DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
Well if we use the criteria as how much impact we have had on the planet, then considering the short space of time we have been here, we have definitely been the most successful.
Truth About Global Warming
- Thread starter Dougy16
- Start date
Well if we use the criteria as how much impact we have had on the planet, then considering the short space of time we have been here, we have definitely been the most successful.
fyl2u
Striker
If you mean how much we've polluted the planet in such a short period of time, that would make us the least successful, surely?
DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
Last edited:
fyl2u
Striker
I'm trying to work out if you're being tongue-in-cheek, suggesting that "how much a species has negatively affected the environment and generally f**ked up the planet" could be a criteron for success.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 29721
Guest
My opinion of these is they are mostly bullshit. Take for example the last one you posted "Those dafties at nasa say global warming not melting the ice", it is a flat out lie.
What leads me to this stunning conclusion? Here you go:
- The First thing you will notice about that blog post is that it doesn't exist, as Forbes says in big letters "This post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards". Did you bother to read the article?
- NASA do not say any such thing, they in fact say the exact opposite, Antarctica is losing 127,000,000,000 tonnes of ice every year, Greenland is losing 286,000,000,000 tonnes (source: NASA)
- The author of the post was James Taylor from the Spark of Freedom Foundation and the Heartlands Institute. Both organisations are funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread anti-climate change propaganda.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
We have been astonishly successful at making the planet our own and decimating all other competition.
Too successful and in our success and our arrogance we will get bitten in the arse.
6 billion needs to be culled by 5.5 billion imho. Hopefully won't happen in my lifetime. Well it won't because I assume I'll be one of the first to go because by the time it happens I'll be old.
What fascinates me about the debate is no really wants to do anything or address any issues.
Philosophy hasn't caught up with how we should live our lives in a world that has 10 times as many humans as is necessary.
fyl2u
Striker
Tell that to cockroaches, termites, mosquitos, spiders, fleas and mites, bacteria, certain viruses, rats, sparrows and pigeons...
It is fascinating. I've been saying for years that they should put something in the water that makes everyone infertile, and then make people have to apply for the antidote if they want a child. Have it means-tested so that the would-be parents would have to prove they were capable financially, physically, psychologically and mentally of raising a child that would be a net benefit to the world.
It would have to be a global thing though, which would be very difficult to achieve without a fully united world government. I suppose they could put the stuff in chemtrails rather than in the water. That might work.
Last edited:
DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
Nope we are the most successful species by someway unless you use the time we have been around as the argument against.
Pertaining to this thread the negative impacts have been the negative environmental fallout that has directly caused/accelerated climate change.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Don't see them as competitionTell that to cockroaches, termites, mosquitos, spiders, fleas and mites, bacteria, certain viruses, rats, sparrows and pigeons...
I'm not that bothered tbh. Don't care about the environment.
fyl2u
Striker
Like I said before, you're using human criteria to assess human success. Other species might see things differently. Certainly "success" on an evolutionary scale might well be a species' ability to continue the longest without needing to evolve much at all, in which case on the macro scale it could be said that crocodiles or sharks or jellyfish would be the most successful, with plenty of smaller types of life having existed in a similar form as they do currently for hundreds of millions of years.
Do you see what I mean?
Last edited:
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Climate change is the classic human centred issue.
No one has really given a fuck about decimating the large fauna of the planet over the last 100 years and even more rapidly over the last few decades.
Ironically, no one cares to be arsed to do anything about it even when we are up to our necks in our own shite.
I find the whole attitude to the issue fascinating but in the end pointless because nothing of substance will be done by me or anyone on this board or anyone in power.
We are the problem but I'm doing fuck all about it apart from reducing single use plastic because it annoys the shit out of me.
Wow. Gas chambers may be more efficient.
fyl2u
Striker
Don't see them as competition
Which species do you see as competition?
Or are humans the only species on the list, which is why we won?
Don't be daft, that would be barbaric.
Big difference between killing people who are already alive and just preventing folks from reproducing until they can prove they're capable of raising a child properly.
Last edited:
Which species do you see as competition?
Or are humans the only species on the list, which is why we won?
Robots could be dangerous in the future like.
DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Which species do you see as competition?
Or are humans the only species on the list, which is why we won?
Big things that eat us. Stuff that roamed all over world until they were eradicated every time humans go a foothold in their territory.
Also, all the stuff we keep at bay with pesticides etc etc.
On the longevity and ubiquity scale, I agree with you, we will be a tiny footnote in the history of the planet.
DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
I know exactly what you mean I however still think humans are the most successful species that have ever lived.
Triceratops lived around 2 million years, during that time they ate, reproduced and were food for the Tyranosaurus rex.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Don't be daft, that would be barbaric.
Big difference between killing people who are already alive and just preventing folks from reproducing until they can prove they're capable of raising a child properly.
I said more efficient.
@fyl2u is measuring success differently. On his scale he is right.
Last edited:
DurhamRedStripe
Midfield
It's derailing the thread, I'll not discuss it further.
fyl2u
Striker
Ah, so size matters in the success argument? It's only bigger things that eat us that we're competing with, not even smaller things that eat us?
That asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs did us a massive favour. We wouldn't have reached this level of technology if the huge carnivores hadn't died out. It's really only the past few hundred years where we've had technology that would have given us a chance against them if we'd tried to encroach on their territory. Does that make us a success? I'm not so sure.
We've "won" by a technicality alone, essentially. T-Rex and its supercarnivore contemporaries around the world were probably the most successful large vertibrates in history IMO.Oh, certainly more efficient. Alternatively we could just nuke a few large population centres to get the numbers down. Faster again, and much less organisation required.
We could blame it on the muslims and give us an excuse to annex the Middle East in the process. Win-win!
Last edited:
