah, Kentucky (Ramada Suites) not very long ago and at least their little note on the bed admitted as much (with regard primarily on bed linen).
I’m all for keeping costs down and don’t mind at all helping out, especially when asked, but in your example they appear to be attempting to lay a guilt-trip and using fear tactics instead of being a little more forthcoming.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Well, I fully agree with all of this Kerrie.
But, you're talking about the same two things so I'm
not sure what exactly you opposed. Save our planet
does mean save life on our planet. And I fully agree that
it must be saved. Specificly, as far as I see it, saving
life on Earth means stopping the distruction caused by
mankind. I don't see mankind as much of a life that needs
saving - we're long since gone from nature and any food
chain, it's the rest of life that needsto be saved.

(btw, there's a small stick-sign like this in most hotels'
bathrooms around the world. )

Live long and prosper.

 

[maximus]

KERRIE, i see your point, but have you ever seen a landfill? we might not be destroying all life on the planet, but we're certainly not helping it. but you're right. for most americans the 'enviornmentally freindly' product is an east sell.

 

[Kerrie]

while i am certainly not justifying any type of destruction to our Earth because of mother Earth's ability to wipe us out in a heartbeat, i am saying that whatever destruction we do is destruction to us...i really don't think that is clearly understood by the majority who do chant "save our planet", as boulderhead suggested, it's just a marketing scheme rather then being sincere and direct with the true reason of why the hotel wants to save money...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Yep they're trying to save money by you using fewer napkins, the sheisters. Odd that it evokes such strong anti-ecology feeling from you Kerrie! Your choices as an individual are truly not very significant, but the logging industry loves chewing up millions of acres of forest land every day. It's not like anyone can stop them (esp. not the residents of ruined countryside). It's a runaway train that needs a brake.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

but everywhere you go this whole propaganda of how the human race is destroying the Earth is a bunch of crap!

i really don't think that is clearly understood by the majority who do chant "save our planet",

My sentiments exactly.

It is really amusing to see people start hollering "Save the Earth!
Don't let those selfish profiteering businessmen cut down the trees! Make 'em plant trees whenever they cut one down!"

It's really easy to make such statements. But i doubt they'd be so quick to act noble once they receive the bill fer having to implement these environmentally friendly measures. Besides have they really wondered why those businessmen are doing so?

 

[FZ+]

Actually, in the long term, a large number of environmentally friendly measures actually save money. Measures for long petrol consumption means that our supply run out slower. Measures to prevent uncontrolled forest removable prevents desertification and the damage to farming hence caused. Measures to recycle cuts down on energy use and money spent on landfill sites. Many anti-ecological solutions present only really quick fix responses, and their profits do not translate into better living standards for most people.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by FZ+

1)Measures for long petrol consumption means that our supply run out slower.
2)Measures to prevent uncontrolled forest removable prevents desertification and the damage to farming hence caused.
3)Measures to recycle cuts down on energy use and money spent on landfill sites.
4)Many anti-ecological solutions present only really quick fix responses, and their profits do not translate into better living standards for most people.

answers i propose:
1) they are working on alternative fuel cars, have elimiated freon in air conditioners, and didn't they do something with propane recently too? all products that pollute our air WE and ALL OF LIFE depend on
2) easy solution-grow hemp...it's a great replacement for paper or anything requiring lumber typically...however it would hurt the cotton and logging industry tremondously
3) that's slowly progressing, at least here in the west there is a recycling service that picks up all your recyclables and is including with the garbage service
4) typical american is lazy, educate them on what is happening SERIOUSLY, and tug at their hearts with dying animals, diseases to plants that could ultimately have the solution to human diseases, etc...

bottom line, if america was serious about saving life on earth, it would be more of a priority over oil consumption...

 

[russ_watters]

Two words: Nuclear power.

Not only is it clean, but its a good way to discard our old nuclear weapons. Currently the US gets half its electricity from COAL and as a result, the generation of electricity is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Kerrie
while i am certainly not justifying any type of destruction to our Earth because of mother Earth's ability to wipe us out in a heartbeat, i am saying that whatever destruction we do is destruction to us...i really don't think that is clearly understood by the majority who do chant "save our planet", as boulderhead suggested, it's just a marketing scheme rather then being sincere and direct with the true reason of why the hotel wants to save money...

(This, for some reason, reminds me of some of the
Iraq war discussions.) WHO CARES IF THEY REALLY DO IT TO
SAVE MONEY ?! IT ALSO IS CORRECT AND INDEED HELPS TO
SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. Further more, the fact that there are
stick-signs like this in almost all hotels probably ain't
just a coincidence, it's possibly the result of some of
those international environment conferences I believe.

Further more, it has been realized for a long time that
to save the environment it is uselless to go against
the people - cause the mob just doesn't give a damn
even if they're shown that tomorrow they'll all be dead
from radiation/there'll be no food left/no animals/whatever.
The policies must be skillfully adepted so that people
would follow them because it will be the physicly and
mainly financialy optimal solution. No one will buy
electric cars if they're expensive. No one will buy
dissipating nilon and shopping bags if they're expensive.
No one will use renewable energy sources if they're expensive.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Two words: Nuclear power.

Not only is it clean, but its a good way to discard our old nuclear weapons. Currently the US gets half its electricity from COAL and as a result, the generation of electricity is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.

Indeed.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

I think we need to convert to solar and wind power, and electric cars, as soon as posible. Just imagine the incredible boost to the economy, huh?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
I think we need to convert to solar and wind power, and electric cars, as soon as posible. Just imagine the incredible boost to the economy, huh?

Indeed. The problem, however, is that the power supply
is not constant and so you need to build more (that's
why I liked my idea of an International Renewable Power Network
Market idea I talked about once in the technology forum)
than you use. Nevertheless, the main problem here is,
in my opinion, political - the whole energy production
process involves huge money and many people that are
affected by it. Also, cars consume most of the fossil fuels
and the electrical cars are not yet sufficiently evolved.
Though electrical city-cars are pretty advanced already.
I, personally, feel that an important factor may be increasing
public transportation.

As for comparing nuclear power to renewable energy, I think
nuclear power is better. It's much less polluting than even
renewable energy sources, takes a lot less space and could
be cheaper with the right modern designs.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by drag
As for comparing nuclear power to renewable energy, I think
nuclear power is better. It's much less polluting than even
renewable energy sources, takes a lot less space and could
be cheaper with the right modern designs.

Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind don't give off any pollution in the generation of energy, and nuclear has that nuclear waste problem, and nobody wants that stuff in his backyard. It does produce a lot of energy, though.

Currently, we use fission for energy. If we can get fusion worked out to the point that it produces a viable amount of energy, then we are in business.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind don't give off any pollution in the generation of energy, and nuclear has that nuclear waste problem, and nobody wants that stuff in his backyard. It does produce a lot of energy, though.

Renewable energy sources can use polluting and dangerous
materials in large amounts when used on a massive scale.
They take up lots of space and can result in the distruction
of the surrounding environment (solar panels, dams, large
amounts of wind turbines in a single area and so on).

As for nuclear waste, modern reactors, if built, will have fewer
waste and much of it will be radioactive for only several
decades as well as less radioactive in general (there are many
relevant new designs and technologies). Further more, storing
the nuclear waste is not really such a great practical problem.
I believe there's more politics involved here. It's not at all
difficult to take a deep shaft in a desert, dig a huge reservoir, cover its walls with a thick concrete wall and dump all the waste
there. The costs, compared to the financial profits of the
relevant amount of reactors of relevant size should be pathetic
and no further pollution issues should exist.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
If we can get fusion worked out to the point that it produces a viable amount of energy, then we are in business.

Of course, but that seems unlikely to happen on a large scale
within the nearest few decades. Fusion would offer huge amounts
of energy and very little and short lived nuclear waste.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I think we need to convert to solar and wind power, and electric cars, as soon as posible. Just imagine the incredible boost to the economy, huh?

Those would be ok if they were economically viable, but they aren't. I would however be in favor of subsidies for things like solar panels on roofs of buildings - maybe a tax credit. But that's just small potatoes compared to the terrawatts needed to make a dent in our power grid. And electric cars don't help anything unless our EXISTING power grid is taken off coal. I discussed this in another thread, but once electric power for the grid isn't an issue anymore, THEN we can think of switching cars to something better, like hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[laced pacifist]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by russ_watters
Two words: Nuclear power.

Not only is it clean, but its a good way to discard our old nuclear weapons. Currently the US gets half its electricity from COAL and as a result, the generation of electricity is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Half of this is definately true. The US does generate half of our electricity from coal, and that is one of the leading producers of air pollution in the US. Although the risks involved with nuclear power just arean't worth it. First off many nuclear power planets have been caught disposing of nuclear waste, and an answer to there call for a place to put it was one of horrendous stupidity. Yucca mountain was chosen to be partially hollowed out and filled with the nuclear waste coming directly from the power plants. (if you don't believe me look it up, it was a govermental decision after all so finding out more about yucca would be easy to do.) Problem one there burying it in salt deposits, which is more corsive and is less dense so after a long time the waste would start to rise. Problem two in order to safely move tons of nuclear waste there going to shut down the national highway system for a whole day. Other than Yucca there are two other main risks. One, a melt down while highly unlikely is still a possibility, and this would kill a lot of life wether through contaminating the ground water around the site or if an explosion happened. Two, if there is ever an attack, and a nuclear power plant is simply blown up then it could be astronamical how many people could be killed by the radiation alone, not to mention the initial explosion. I'm sorry but I don't believe nuclear power is worth the risks but I suppose it was an intersting idea.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
Those would be ok if they were economically viable, but they aren't. I would however be in favor of subsidies for things like solar panels on roofs of buildings - maybe a tax credit.

I'm not sure that's the case. Renewable energy sources
could, I believe, become more economicly efficient
than coal or other fossil fuels within a few years
of their enitial utilization. After all, after you build
them you just need some relativly low maintaince costs.
Compare that to ussualy constantly rising prices of fossil fuels.

However, nuclear power can be even cheaper and easily sufficient
for all energy needs.

laced pacifist, I noticed in the nuclear power thread (in the
Nuclear Forum ) Russ (I think) saying that 70,000
people die annualy in the US alone due to air pollution.
I personally believe that if all the indirect effects are
added the figure will be even higher. That seems a lot worse
to me than the valid dangers and problems you've indicated.
And it's not a "what if" case either.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Indeed. The problem, however, is that the power supply
is not constant and so you need to build more (that's
why I liked my idea of an International Renewable Power Network
Market idea I talked about once in the technology forum)

Building more =more jobs...just the boost that this economey needs!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Building more =more jobs...just the boost that this economey needs!

Yeah, but no country's economy exists in a vacuum.
If the US, for example, were to invest all its energy funds
in renewable energy sources it would probably suffer
an economic downfall compared to other advanced countries
since the enitial investments would be very high and
various problems could arize. Then again, after several years
I suppose it should certainly be worth it. And the new
advances that will certainly follow in this field should
allow lots of export.

Again though, considering all the recent developments in
safety and effectivness of nuclear power, I still believe
it's the better choice. And even safe and effective nuclear
power plants employ lots of people.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by maximus
KERRIE, i see your point, but have you ever seen a landfill?

You would prefer the trash to be uncontained? A properly-lined, properly-capped landfill isn't so bad...although all that trash is a waste of resources...and the landfill is a bit of an eyesore, even when maintained with a nice lawn.

Waste disposal is a big problem, especially in areas with large populations and little land available. Few people approve of burning. Recycling programs are doing better, but still having troubles being economically viable.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
I think we need to convert to solar and wind power, and electric cars, as soon as posible. Just imagine the incredible boost to the economy, huh?

Good stuff - I hope to see more of this. But it will be tough to implement. Solar & wind power is very inefficient (hard to collect) and only works well in certain areas/applications (good for small, isolated needs rather than servicing entire power grids...at least for now). Oddly enough, there is some public resistance to wind power...mostly "NIMBY" concerns ("not in my backyard" because wind farms are thought to be ugly and dangerous to bird populations).

It will be good to see the price come down on electric/hybrid cars.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, this thread's back from the dead. Apropos

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure that's the case. Renewable energy sources
could, I believe, become more economicly efficient
than coal or other fossil fuels within a few years
of their enitial utilization. After all, after you build
them you just need some relativly low maintaince costs.
Compare that to ussualy constantly rising prices of fossil fuels.

However, nuclear power can be even cheaper and easily sufficient
for all energy needs.

I've priced solar panels for home use. The payback period is about 20-30 years. The capital costs really are that high.

I noticed in the nuclear power thread (in the
Nuclear Forum ) Russ (I think) saying that 70,000
people die annualy in the US alone due to air pollution.
I personally believe that if all the indirect effects are
added the figure will be even higher. That seems a lot worse
to me than the valid dangers and problems you've indicated.
And it's not a "what if" case either.

Yeah, that was me. I got that from some random site that said they got it from the WHO. But obviously more people are affected indirectly than are killed - I stated in that thread virtually everyone is affected indirectly.

if you don't believe me look it up

Lol, why wouldn't I believe you? I know all about the Yucca Mountains project and support it.

I'm sorry but I don't believe nuclear power is worth the risks but I suppose it was an intersting idea.

In order to adequately evaluate the risks, you must QUANTIFY them. Do that and you will see that nuclear power is by far the best choice.

Oddly enough, there is some public resistance to wind power...mostly "NIMBY" concerns.

I don't find that odd - its the American way.

 

[Zeropaxx]

The end of the eath is set in motion. july 2, 2022 the eaths magnetic field will shift and cause another ice age. killing just about everyone, except 144,000 men women and children.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I've priced solar panels for home use.

Really ?! I had no idea. I made an amateur calculation
once and I got about 5 years or less. That's pretty
strange. Are you sure that this is applicable for
large scale programs as well ? Also, do you know
how much this situation is likely to improve with the
current rate of renewable energy technology development in
a matter of a few years, for example ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Russ is right. It is 20-30 years. Not only is that the generally accepted range, but I've done some rough calculations myself that coincide with that. If you plan to stay in a place for a long time, and have some money saved up, then you could end up spending less than on energy. Of course, these payback period estimates are usually based on today's energy prices. If the cost of energy goes up significantly, that would reduce the payback period.

Also, new photovoltaic materials are being made from plastics, rather than silicon which aren't as efficient, but cost way less that silicon ones, making them much less expensive per watt, perhaps even comparable to grid power.
--
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/10/02/solar.cells.reut/index.html
--

Also, in areas with decent wind, wind power is much more economical than current silicon photovoltaic cells. If there was a large-scale effort to produce percentages of our electricity in the double digits through windpower, it could happen.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
The end of the eath is set in motion. july 2, 2022 the eaths magnetic field will shift and cause another ice age. killing just about everyone, except 144,000 men women and children.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Pull the other one, it has bells on...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
The end of the eath is set in motion. july 2, 2022 the eaths magnetic field will shift and cause another ice age. killing just about everyone, except 144,000 men women and children.

Two things:

One, were you a proponent of the Planet-X thing from May 5 of this year? Disappointed nothing happened?

Two, the magnetic field does flip every now and then, but it doesn't cause ice ages. That said, we might be due for an ice age anyway. But that's ok because we're quite capable of surviving an ice age.

Of course if this is all from your religious beliefs, you aren't listening to what I'm saying anyway.

Really ?! I had no idea. I made an amateur calculation.

Lemme see if I can find the information. I did a calculation for my parents' house a few year back (not much I can do for my apartment). A lot depends on what your goals are, but I had pretty much their entire demand covered for something like $20K. That included panels and battery backup for night-time. If your goals are less ambitious, you get less savings, but faster payback.

Are you sure that this is applicable for large scale programs as well ?

I'm sure its not. For something like an office building the calculus is different. Payback is likely shorter, but again, the capital costs are still daunting. I have a hard time selling clients on heat recovery systems for their A/C with 5 year paybacks.

In any case, I'd be interested in going over the numbers again (maybe). I'll let you know if I do and I'll share my assumptions/calculations.

Dan, I'm not sure how closely you've read that link, but I've seen it before. Its too good to be true: solar cells that cost 1/20th what they do now on a per watt basis, AKA The Holy Grail of renewable energy. Cancel all fusion power research. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[megashawn]

Well, I still think we should put people to work making energy. We just need a big building, football stadium size. Then we need a bicycle, something like a 10 speed. Instead of turning a rear tire, it turns a generator. The gear's of the bike can be changed to suit almost anyones ability.

Now, setup shop in a under-developed country with lots of unemployed people.

The worst pollution from this process would probably be a bit of HBO and some methane emmisions.

The question, of course, is how much energy could a person generate peddling a bike, and for how long? It seems with proper gearing, it could be made fairly simple to do.

And the benefits

1) Clean energy
2) Population of really strong legged people
3) Unemployment could be eliminated, as we could always use more power
4) Uhh, ok, I admit it, I'm crazy

 

[russ_watters]

A person who is in decent shape can put out 150W for an hour or so at a time.

 

[Zeropaxx]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
The end of the eath is set in motion. july 2, 2012 the eaths magnetic field will shift and cause another ice age. killing just about everyone, except 144,000 men women and children.

I have it from a good source, plus several years worth of Gathering Data and running simulations and tests of my own. let's just say that the mayan were right. Which has me surprised. I spent 7 months trying to disprove that, and could not. So in 9 years we will not have to worry about much.

 

[FZ+]

Let's start at the basics. Why would magnetic field flipping cause an ice age?

 

[jb]

and how did you try to disprove it?

(and why would you spend several years of your life on this? don't you have a job?)

in addition to putting unemployed people to work pedalling bikes, how about we buy their newborn children, place them in vaults filled with embryonic fluid, and use their heartbeats for energy?

 

[Zeropaxx]

I am sorry my choice of words was poor. in saying magnetic fild I menat to say magnetic polls.

I tryed to disprove my findings you know double checking. Also trying to disprove the math behind the Mayan Calender for one. It can not be done. Their good.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
I am sorry my choice of words was poor. in saying magnetic fild I menat to say magnetic polls.

The magnetic p-o-l-e-s are a manifestation of the orientation of the magnetic field. But you knew that, right?

 

[Zeropaxx]

Is this your opinion?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
Is this your opinion?

My opinion, which is the only one that really matters(LOL), is that your crackpot conspiracy pseudoscience belongs somewhere besides the Politics board.

 

[FZ+]

Is this your opinion?

It's Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Feynman and everyone else who has ever worked on electromagnetism's. And the experiments have shown it to be pretty darn good...

Let's do this again. Why would magnetic field reversal cause an ice age?

 

[theEVIL1]

save it for whom? Someone else will screw it up if we don't.

Let's get to work..there are redwoods to cut. BZZZZZ

 

[Dayle Record]

Energy Conservation/Management Balance

I joined this site, after reading what I considered to be a preposterous, set of postulations regarding how much energy we would need to generate to be a class 3 or 4 species. The discussion was about the nature of the advance of civilization in the universe, and our place in that progression.

I know that this planet of ours has a variable mass, depending on how much water is stored as ice. The wetter we are, the more unstable we are. There are all these scientists in France concerned with the loss of weight of the Platinum Kilo, that defines the standard for one Kilo of weight worldwide. They say it is getting lighter and they want to know where the molecules have gone. I think that we slow the warmer and wetter we get, even in space our change in mass makes a difference. I think that we have slowed just enough to make huge changes. Even the tiniest slowing would increase global warming.

I think we are in a larger system, that counts on us being a regular object, in order for the whole solar system to do what it does. What happens in a system like ours when one player, changes the game? Don't the other forces at play, exert to return us to our proper state?

I think that life is more complex than can be easily defined, the astro geologist, who pointed out that the snowballs from space, could have over geologic time made the oceans, is on to the practical reality of the spread of life. I think that the happy German fellow, that digs up bacteria from the volcanic mud, and shows us how this one species is the ancestor of us all, is onto the way life persists. He shows that potentially in the edges of the magma planet wide, there is this very hardy bacterium, that shares no DNA with any other life form, but is in all life forms existing today.

I think life is a subtle phenomenon, that exists between the macro inclinations of the universe, and the micro phenomenon. That we wake up in this large ongoing, living solution here on Earth, is miracle enough for me. I sense it's magical quality, and feel that it should be maintained.

Statements like, we have to be able to make giga wads of energy to be someone in this celestial scenario, just make it easier for energy interests to play heroic, when they are really just picking the pockets of the future. We can't heat up this world, we should not control the weather, or anything else. We have the most minimal clue, at this point about the complex synergy of life here. I see things like the man who has studied squid all his life. There are films of the squid changing their surface color in an incredibly complex communication with others of their kind, and I am reminded that we are not the only game in town, just the most deadly.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dayle Record
II know that this planet of ours has a variable mass, depending on how much water is stored as ice. The wetter we are, the more unstable we are.

No.

To be succinct, the rest of your post - also no.

But hey, welcome to PF. I recommend trying out some of our other forums where you can learn some physics.

 

[Zeropaxx]

just another two cents on my part.

Ok my Crakpot theory set aside. Let's save this mudd ball we call earth. I suggest building skyscaper sized air cleaners to take the pollution out of the air. Thats one idea.

How about figuring out what to do with Nuclear waste. in order to make Nuclear energy more safe we must be able to break it down into safer materials.

or

Cold Fusion - I don't know much on that subject, but from what I have been told, its a promising alternative.

 

[megashawn]

in addition to putting unemployed people to work pedalling bikes, how about we buy their newborn children, place them in vaults filled with embryonic fluid, and use their heartbeats for energy?

I had considered that, but we'd need someway to keep there minds entertained. I also think that the system to entertain there minds would use far more energy then what we draw from them, so it wouldn't really work out.

Maybe when AI machines take over the world they can figure it out, huh?

ps. I didn't mean anything bad by suggesting people power, it could possibly work, maybe on small scale or something. See #4 in my previous post.


? How has this thread lasted so long in the politics forum?

Cold Fusion - I don't know much on that subject, but from what I have been told, its a promising alternative.

I think I'll let mr rumsfield answer this one for ya:

 

[Zeropaxx]

...

Well to politically save the world we need to start at home and close our boarders. let the rest of the world fend for it's self. Also the US needs to invade mexico and Canada, making them part of the US.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zeropaxx
Well to politically save the world we need to start at home and close our boarders. let the rest of the world fend for it's self. Also the US needs to invade mexico and Canada, making them part of the US.

Uhhh...script for a new south park movie?

 

[laced pacifist]

to zeropaxx

i have nothing against others views, and trying to prove others wrong is a waste of eveyones time. Although if we think so close mindedly about the rest of the world then we really are doomed. On the other hand if we continue to try and take over places and make them follow our beliefs we'll just enter into more war. So we need to find an equalibrium were we only help others as much as there willing to let us help them. On a final note i would appreciate if you would think more about what you say before you post it. You obviosly don't right now, you've had to change what you have said several times and correct yourself. All i ask is that you speak from your own soul and not from the defensive place that so many of us live in.


All i want is peace,
Laced Pacifist

 

[Zeropaxx]

Bottom line is that we need to fix our own problems at home be for we decided to go fixing others problems.

I mean we went looking for a fight in Iraq when we should have help cause a revolution. The strongest steel comes form the hottest fire.