Adahn Posted November 14, 2004 Author Share Posted November 14, 2004 [QUOTE=Siren]I think a nuclear winter is pretty much irreparably harming the Earth, Adahn. You're talking about killing off all the vegetation, all of the animal life, contaminating the atmosphere for centuries, spewing all kinds of radiation into the air, mixing it into the water, destroying entire ecosystems, etc. If you still want to say that isn't irreparably harming the Earth, then you're just ignoring what nuclear winter [i]really[/i] does.[/QUOTE]Irreparable: Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend: irreparable harm; irreparable damages. [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The earth survived whatever cataclysm killed every single dinosaur. It took a while, but I'd say it did a pretty good job of repairing itself. If a couple nukes can do more than that, then I guess I don't know what nuclear winter really does. Of course, you can't either, seeing as it's never happened before.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] No, the reason we annihilate our enemies is because of fear of continued attacks. Let's take Afghanistan, for example, since we're talking about global conflict, and Afghanistan was pretty much the first step in the War on Terror. The US could have easily nuked the whole of that country, just laid the entire mountain ranges to waste, obliterated the entire thing...the US could have made Afghanistan the Dresden of the War on Terror. Just reduce the entire country to cinders, really, make it so no life at all could ever live there again. Yet, the US didn't, even though we had the capabilities, and even though we were hunting down our enemies. The US didn't bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age because using nuclear weapons would have been distastrous both on a global [i]political[/i] scale, and on a global [i]environmental[/i] scale.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Perhaps I should have said consequences instead of retaliation. The two are related, and we both know I'm not an English major.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I've said time and time again that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, which is what you're talking about here), a relic from the Cold War, when there were only [i]two[/i] nuclear superpowers in control, is simply a non-factor these days. You can't claim that MAD is the reason we don't use nuclear weapons, lol. We don't use nuclear weapons because it would mean the end of life as we know it, and plunge the Earth into a major environmental shitstorm that it may very well never recover from. We're already annihilating our enemies and we're not using nuclear weapons. That's a pretty big sign that we're very concerned about the environment, Adahn. Humans are not "evil," and nature is not "good." [i]Come on[/i]. You're spewing nonsense.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We're only concerned with the environment when its effects are immediate and terrible. Nuclear bombardment would affect us (politcally and environmentally, as you said). It's the slow burning of fossil fuels, burning away of the ozone, pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans, and other things such as harvesting the rainforest that are going to get us, because they don't immediately hurt us. As for me spewing nonsense, you brought up nuclear war, and it is the focus of your argument. By missing one word (retaliation instead of consequence), my entire argument seems worthless to you. If you want a good debate, do it on a broader scale, and don't pick away at my post looking for misuse of words.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT:[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][color=black]retaliation:[/color] [color=#000000]action taken in return for an injury or offense.[/color][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2]consequence: Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Close enough for me.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godelsensei Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 [COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]"Retaliation" and "consequences" are complete different words. O_o" As I've said before, animals destroy coral reefs, polute the earth's waters, and create floods. If you ever watched Hammie the Hamster, you'd know, seeing as we were provided with a very good example in the episode in which Martha's house flooded, because of a beaver building a dam. (I think GP built a nifty little boat, too, but my memory fails me in that respect.) Have you ever seen the shore of a small fresh-water lake? Deer walk on the ice and eat [i]every[/i]thing they can reach--nothing is left over, come summer, the season in which everything has to grow again. Many voyageurs died because of poisoning in the water, because beavers were rude enough to relieve themselves in it. The Asian Longhorned Beatle is killing giant forests as we speak. Humans have become more powerful, so we're doing things on a larger scale, but we're still doing the same thing animals are doing.[/FONT][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Rin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Lore and Azurewolf may go to the haead of the class today. Chaos is more a natural occurrence than something concieved artificially; hence the law of entropy. - Azurewolfe The dinosaurs didn't survive. I think that can be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Something else took it's place. The los of fossil fuels will be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Waht will thake it's place? Adahn, Ranger says next time don't move as much, an apple at 1000 yards is a difficult shot at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 [QUOTE=Lady_Rin]Lore and Azurewolf may go to the haead of the class today. Chaos is more a natural occurrence than something concieved artificially; hence the law of entropy. - Azurewolfe The dinosaurs didn't survive. I think that can be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Something else took it's place. The los of fossil fuels will be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Waht will thake it's place? Adahn, Ranger says next time don't move as much, an apple at 1000 yards is a difficult shot at best.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Nothing can break the law of entropy. Everything always wants to settle into a lower form of energy. It is just that an amazing amount of energy and coincidence has allowed for the creation of life here on earth.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I specifically said we couldn't irreparably harm the [i]earth. [/i]The earth didn't need the dinosaurs. It had everything it needed to perpetuate life. The earth really doesn't need its fossil fuels. They are only a useful energy source for us. I don't think they really serve any other purpose.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The earth will survive us.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][size=2]EDIT: [font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen][b]I'll try to stand still next time.[/b][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Samedi Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [size=1][quote=Siren]Oh, we're there right now. The world has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth, to blanket the sky with a nuclear winter, to kill off just about every single form of life on the planet. And yet, that's not happening, now is it? I'd say that's a pretty big sign of humans respecting the natural world, Adahn. After all, we haven't gone and reduced the world to an apple core, even though we're quite able to, if we put our minds to it.[/quote] What does this prove? Respecting the natural world, nothing, lol. I imagine it has more to do with self-preservation. Now, let me play devil's advocate, and argue both sides. Nature is chaotic: It is unpredictable. Volcanoes erupt, bush fires rage, creatures evolve. Species die out. It is chaotic. Civilisation is chaotic: We disrupt natural balances and alter the lay of the land. We expand without discipline. We are chaotic. Nature is logical: The strong survive, individuals want to survive. Everyone craves survival. Civilisation is logical: Humans have further uses than physical strength. We want our society to work well so that our chances of survival are higher. We are logical. People can cite examples all day. I don't know what you're aiming at Adahn. [quote name='Adahn']Nothing can break the law of entropy. Everything always wants to settle into a lower form of energy.[/quote] Where is the chaos in predictability?[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Logic and chaos are not opposites. Chaos is very logical, it's just unpredictable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Chaos and Entropy are laws just like any other physical law. They apply to everything, because they simply cannot be broken.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The focus of my argument is that nature operates within a set of rules that we may or may not know, and judging by how the environment is reacting to our actions, we're breaking some of them.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Also, I am thinking of the nature of man in general, and what would be the best system for men to coexist. I think that most 'modern' civilizations today are far from what an ideal society would be.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If we can understand the nature of nature itself, it will help us to understand the nature of man. If we can understand the nature of man, we can begin to understand the ideal environment for man. This is the logic behind nomos vs. physis: the search for man's niche.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Samedi Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [size=1][quote name='Adahn']Logic and chaos are not opposites. Chaos is very logical, it's just unpredictable.[/quote] Logical progression insists that what you just said is wrong. Predictability is logical progression, therefore, unpredictability is random and breaking logical progression. Chaos does not equal Logic. [quote]Chaos and Entropy are laws just like any other physical law. They apply to everything, because they simply cannot be broken.[/quote] What about numbers? Numbers are both logical and progressive. They are not chaotic. [quote]The focus of my argument is that nature operates within a set of rules that we may or may not know, and judging by how the environment is reacting to our actions, we're breaking some of them.[/quote] Nature is all about survival. Every animal/pack/person/group wants to survive, and more than that, excel. How are humans breaking this? [quote]Also, I am thinking of the nature of man in general, and what would be the best system for men to coexist. I think that most 'modern' civilizations today are far from what an ideal society would be.[/quote] From an individuals viewpoint, the ideal system was one where he had all of his needs, and all of his desires met. From a groups viewpoint, they want the same thing. What is an ideal society? We are striving to meet our own groups needs and desires. Already. [quote]If we can understand the nature of nature itself, it will help us to understand the nature of man. If we can understand the nature of man, we can begin to understand the ideal environment for man. This is the logic behind nomos vs. physis: the search for man's niche.[/quote] A lot of mankind is doing pretty damn well for itself, I'd say.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [QUOTE=Adahn]Irreparable: Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend: irreparable harm; irreparable damages. The earth survived whatever cataclysm killed every single dinosaur. It took a while, but I'd say it did a pretty good job of repairing itself. If a couple nukes can do more than that, then I guess I don't know what nuclear winter really does. Of course, you can't either, seeing as it's never happened before.[/quote] Nuclear winters are irreparable damage. It takes hundreds of years for the half-life to dissipate if there were to be a nuclear war on a world-wide scale, and even then, you're not looking at any substantial re-growth, because unlike simple dust and debris being scattered into the atmosphere, you're looking at radiation poisoning, genetic deformities/mutations, contamination on a global scale. An asteroid smacking into Earth is only a fraction of what is possible with nuclear winters. Also, the "Earth" didn't do anything to repair itself after the extinction of the dinosaurs, so I don't know why you're attributing the survival and multiplication of small mammals after their [i]larger predators[/i] died out to some...Earthly Goddess. The Earth as a Mother figure, which is what you're trying to portray it as, had absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no "Mother Nature" in reality. Remember that. "Mother Nature" is again a human's creative explanation/rationalization of what they cannot understand and/or what is beyond their comprehension. Think Gilgamesh, Iliad, Odyssey, the Bible. [QUOTE]Perhaps I should have said consequences instead of retaliation. The two are related, and [b]we both know I'm not an English major[/b].[/quote] And like I've told you before, don't pretend to be. [quote]EDIT: retaliation: action taken in return for an injury or offense. consequence: Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. Close enough for me.[/QUOTE] This doesn't help your original point at all, and here's why. You said, [quote name='Adahn][b]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of [consequences][/b']. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/quote] Now, if you were following the news, we're engaged in a very serious effort to seek out, attack, destroy, and [i]annihilate[/i] our enemies so they cannot attack us any further. [b]You're trying to say there that we're using a "Hands-Off" approach to war because we're afraid of [consequences][/b]. That's bullsh-t, and you would see that if you were following the news and the [i]reason[/i] why we're fighting the War on Terror. I'm not that big of a supporter for some aspects of it, but the precise reason we're [i]hunting these people down[/i] (read: annihilate them--a "Hands-ON" approach) is to [i]prevent[/i] any type of [consequence], and we're annihilating them with [i]conventional[/i] weaponry instead of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons would be overkill, because it wouldn't achieve any better result (i.e., annihilating our enemies), and would totally destroy the ecosystem. The only reason we don't engage in nuclear warfare is because it would be disastrous to the world. [QUOTE][b]We're only concerned with the environment when its effects are immediate and terrible[/b]. Nuclear bombardment would affect us (politcally and environmentally, as you said). It's the [b]slow burning of fossil fuels, burning away of the ozone, pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans, and other things such as harvesting the rainforest[/b] that are going to get us, because they don't immediately hurt us.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but am I just imagining the efforts to help clean up our environment, preserve the rainforest, conserve our fossil fuels, develop new types of energy sources, etc? [quote]As for me spewing nonsense, you brought up nuclear war, and it is the focus of your argument. By missing one word (retaliation instead of consequence), my entire argument seems worthless to you. If you want a good debate, do it on a broader scale, and don't pick away at my post looking for misuse of words.[/QUOTE] Picking away at your post looking for misuse of words? How about even after replacing "retaliation" with "consequence," your argument that humans don't give a damn about the environment/nature still makes no sense whatsoever, because we're annihilating our enemies already and just using conventional weaponry. The environmental "consequences" of using nuclear weapons are why we're not using nukes. You're trying to say that we're not "Nature-savvy," but we are, even in war. It's just not terribly obvious. What's your point? Baron, it is respecting nature, in a way. Think about it. Nuclear combat is going to seriously destroy our planet's ecosystem, and we know that. I don't think any of us would deny that, do you? It's really self-preservation out of environmental preservation. Get what I'm saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 [QUOTE=Siren]Nuclear winters are irreparable damage. It takes hundreds of years for the half-life to dissipate if there were to be a nuclear war on a world-wide scale, and even then, you're not looking at any substantial re-growth, because unlike simple dust and debris being scattered into the atmosphere, you're looking at radiation poisoning, genetic deformities/mutations, contamination on a global scale. An asteroid smacking into Earth is only a fraction of what is possible with nuclear winters.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, you're saying that nuclear winter would cause so much damage to the earth that it would never be able to support any type of life ever again? If this is what you're saying, and you're right, then I'll have to drop that argument and yield.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Also, the "Earth" didn't do anything to repair itself after the extinction of the dinosaurs, so I don't know why you're attributing the survival and multiplication of small mammals after their [i]larger predators[/i] died out to some...Earthly Goddess. The Earth as a Mother figure, which is what you're trying to portray it as, had absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no "Mother Nature" in reality. Remember that. "Mother Nature" is again a human's creative explanation/rationalization of what they cannot understand and/or what is beyond their comprehension. Think Gilgamesh, Iliad, Odyssey, the Bible.?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not personifying earth like that. I am saying that Earth was meant to support life, and that nothing we can do can upset that balance. However, if we upset it enough, we can do enough damage so that it won't support [i]us.[/i] I still disagree with your thoughts on nuclear winter. The earth has been through worse things, especially in its beginnings, and yet here [i]we[/i] are.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] This doesn't help your original point at all, and here's why. You said, Now, if you were following the news, we're engaged in a very serious effort to seek out, attack, destroy, and [i]annihilate[/i] our enemies so they cannot attack us any further. [b]You're trying to say there that we're using a "Hands-Off" approach to war because we're afraid of [consequences][/b]. That's bullsh-t, and you would see that if you were following the news and the [i]reason[/i] why we're fighting the War on Terror. I'm not that big of a supporter for some aspects of it, but the precise reason we're [i]hunting these people down[/i] (read: annihilate them--a "Hands-ON" approach) is to [i]prevent[/i] any type of [consequence], and we're annihilating them with [i]conventional[/i] weaponry instead of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons would be overkill, because it wouldn't achieve any better result (i.e., annihilating our enemies), and would totally destroy the ecosystem. [color=darkolivegreen]The only reason we don't engage in nuclear warfare is because it would be disastrous to the world[/color].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm only talking about the use of nuclear weapons. I haven't said a word about the war on terror. The only reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because we fear the consequences, just like you said in the part I turned green. What you're doing is you're inventing arguments, putting my name behind them, and shooting them down.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'm sorry, but am I just imagining the efforts to help clean up our environment, preserve the rainforest, conserve our fossil fuels, develop new types of energy sources, etc?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Efforts? What does it amount to? We are polluting the environment less quickly. We are eliminating the rainforests at a slower rate. We are using up the fossil fuels at a slower rate.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Developing new types of energy sources is something I can't argue with. This is a very good thing.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Here's an analogy. The destruction of the global environment is like a ball rolling downhill. We are not exerting enough force to stop its descent, much less move it back up. If we don't exert enough force, the ball will make it to the bottom of the hill. When that happens, the earth will no longer be able to support us, and we will die.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Picking away at your post looking for misuse of words? How about even after replacing "retaliation" with "consequence," your argument that humans don't give a damn about the environment/nature still makes no sense whatsoever, because we're annihilating our enemies already and just using conventional weaponry. [color=darkolivegreen]The environmental "consequences" of using nuclear weapons are why we're not using nukes[/color]. You're trying to say that we're not "Nature-savvy," but we are, even in war. It's just not terribly obvious. What's your point?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Consequences are consequences, Siren. Again, you're agreeing with me here (I turned it green again).[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]My point is that we are not nature savvy. We do care, but not enough to stop that ball from rolling, and surely not enough to push it back up the hill.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Baron:[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Chaos makes sense. If it were illogical, we wouldn't be able to develop theories on it like the chaos theory.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Numbers are not physical laws.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We humans are like a single creature that has existed as far back as we have known history. Our survival as a single, long-living organism is threatened by our mistreatment of the environment. We have placed comfortability above survival. You won't see a starving animal with death looming over it's head pass up a sandwich to sit down on a couch and watch t.v. We are just not aware how crucial it is that we preserve our existence by coexisting with nature.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I could think about what an ideal society would be like, but that would be a topic worth its own thread. I can only say that we are not in one.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Alot of mankind is also doing pretty damn badly. In failing to preserve our existence and prepare for the future, we are like animals. However, being conscious of the fact that we are failing to preserve our existence, and doing very little about it, makes us infinitely inferior in terms of survival.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='Adahn']I'm not personifying earth like that.[/quote] Yes, you are: [quote name='Adahn]I specifically said we couldn't irreparably harm the earth. [b]The earth didn't need[/b] the dinosaurs. [b]It had everything it needed[/b] to perpetuate life. The [b]earth really doesn't need[/b'] its fossil fuels.[/quote] [quote name='Adahn][b]Nature will [u]have the last laugh[/u][/b], as we ruin our water supply, overpopulate the earth, consume all its natural resources, and destroy its atmosphere. [b]All it has to do is get rid of us[/b], and [b]it will restore[/b'] order once again.[/quote] You're referring to both Earth and Nature as having [i]human[/i] qualities (laughter, having needs, desires, goals, etc). That's personification. You're treating Earth and Nature like they're human, Adahn. Remember, you are not trained in Lit Theory, so don't pretend to be. [QUOTE]So, you're saying that nuclear winter would cause so much damage to the earth that it would never be able to support any type of life ever again? If this is what you're saying, and you're right, then I'll have to drop that argument and yield. I am saying that Earth was meant to support life, and that nothing we can do can upset that balance. However, if we upset it enough, we can do enough damage so that it won't support us. I still disagree with your thoughts on nuclear winter. The earth has been through worse things, especially in its beginnings, and yet here we are.[/quote] Break the two eventualities down. Asteroid sends dust up into the atmosphere, causing climactic weather and ecosystem changes. Nuclear warfare sends [i]radioactive[/i] dust up into the atmosphere, along with massively contaminating plant life, water, soil, animal life, and in global thermonuclear war, you're talking about a veritable blanketing of mushroom clouds. That's a lot of contamination and radioactivity. It may not seem it, but nuclear war is going to be far, far, far more hazardous and crippling to Earth's ecosystem than just an asteroid slamming into us. Just think about it. [QUOTE]I'm only talking about the use of nuclear weapons. I haven't said a word about the war on terror. The only reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because we fear the consequences, just like you said in the part I turned green. What you're doing is you're inventing arguments, putting my name behind them, and shooting them down.[/QUOTE] I'm not inventing arguments at all. You were treating nuclear warfare as the only way to annihilate our enemies, when, clearly, based on the War on Terror, your claim is [i]false[/i]. Like Godel has said, "retaliation" and "consequence" are actually very different words, with very different meanings. "Retaliation" is [i]specifically[/i] an [i]attack[/i] done in response. "Consequence" is simply cause and effect. They're not the same word (or the same meaning), but you're still trying to establish some type of correlative link between the two. Pay attention to this: they are nowhere near the same idea. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory. Don't pretend to be. With that said, you used "retaliation" first. Either you have a very substandard vocabulary and grasp of the finer points of the English language, or you indeed meant to use "retaliation," got called on it, and now are trying to backtrack. I personally feel it's a combination of the two. Now, in this entire thread, you've been preaching how horrible man is, how man is destroying nature, how man treats nature as something to be destroyed or subjugated, etc, but now you're saying we're not so bad? You see, it's not a matter of [i]me[/i] now agreeing with [i]you[/i]. It's a matter that [i]you[/i] are now agreeing with [i]me[/i]. Look at what I've been saying all along, and even back when you used "retaliation." I was always saying that we don't use nuclear weapons because it would be disastrous to the global environment. I've been saying that all along, Adahn, and now you're saying the same thing, when only a few posts back, you were portraying man as some evil and destructive force that seeks to "rape" nature and that knows absolutely nothing about preserving nature. Your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't even realize it. [QUOTE]Efforts? What does it amount to? We are polluting the environment less quickly. We are eliminating the rainforests at a slower rate. We are using up the fossil fuels at a slower rate.[/QUOTE] I think the pure and simple fact that we [i]are[/i] concerned, that we [i]are[/i] taking action and undertaking efforts to help in those areas is proof that humans [i]do[/i] care, and is punching a major hole in your argument that humans don't give a sh-t about the environment. Why minimize the actions of various environmentally-concerned groups, Adahn? They're doing good work. They're cleaning up the Earth. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what you wanted the entire time? [QUOTE]Developing new types of energy sources is something I can't argue with. This is a very good thing.[/QUOTE] And there's research being done for it every single day. Another hole is punched into your argument. [QUOTE]Here's an analogy. The destruction of the global environment is like a ball rolling downhill. We are not exerting enough force to stop its descent, much less move it back up. If we don't exert enough force, the ball will make it to the bottom of the hill. When that happens, the earth will no longer be able to support us, and we will die.[/QUOTE] Even though the future may look grim, I hardly think that constitutes your Nihilistic treatment and assessment of the human race, Adahn. Don't be a tree-hugging hippie. [QUOTE]Consequences are consequences, Siren. Again, you're agreeing with me here (I turned it green again).[/QUOTE] Like I said above, your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't realize it. You're now agreeing with me. It's not the other way around. [QUOTE]My point is that we are not nature savvy. We do care, but not enough to stop that ball from rolling, and surely not enough to push it back up the hill.[/QUOTE] So, because we're unable to make everything hunkydory [i]perfect[/i] (but seriously...has there [i]ever[/i] been a "[i]perfect[/i]" ecosystem?) again...invalidates any and all efforts to help improve the ecosystem? I think that we are nature savvy, just because we see the problem and are addressing it in the best ways that we can at this point in time. Being "nature savvy" does not mean being a magician, Adahn, and I'm getting that you've got some Idealistic view of what "nature savvy" really means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 [QUOTE=Siren] You're referring to both Earth and Nature as having [i]human[/i] qualities (laughter, having needs, desires, goals, etc). That's personification. You're treating Earth and Nature like they're human, Adahn.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I know I was personifying it, but not as Mother Nature. I specifically said, "I'm not personifying earth [b][i]like that[/i][/b]." I am treating the earth as a living organism, not one with a mind of its own or any emotions or feelings, but as something that can 'live' by supporting life, just as one can say any other ecosystem 'lives'.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] It may not seem it, but nuclear war is going to be far, far, far more hazardous and crippling to Earth's ecosystem than just an asteroid slamming into us. Just think about it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I know it's bad, but would it be enough to ruin the possibility of any life on earth? So long as life exists on earth, I view it as alive.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'm not inventing arguments at all. You were treating nuclear warfare as the only way to annihilate our enemies, when, clearly, based on the War on Terror, your claim is [i]false[/i].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I made no such claim. I said that we don't use nuclear warfare because of fear of 'retaliation'. Consequences is a [i]better[/i] word, but retaliation still works. If we used nuclear weapons, there would be an uprising and overthrow of the government in our own country, not to mention having war declared on us by all nations who can put up a fight. I'd call that retaliation.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Like Godel has said, "retaliation" and "consequence" are actually very different words, with very different meanings. "Retaliation" is [i]specifically[/i] an [i]attack[/i] done in response. "Consequence" is simply cause and effect. They're not the same word (or the same meaning), but you're still trying to establish some type of correlative link between the two. Pay attention to this: they are nowhere near the same idea. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory. Don't pretend to be. With that said, you used "retaliation" first. Either you have a very substandard vocabulary and grasp of the finer points of the English language, or you indeed meant to use "retaliation," got called on it, and now are trying to backtrack. I personally feel it's a combination of the two.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I did attempt to backtrack, only to find out that I wasn't wrong to begin with, as I have shown.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Now, in this entire thread, you've been preaching how horrible man is, how man is destroying nature, how man treats nature as something to be destroyed or subjugated, etc, but now you're saying we're not so bad? You see, it's not a matter of [i]me[/i] now agreeing with [i]you[/i]. It's a matter that [i]you[/i] are now agreeing with [i]me[/i]..[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are so bad. We [i]could[/i] preserve nature completely and halt the slow destruction of the earth, but that would make too many people uncomfortable. We are the only creature in existence that puts comfortability above survival.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agreed with you on the point that nuclear war would be disastrous to the environment. I didn't somehow arrive at that conclusion in this thread. I would say that on that point, we are in agreement.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Look at what I've been saying all along, and even back when you used "retaliation." I was always saying that we don't use nuclear weapons because it would be disastrous to the global environment. I've been saying that all along, Adahn, and now you're saying the same thing, when only a few posts back, you were portraying man as some evil and destructive force that seeks to "rape" nature and that knows absolutely nothing about preserving nature. Your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't even realize it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Retaliation works. Man knows about preserving nature, and what makes him so terrible is that he doesn't do everything in his power to do so.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think the pure and simple fact that we [i]are[/i] concerned, that we [i]are[/i] taking action and undertaking efforts to help in those areas is proof that humans [i]do[/i] care, and is punching a major hole in your argument that humans don't give a sh-t about the environment. Why minimize the actions of various environmentally-concerned groups, Adahn? They're doing good work. They're cleaning up the Earth. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what you wanted the entire time?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are doing everything within the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And there's research being done for it every single day. Another hole is punched into your argument.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Again, research is a good thing (it's what I plan to go into), but it's not enough.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Even though the future may look grim, I hardly think that constitutes your Nihilistic treatment and assessment of the human race, Adahn. Don't be a tree-hugging hippie.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I started the argument as a tree-hugging hippie, and by I will end it as one.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Like I said above, your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't realize it. You're now agreeing with me. It's not the other way around.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Environmental consequences [i]coupled[/i] with retaliation from inside and outside our country are why we don't use nukes. We are in agreement on the terms of environmental consequences, but I don't know how you feel about retaliation, yet.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] So, because we're unable to make everything hunkydory [i]perfect[/i] (but seriously...has there [i]ever[/i] been a "[i]perfect[/i]" ecosystem?) again...invalidates any and all efforts to help improve the ecosystem?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The efforts do not hurt, but are they enough? Again, we only act within the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think that we are nature savvy, just because we see the problem and are addressing it in the [color=darkolivegreen]best ways that we can[/color] at this point in time. Being "nature savvy" does not mean being a magician, Adahn, and I'm getting that you've got some Idealistic view of what "nature savvy" really means.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Here, let me turn something else green. Will you stand by that statement? I think that if we really were concerned about our survival, we would do more than what we are doing now. There are better ways to halt our destruction of the earth, but, again, they fall outside the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='Adahn']I know I was personifying it, but not as Mother Nature. I specifically said, "I'm not personifying earth like that." I am treating the earth as a living organism, not one with a mind of its own or any emotions or feelings, but as something that can 'live' by supporting life, just as one can say any other ecosystem 'lives'.[/quote] Firstly, Mother Nature [i]is[/i] a personification of Nature. You may not realize it, you may not admit to it, but you [i]are[/i] treating Nature in that [i]specific[/i] way. The Earth is [i]not[/i] a living organism, too. It's simply matter, a celestial body that has no consciousness, no emotions, no feelings...a body that is simply there, not as anything that is "alive" in any way whatsoever. You're still personifying it, by saying it's alive. Again, stop pretending you're trained in Lit Theory, dude, because I actually [i]am[/i] trained in it. [QUOTE]I know it's bad, but would it be enough to ruin the possibility of any life on earth? So long as life exists on earth, I view it as alive.[/QUOTE] With enough of a radiation half-life from a global thermonuclear war that could last for a couple of centuries, if all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be utilized? I think that'd effectively ruin any possibility at all of any life on Earth. [QUOTE]I made no such claim. I said that we don't use nuclear warfare because of fear of 'retaliation'. Consequences is a better word, but retaliation still works. If we used nuclear weapons, there would be an uprising and overthrow of the government in our own country, not to mention having war declared on us by all nations who can put up a fight. I'd call that retaliation. [...] Environmental consequences coupled with retaliation from inside and outside our country are why we don't use nukes. We are in agreement on the terms of environmental consequences, but I don't know how you feel about retaliation, yet.[/QUOTE] If you say you made no such claim (though my choice of words was "treating," and these two terms are exceedingly different), let's examine the statement, then, shall we? [quote name='Adahn']The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/quote] Now, pay attention to me here, because you need to understand what I'm saying. You do not have to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. Read this very carefully, Adahn. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. We're annihilating the enemy already, and we're using conventional weaponry. There are no nuclear weapons being used, and we're still beating them. Let this sink in. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy, especially in a war that you're winning just by utilizing conventional weaponry. If we're already winning with conventional weaponry, why in the hell would we use nuclear weapons? Because it would mean an environmental cataclysm on a global scale. Retaliation is just a small part of it, because without a nuclear strike, there would be no retaliation, and without retaliation, there is no environmental cataclysm. Do you understand this? We do not use nuclear weapons not out of a fear of retaliation; we do not use nuclear weapons out of the knowledge that it will destroy the global ecosystem. This isn't a difficult point to understand. [QUOTE]I did attempt to backtrack, only to find out that I wasn't wrong to begin with, as I have shown.[/QUOTE] How did you show you were right? There's still a major, major error in your judgment, as I have shown above. [quote]We are so bad. We could preserve nature completely and halt the slow destruction of the earth, [b]but that would make too many people uncomfortable[/b]. We are the only creature in existence that puts comfortability above survival. We are doing everything [b]within the limits of our comfortability[/b]. The efforts do not hurt, but are they enough? Again, we only act [b]within the limits of our comfortability[/b]. Here, let me turn something else green. Will you stand by that statement? I think that if we really were concerned about our survival, we would do more than what we are doing now. There are better ways to halt our destruction of the earth, but, again, they fall outside [b]the limits of our comfortability[/b].[/quote] I'd think that the people involved in NJPIRG (an environmental clean-up group with a chapter on-campus here) would beg to differ. I routinely see pictures and read articles about them cleaning up rivers...they get up to their waist sometimes in dirty water, wading through it, just to make sure it's clean. They don't seem terribly comfortable to me. Call me crazy, but those cleaning up areas around oil spills do not seem too comfortable. As I recall, planting trees, trying to preserve national forests, etc, isn't all that easy on the back and legs. I do believe people recycle for a reason, too. And for those who aren't on the front lines, as it were, do you believe they're spraying aerosol cans outside, as they say, "Global warming? **** that. Screw the grandkids, I'm cold now."? There is car emission testing to cut down on the pollutants found in car exhaust. People are being encouraged to conserve our natural resources, and people are making a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources. Adahn, mankind is not obsessed with destroying the environment. We're not locusts, which, incidentally, are one of the greatest threats to the environment, because they destroy so many different types of vegetation. In recent years, endangered species are being protected more and more, with strict penalties if you should go out and kill say, a panda. You're trying to portray mankind as some evil, destructive entity that's going to doom the environment, who cares very little about what goes on in the environment. Your claim is obviously [i]false[/i]. [QUOTE]I agreed with you on the point that nuclear war would be disastrous to the environment. I didn't somehow arrive at that conclusion in this thread. I would say that on that point, we are in agreement.[/QUOTE] I've been saying it all along, and only recently have you started to echo those comments, the same comments of mine that have emphasized the reasons why we do not use nuclear weapons, the same comments of mine that are praising mankind for not using nuclear weapons to win conflicts that can be won with conventional weaponry. [QUOTE]Again, research is a good thing (it's what I plan to go into), but it's not enough.[/QUOTE] Do you expect insta-technology? [quote]I started the argument as a tree-hugging hippie, and by I will end it as one.[/QUOTE] And the tree-hugging hippies have never done any good whatsoever, because they're always more concerned with their image than actually doing anything about anything. Tree-hugging hippies are the ones who give the environmentalist movement a bad name. Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 [QUOTE=Siren]Firstly, Mother Nature [i]is[/i] a personification of Nature. You may not realize it, you may not admit to it, but you [i]are[/i] treating Nature in that [i]specific[/i] way. The Earth is [i]not[/i] a living organism, too. It's simply matter, a celestial body that has no consciousness, no emotions, no feelings...a body that is simply there, not as anything that is "alive" in any way whatsoever. You're still personifying it, by saying it's alive. Again, stop pretending you're trained in Lit Theory, dude, because I actually [i]am[/i] trained in it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Mother Nature is [i]a [/i]personification of Nature. I know I'm personifying Nature. If what I've described is the conventional idea of Mother Nature, I apologize for being unaware. I always thought it went along the lines of karma, as in; you'd better recycle or you'll get struck by lightning, watch out for Mother Nature! I'm only describing the results of ruining our environment in what I think is the logical turn of events. It doesn't have a will to do bad unto some and good unto others. It doesn't have to do anything to get rid of us or punish us, the direct result of our actions will cause this.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] With enough of a radiation half-life from a global thermonuclear war that could last for a couple of centuries, if all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be utilized? I think that'd effectively ruin any possibility at all of any life on Earth.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're postulating, here. We'd have to nuke the earth so much over such a large area so as to kill everything on land, and everything under the sea. If there [i]were[/i] a war, I would think that the strikes would be very concentrated, and some parts (possibly even large parts) of the earth would still be able to support life.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Now, pay attention to me here, because you need to understand what I'm saying. You do not have to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. Read this very carefully, Adahn. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. We're annihilating the enemy already, and we're using conventional weaponry. There are no nuclear weapons being used, and we're still beating them. Let this sink in. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy, especially in a war that you're winning just by utilizing conventional weaponry. If we're already winning with conventional weaponry, why in the hell would we use nuclear weapons? Because it would mean an environmental cataclysm on a global scale.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I used annihilate because in my opinion, only nuclear weapons have the destructive force to cause an annihilation of anything. We can win, even decisively, but we cannot completely eradicate terrorists, especially now that they've all spread from the concentrated area they onced existed in.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Retaliation is just a small part of it, because without a nuclear strike, there would be no retaliation, and without retaliation, there is no environmental cataclysm. Do you understand this? We do not use nuclear weapons not out of a fear of retaliation; we do not use nuclear weapons out of the knowledge that it will destroy the global ecosystem. This isn't a difficult point to understand.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I disagree. If we had political immunity (from ourselves and other countries), and it were very convenient to use nuclear weapons, I think we would use them. Because of the political ramifications, it's not even an option.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] How did you show you were right? There's still a major, major error in your judgment, as I have shown above.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Retaliation is still a very important deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. Environmental factors are important, but not as important as politics. I guess, unless either of us can provide definitive proof for our argument, we will merely stand in disagreement against each other.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'd think that the people involved in NJPIRG (an environmental clean-up group with a chapter on-campus here) would beg to differ. I routinely see pictures and read articles about them cleaning up rivers...they get up to their waist sometimes in dirty water, wading through it, just to make sure it's clean. They don't seem terribly comfortable to me. Call me crazy, but those cleaning up areas around oil spills do not seem too comfortable. As I recall, planting trees, trying to preserve national forests, etc, isn't all that easy on the back and legs. I do believe people recycle for a reason, too.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I guess I can't beat around the bush, can I? In order to halt the destruction of the environment and let it balance itself once again (if it's even possible at this point), we would need to make ourselves alot more uncomfortable. I'm talking going almost completely native. We'd have to give up electricity, because the only power that doesn't harm the environment is wind power, and we all know how much THAT generates. It would end our civilization as we know it. We'd have to give up cars, t.v., planes, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not going to give up those things (last of all my computer) to 'save the world'. This is what I meant by comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And for those who aren't on the front lines, as it were, do you believe they're spraying aerosol cans outside, as they say, "Global warming? **** that. Screw the grandkids, I'm cold now."?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]No...[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] There is car emission testing to cut down on the pollutants found in car exhaust. People are being encouraged to conserve our natural resources, and people are making a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Our conservation efforts amount to individuals using less natural resources, and is balanced by an increase of individuals (pop. growth) requiring natural resources of their own, resulting in no actual change.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Adahn, mankind is not obsessed with destroying the environment. We're not locusts, which, incidentally, are one of the greatest threats to the environment, because they destroy so many different types of vegetation.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are concerned with keeping ourselves comfortable (re-defined above). We will protect the environment as much as we can so long as we keep all the nice things we've invented to amuse ourselves.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] You're trying to portray mankind as some evil, destructive entity that's going to doom the environment, who cares very little about what goes on in the environment.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We just care less about the environment than we do of perpetuating our high quality of life.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Your claim is obviously [i]false[/i].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Is it so obviously false?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I've been saying it all along, and only recently have you started to echo those comments, the same comments of mine that have emphasized the reasons why we do not use nuclear weapons, the same comments of mine that are praising mankind for not using nuclear weapons to win conflicts that can be won with conventional weaponry.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nuclear weapons would have been easier in eliminating our enemies, but we'd be portrayed as very, very evil people. They are essentially not a viable solution to any conflict, for whatever reason. Should we really pat ourselves on the back for not using them, when the consequences do not allow it, anyway?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Do you expect insta-technology?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't expect a technological advancement that will let us keep our standard of living [i]and[/i] stop destroying the environment. Not now, not ever.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And the tree-hugging hippies have never done any good whatsoever, because they're always more concerned with their image than actually doing anything about anything. Tree-hugging hippies are the ones who give the environmentalist movement a bad name. Good job.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I thought you were being sarcastic...[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureWolf Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 [QUOTE]We'd have to give up electricity, because the only power that doesn't harm the environment is wind power, and we all know how much THAT generates. [/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]WHAT THE...? :twitch: Could you please elaborate and explain to me how electrical energy is harmful to the environment?! At the same time, please tell me how "wind power" is any different.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 [QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]WHAT THE...? :twitch: Could you please elaborate and explain to me how electrical energy is harmful to the environment?! At the same time, please tell me how "wind power" is any different.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'll just use 3 examples of power that I know, in addition to wind power.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Nuclear power=Nuclear waste[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Burning of fossil fuels=Lots of bad things released.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. Hydroelectric power=ruins ecosystem around rivers used.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]4. Wind power=Relatively small (if any) environmental effect.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureWolf Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 [QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Nuclear power=Nuclear waste[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Burning of fossil fuels=Lots of bad things released.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. Hydroelectric power=ruins ecosystem around rivers used.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]4. Wind power=Relatively small (if any) environmental effect.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Alright, you listed one thing that was electricity-related. That's only one means to harness electrical energy. That doesn't make the energy itself bad. Just because we generate it in a way that (supposedly) does damage to the environment doesn't make electricity inherently bad. Electrical energy is nice and awesome, and the closest thing to the most efficient type of energy: light. Personally, I've never even heard of hydroelectric power plants harming ecosystems and rivers. Is the effect noticeably profound?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 [QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]Alright, you listed one thing that was electricity-related. That's only one means to harness electrical energy. That doesn't make the energy itself bad. Just because we generate it in a way that (supposedly) does damage to the environment doesn't make electricity inherently bad. Electrical energy is nice and awesome, and the closest thing to the most efficient type of energy: light. Personally, I've never even heard of hydroelectric power plants harming ecosystems and rivers. Is the effect noticeably profound?[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You're right, electricity isn't inherently bad, but the most common forms of generating it are disastrous to the environment.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I did forget solar power.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]All I have is hearsay, but I've heard that the colorado river ecosystem was changed very much, and for the worse. I could be wrong.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 [quote name='Adahn']Mother Nature is a personification of Nature. I know I'm personifying Nature. If what I've described is the conventional idea of Mother Nature, I apologize for being unaware. I always thought it went along the lines of karma, as in; you'd better recycle or you'll get struck by lightning, watch out for Mother Nature! I'm only describing the results of ruining our environment in what I think is the logical turn of events. It doesn't have a will to do bad unto some and good unto others. It doesn't have to do anything to get rid of us or punish us, the direct result of our actions will cause this.[/quote]Karma has nothing to do with the personification of Nature. Each and every time you say, "The Earth will do this," "It has what it needs," etc, you're personifying Nature. So now if you'll stop treating Nature like some higher power, perhaps there can be some rational discussion coming from you for a change. [QUOTE]You're postulating, here. We'd have to nuke the earth so much over such a large area so as to kill everything on land, and everything under the sea. If there were a war, I would think that the strikes would be very concentrated, and some parts (possibly even large parts) of the earth would still be able to support life.[/QUOTE]I hardly doubt I'm postulating anything. If you were to read what the effects were of a singular strike, imagine that all over the globe. Some areas may avoid direct strikes, but radiation and such have this nasty habit of getting carried over longer distances, what with wind currents and such. Considering what superpowers have (or may have) nuclear weapons, too, and you're talking about a huge nuclear holocaust. [QUOTE]I used annihilate because in my opinion, only nuclear weapons have the destructive force to cause an annihilation of anything.[/QUOTE]I think suicide bombers, and the populations of the Gaza Strip might disagree with that. There's just about nothing left of a suicide bomber after he (or she) detonates those explosives they have strapped to their chests, and this is just talking about simple, conventional explosives on a personal level. The Smart Bombs used by the US during Gulf War I left houses in rubble. Arafat had been confined to his palace for the past three years because Israeli tank cannons can rip through human flesh pretty easily, and turned parts of his palace into cement swiss-cheese. I think you underestimate the destructive power of conventional weaponry. [QUOTE]We can win, even decisively, but we cannot completely eradicate terrorists, especially now that they've all spread from the concentrated area they onced existed in. I disagree. If we had political immunity (from ourselves and other countries), and it were very convenient to use nuclear weapons, I think we would use them. Because of the political ramifications, it's not even an option. Retaliation is still a very important deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. Environmental factors are important, but not as important as politics. I guess, unless either of us can provide definitive proof for our argument, we will merely stand in disagreement against each other. Nuclear weapons would have been easier in eliminating our enemies, but we'd be portrayed as very, very evil people. They are essentially not a viable solution to any conflict, for whatever reason. Should we really pat ourselves on the back for not using them, when the consequences do not allow it, anyway?[/QUOTE]They were always spread around the globe, but the Middle East was the breeding ground...the nerve center...the mind, if you will. Knock out the mind, and you knock out the body. It's really psychological warfare. Fallujah is a perfect example of this. Terrorists were using the US pull-out from Fallujah back in April to show how the US were a bunch of Imperialistic cowards, who had been beaten back by the "Freedom fighters." We take Fallujah, and we have a major psychological advantage. I think you're not even considering psychological warfare, actually. We don't need to use nuclear weapons to win this war. There are no political pressures that deter us from using them; there is no retaliation that deters us from using them. Frankly, I find your comments regarding political pressure very asinine. "If we had political immunity, we'd use nuclear weapons." [i]Please[/i]. There's a reason we've avoided nuclear warfare for the past 50+ years, and it's not political. The only two times to my knowledge that the US has used nukes are Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities whose later generations still show the after-effects of nuclear radiation, even some 50 years later. Even if every nation in the world gave us the OKAY to use nukes, do you honestly believe we would? Of course not, because using nuclear weapons is a last resort, because of the inherent environmental dangers associated with nuclear materials. War is psychological. You break the soldiers, you disillusion them, and you have victory, and just by pushing on through this campaign, through the victories in various cities using conventional weaponry, we're doing just that: breaking the enemy's morale. [QUOTE]I guess I can't beat around the bush, can I? In order to halt the destruction of the environment and let it balance itself once again (if it's even possible at this point), we would need to make ourselves alot more uncomfortable. I'm talking going almost completely native. We'd have to give up electricity, because the only power that doesn't harm the environment is wind power, and we all know how much THAT generates. It would end our civilization as we know it. We'd have to give up cars, t.v., planes, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not going to give up those things (last of all my computer) to 'save the world'. This is what I meant by comfortability. No... Our conservation efforts amount to individuals using less natural resources, and is balanced by an increase of individuals (pop. growth) requiring natural resources of their own, resulting in no actual change. We are concerned with keeping ourselves comfortable (re-defined above). We will protect the environment as much as we can so long as we keep all the nice things we've invented to amuse ourselves. We just care less about the environment than we do of perpetuating our high quality of life.[/QUOTE]You do realize that Thoreau, Rousseau, and a few other Naturalist Philosophers didn't exactly have their heads on straight? I notice how you claim to want "Balance," and yet your solutions are often so far skewed on the other end of the spectrum that you can't possibly be supporting balance at all. Destroying the planet is on one end of the spectrum; your idea is on the extreme other end. [QUOTE]Is it so obviously false?[/QUOTE]Yes. Yes it is. You just refuse to admit it. [QUOTE]I don't expect a technological advancement that will let us keep our standard of living and stop destroying the environment. Not now, not ever.[/QUOTE]Okay...then if you don't expect any type of technology to help...why do you say research isn't enough? By that I mean, you don't expect anything good from it, I gather, and yet you're saying fuel research isn't good enough, which implies you want something productive to come out of it? Let's see you reconcile this one. [quote]I thought you were being sarcastic...[/QUOTE]Um, no. I wasn't. Tree-hugging hippies aren't doing anything more than chaining themselves to trees and causing political strife. They're not helping. They're like the environmentalist equivalents of Michael Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 [QUOTE=Siren]Karma has nothing to do with the personification of Nature. Each and every time you say, "The Earth will do this," "It has what it needs," etc, you're personifying Nature. So now if you'll stop treating Nature like some higher power, perhaps there can be some rational discussion coming from you for a change.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Very well, I will not treat nature as an entity.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I hardly doubt I'm postulating anything. If you were to read what the effects were of a singular strike, imagine that all over the globe. Some areas may avoid direct strikes, but radiation and such have this nasty habit of getting carried over longer distances, what with wind currents and such.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I very much doubt that even nuclear warfare could eliminate all forms of life on the earth.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think you underestimate the destructive power of conventional weaponry.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Very well, annihilation of our enemies can be done without the use of nuclear weapons.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] They were always spread around the globe, but the Middle East was the breeding ground...the nerve center...the mind, if you will. Knock out the mind, and you knock out the body. It's really psychological warfare. Fallujah is a perfect example of this. Terrorists were using the US pull-out from Fallujah back in April to show how the US were a bunch of Imperialistic cowards, who had been beaten back by the "Freedom fighters." We take Fallujah, and we have a major psychological advantage. I think you're not even considering psychological warfare, actually.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It was not my will to discuss warfare. I know very little, if anything about it. I will not challenge you.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] We don't need to use nuclear weapons to win this war. There are no political pressures that deter us from using them; there is no retaliation that deters us from using them. Frankly, I find your comments regarding political pressure very asinine. "If we had political immunity, we'd use nuclear weapons." [i]Please[/i]. There's a reason we've avoided nuclear warfare for the past 50+ years, and it's not political. The only two times to my knowledge that the US has used nukes are Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities whose later generations still show the after-effects of nuclear radiation, even some 50 years later.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Very well, retaliation has nothing to do with the choice whether or not to use nuclear weapons in any situation.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] You do realize that Thoreau, Rousseau, and a few other Naturalist Philosophers didn't exactly have their heads on straight? I notice how you claim to want "Balance," and yet your solutions are often so far skewed on the other end of the spectrum that you can't possibly be supporting balance at all. Destroying the planet is on one end of the spectrum; your idea is on the extreme other end.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Allow me to clarify myself. I propose a balance between what is necessary for survival of humanity and what is comfortable. Not knowing where that balance lies, I proposed something drastic. I'd rather ensure survival completely than doom myself. If you can find the balance, I'd appreciate hearing where it lies. Until we hit that midpoint, our chances of survival are slowly dropping.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Okay...then if you don't expect any type of technology to help...why do you say research isn't enough? By that I mean, you don't expect anything good from it, I gather, and yet you're saying fuel research isn't good enough, which implies you want something productive to come out of it? Let's see you reconcile this one. [/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't expect our efforts to come close to the midpoint, where the environment is no longer being harmed. If I am wrong, then that's good.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Um, no. I wasn't. Tree-hugging hippies aren't doing anything more than chaining themselves to trees and causing political strife. They're not helping. They're like the environmentalist equivalents of Michael Moore.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I am not, never have been, and never will be a hippie. I will, however, argue for a balance between survival and comfortability, where nature is what must equilibrate.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 [quote name='Adahn']Very well, I will not treat nature as an entity.[/quote] Good. Thank you. [QUOTE]I very much doubt that even nuclear warfare could eliminate all forms of life on the earth.[/QUOTE] Apart from cockroaches, you'd be awfully surprised what global thermonuclear war could do. [QUOTE]Very well, annihilation of our enemies can be done without the use of nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] I shouldn't have had to prove that point. It should be common knowledge at this point, given the past 50 years of victories in non-nuclear warfare. [QUOTE]It was not my will to discuss warfare. I know very little, if anything about it. I will not challenge you.[/QUOTE] Good. Thank you. [QUOTE]Very well, retaliation has nothing to do with the choice whether or not to use nuclear weapons in any situation.[/QUOTE] It plays a minor part in it, but not in the way you were saying. And ultimately, retaliation is only a part; environmental concerns are the larger issue, especially in your absurd and Idealistic hypothetical situation where everyone in the world supported our use of them. [QUOTE]Allow me to clarify myself. I propose a balance between what is necessary for survival of humanity and what is comfortable. Not knowing where that balance lies, I proposed something drastic. I'd rather ensure survival completely than doom myself. If you can find the balance, I'd appreciate hearing where it lies. Until we hit that midpoint, our chances of survival are slowly dropping. I don't expect our efforts to come close to the midpoint, where the environment is no longer being harmed. If I am wrong, then that's good.[/QUOTE] Let's examine what you proposed, versus what is being done, because I think that will actually be an excellent illustration of how to achieve balance. On one hand, we have what is being done already: conservation, regeneration, replantation, preservation, revitalization, and clean-up. On the other hand, we have your idea: a total, radical upheaval of modern society, stripping all of humanity of every single advancement developed since the advent of civilization, including all types of medical treatment, emergency transportation, virtually any and everything that can be seen as harming the environment in any small way. I think the better course of action (and the course of action with the highest probability of achieving a balance) is quite obvious. [quote]I am not, never have been, and never will be a hippie. I will, however, argue for a balance between survival and comfortability, where nature is what must equilibrate.[/QUOTE] Okay, then stop arguing that nature is getting raped, and stop accusing mankind of being nature-haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]We do have good intentions, I just hope it's enough. What will we do if it's not? We can't fix things faster than we break them, it just doesn't make sense. I expect we will reach a turning point where the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us. Then, we will find something to alleviate the consequences, while the problem worsens.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If it doesn't happen, then that's a good thing, but I really can't see anything undoing what we've already done.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]With all that mostly cleared up, what do you think the ideal society for man would be like? What would be the best way for man to coexist with his environment? It doesn't have to be a utopia, of course.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 [QUOTE=Adahn]We do have good intentions, I just hope it's enough. What will we do if it's not? We can't fix things faster than we break them, it just doesn't make sense. I expect we will reach a turning point where the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us. Then, we will find something to alleviate the consequences, while the problem worsens. If it doesn't happen, then that's a good thing, but I really can't see anything undoing what we've already done.[/quote] If it isn't enough, or if it doesn't seem to be helping enough, we'll figure something else out, and we'll double our efforts, devise new ways to help remedy this. Mankind is hardly doomed, because it's still very possible to fix a lot of what's wrong. When you think about the only finite resources (coals, fossil fuels, etc), they're finite because they dry up, and they would have dried up eventually. And really, it's not [i]modern[/i] society's fault; the immense coal mining back in the 50s and earlier is really what drained those resources, when you think about it. There are coal mining towns in the Virginia/Kentucky/Pennsylvania areas that have been around for decades that are drying up. Any effort on modern society's part is a very noble thing, I think, and I seriously do not think we can be faulted for that. We're going to be doing more, as well. When more and more people become aware of the problem, more and more will be done. It's a type of social awareness leading to social progression. [quote]With all that mostly cleared up, what do you think the ideal society for man would be like? What would be the best way for man to coexist with his environment? It doesn't have to be a utopia, of course.[/QUOTE] Well, firstly, the ideal society for man would not be a society ripped out of Thoreau's Walden, because that wouldn't help anyone or anything. Conversely, tearing down all of nature is clearly not beneficial, and would not be the ideal society, either. Regarding current society, I feel it's closer to to what an ideal society is than some are suggesting in this thread. I mean, let's be frank here. Our society today isn't perfect, but it's not doomed. We're actually doing pretty good on most things, and environmental concern is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adahn Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 [quote name='Siren']If it isn't enough, or if it doesn't seem to be helping enough, we'll figure something else out, and we'll double our efforts, devise new ways to help remedy this.[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, you have a certain faith in the fact that mankind will do what's necessary to survive?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Mankind is hardly doomed, because it's still very possible to fix a lot of what's wrong. When you think about the only finite resources (coals, fossil fuels, etc), they're finite because they dry up, and they would have dried up eventually.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, those are the only things we can't replace. However, there are things that we [i]can[/i] replace, but not as fast as we use them. Trees can be replaced, but we'll always cut them down faster than we regrow them. Freshwater sources are replenished naturally, but we are slowly draining and contaminating these sources. I however, am fine, because I'm surrounded by the great lakes.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And really, it's not [i]modern[/i] society's fault; the immense coal mining back in the 50s and earlier is really what drained those resources, when you think about it. There are coal mining towns in the Virginia/Kentucky/Pennsylvania areas that have been around for decades that are drying up.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agree. Modern society did not create the problems, but it is necessary that we fix them.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Any effort on modern society's part is a very noble thing, I think, and I seriously do not think we can be faulted for that. We're going to be doing more, as well. When more and more people become aware of the problem, more and more will be done. It's a type of social awareness leading to social progression.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I fear that people won't care. If man becomes to comfortable, he will wallow in his own waste. I think of mankind as a big greasy fat guy sitting on a couch watching t.v., surrounded by candy wrappers and whatnot. It is good for him to pick up a few wrappers, but he's still not willing to clean up the whole mess.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Well, firstly, the ideal society for man would not be a society ripped out of Thoreau's Walden, because that wouldn't help anyone or anything. Conversely, tearing down all of nature is clearly not beneficial, and would not be the ideal society, either.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, that would not be good at all. The situation is not drastic yet, so such drastic measures need not even be considered.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Regarding current society, I feel it's closer to to what an ideal society is than some are suggesting in this thread. I mean, let's be frank here. Our society today isn't perfect, but it's not doomed. We're actually doing pretty good on most things, and environmental concern is one of them.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I believe the society is too large. Isn't it around 25% of people in the U.S. who actually vote? I'd be willing to bet that an even smaller percentage take part/pay close attention to matters of the state, and an even smaller number to those of the community.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, this is just an idea. If we could make our government more dependent on smaller areas, our government and awareness would improve.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. In each community (a certain number of people or an area), representatives would be chosen, depending on the size of the community. Those representatives would be elected by the community, and would oversee local matters.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Next, a certain number of community leaders would be involved in regional politics. These would, obviously, oversee matters of the region. It would be in the best interests of the citizens to send someone to the region who would best represent the community.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. This regional council would discuss matters of the region, of course. They would, among themselves, send representatives to the state council. Again, it would be in their best interests to find someone who would best represent the region. With each higher level, we're getting the best representative.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]4. The state council would be rather large, and would discuss matters of the state. The regional members would try the best to represent their region, and think of what's best for the state. The state council would then elect those best suited to argue matters of their state to go to a national council.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]5. The national council would consist of the most talented, intelligent, and respected members of each state. Each of them would have come from a small community, so the sampling of thoughts and ideas would be very diverse. This council would control everything that dealt with affairs of the country as a whole.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]6. Each proposal passed by the national council would then go the the state council. If it passes there, it goes to the region. If it passes there, it goes to the community. If a certin percentage of communities pass it, it becomes national law. This way, everyone is involved in the most important decisions, and it is essential for everyone to vote.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't just create a perfect government from scratch, though, so I'm sure there are holes. If you see any basic flaws in my idea, you could point them out. It's just an idea.[/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='Adahn']So, you have a certain faith in the fact that mankind will do what's necessary to survive?[/quote] Considering that animals in the middle of the Congo do it, how is mankind any different? Why should we think of mankind as any different? Mankind will do what's necessary to survive. We've been doing that for the past 4,000 years. [QUOTE]Yes, those are the only things we can't replace. However, there are things that we can replace, but not as fast as we use them. Trees can be replaced, but we'll always cut them down faster than we regrow them. Freshwater sources are replenished naturally, but we are slowly draining and contaminating these sources. I however, am fine, because I'm surrounded by the great lakes. I agree. Modern society did not create the problems, but it is necessary that we fix them.[/QUOTE] And I see the environmental preservation efforts increasing in the next few decades. The trend is there. We've got a fair amount of backlog, as it were, but you can see over the past few decades that we've been doubling our efforts more and more, as more hazards are being realized. [QUOTE]I fear that people won't care. If man becomes to comfortable, he will wallow in his own waste. I think of mankind as a big greasy fat guy sitting on a couch watching t.v., surrounded by candy wrappers and whatnot. It is good for him to pick up a few wrappers, but he's still not willing to clean up the whole mess.[/QUOTE] I hardly think that's a valid description of mankind. It's bordering on...melodramatic, really. We all like to entertain the idea that man is just some fat, slovenly uncle who sits around the house, but that's pure entertainment, with no real substantial value to it. I compare it to the Doomsday Machine complex, where people say, "The Earth is so screwed because Bush is in office," when in reality, that's not reality. It's just melodramatic entertainment. [QUOTE]Yes, that would not be good at all. The situation is not drastic yet, so such drastic measures need not even be considered.[/QUOTE] So, I wonder why you ever proposed such an obviously flawed measure in the first place, because: A) the situation has not reached critical mass, as it were; and B) an extreme solution is asinine in and of itself. [QUOTE]I believe the society is too large. Isn't it around 25% of people in the U.S. who actually vote? I'd be willing to bet that an even smaller percentage take part/pay close attention to matters of the state, and an even smaller number to those of the community.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if population is the entire problem, and I certainly don't think voter turn-out is any appropriate indicator of environmental concern. While those who vote could be environmentally concerned, and those who are environmentally concerned could be registered and active voters, I really do not believe that those numbers are so closely related. [quote]Now, this is just an idea. If we could make our government more dependent on smaller areas, our government and awareness would improve. 1. In each community (a certain number of people or an area), representatives would be chosen, depending on the size of the community. Those representatives would be elected by the community, and would oversee local matters. 2. Next, a certain number of community leaders would be involved in regional politics. These would, obviously, oversee matters of the region. It would be in the best interests of the citizens to send someone to the region who would best represent the community. 3. This regional council would discuss matters of the region, of course. They would, among themselves, send representatives to the state council. Again, it would be in their best interests to find someone who would best represent the region. With each higher level, we're getting the best representative. 4. The state council would be rather large, and would discuss matters of the state. The regional members would try the best to represent their region, and think of what's best for the state. The state council would then elect those best suited to argue matters of their state to go to a national council. 5. The national council would consist of the most talented, intelligent, and respected members of each state. Each of them would have come from a small community, so the sampling of thoughts and ideas would be very diverse. This council would control everything that dealt with affairs of the country as a whole. 6. Each proposal passed by the national council would then go the the state council. If it passes there, it goes to the region. If it passes there, it goes to the community. If a certin percentage of communities pass it, it becomes national law. This way, everyone is involved in the most important decisions, and it is essential for everyone to vote. I can't just create a perfect government from scratch, though, so I'm sure there are holes. If you see any basic flaws in my idea, you could point them out. It's just an idea.[/QUOTE] The biggest flaw here? Too many steps. Direct (which is what Rousseau advocated, by the way) governments would be too boggled down in discussion/discourse to be effective, or to pass any legislation. Their time would be continually eaten up by debate, with no real productive end result. It basically boils down to arguing for hours and not getting anything good out of it. I could instantly chop out about 3 or 4 steps there and you would have the current US Gov't, House of Representatives, etc., which, let's face it, do not need any more intermediaries. In fact, we need less steps than what we have now, or at least, a more streamlined system. Adding more steps, further complicating the system would not make anything easier; it would make things harder. I really shouldn't have to point that out, but I guess I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now