BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
VF Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-17-2009, 10:59 AM   #23
TexAg06
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2007 E90
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 231
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
lol, where did i ever say, i ONLY believe global warming is man made...

i understand that throughout the life of the earth the temperature changes, but not in such a short time span and such a radical scale, which lead me and scientist around the world to believe that something else, MAN, is helping out. mmmkay pumpkin?
so, what do you call the last eleven years of cooling? man didn't slow down crap yet the temps fell.

there's a thing called the sun. it's a big star pretty much involved in every event in this big thing called a solar system.

just because i don't believe in anthropogenic global warming does not however make me discount the affects of man on our planet. i am concerned with real problems. physical waste. deforestation. sulfur dioxide and benzene gas which are REAL pollutants. CO2 is the wrong horse to pull the enviro cart.

but, again you're just not worth it. your mind operates around a single line in the sand. right vs. left. however, those of us with critical thinking skills don't operate that way. those of us not beholden to any political party like to look at individual issues.

you should try it some time. it might be a revelation for you. but, i doubt it.
TexAg06 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:07 AM   #24
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexAg06 View Post
so, what do you call the last eleven years of cooling? man didn't slow down crap yet the temps fell.

there's a thing called the sun. it's a big star pretty much involved in every event in this big thing called a solar system.

just because i don't believe in anthropogenic global warming does not however make me discount the affects of man on our planet. i am concerned with real problems. physical waste. deforestation. sulfur dioxide and benzene gas which are REAL pollutants. CO2 is the wrong horse to pull the enviro cart.

but, again you're just not worth it. your mind operates around a single line in the sand. right vs. left. however, those of us with critical thinking skills don't operate that way. those of us not beholden to any political party like to look at individual issues.

you should try it some time. it might be a revelation for you. but, i doubt it.
rofl, get off your pony tanto...

i don't know where you think this 11 year "cool down" is coming from.... but uh... google is your friend...

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2005/02/66651

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

http://environment.nationalgeographi...g/gw-real.html

you see what you are missing is that, global warming refers to the temperature of the Earth's surface, oceans, and in some cases atmosphere... When ocean temperatures change it affects atmospheric temperatures... so yes, here it may not be getting hotter but on the ice caps, it is, and there is 100% real documented proof that the rate in which they are melting has increased over the past century as well as ocean temperatures in general... and it just so happens that the activity of man has a similar slope of industrial and pollution activity over the past century.

so right, left, middle, up, down, you're still fucking wrong lol
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:21 AM   #25
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
lol, where did i ever say, i ONLY believe global warming is man made...

i understand that throughout the life of the earth the temperature changes, but not in such a short time span and such a radical scale, which lead me and scientist around the world to believe that something else, MAN, is helping out. mmmkay pumpkin?
I made an incorrect assumption about your position, so for that I apologize.

Back to the topic at hand, do you support the actions of eco terrorists in their pursuit of more environmentally-friendly policies? Do you believe that cap & trade is the correct approach? What do you believe should be done?
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:30 AM   #26
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I made an incorrect assumption about your position, so for that I apologize.

Back to the topic at hand, do you support the actions of eco terrorists in their pursuit of more environmentally-friendly policies? Do you believe that cap & trade is the correct approach? What do you believe should be done?
I support eco-terrorism. Its not our planet to do with as we please. Where did human primates ever get the idea that we could destroy and use up all the resources on a planet that we need to survive. Human pride is probably the answer to all of our problems.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:32 AM   #27
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I made an incorrect assumption about your position, so for that I apologize.

Back to the topic at hand, do you support the actions of eco terrorists in their pursuit of more environmentally-friendly policies? Do you believe that cap & trade is the correct approach? What do you believe should be done?
well you see... now you call them eco terrorists... had this been the late 1700's you would call them revolutionaries...

personally i think their actions were dumb, but you know those kinds of people don't have the majority support, so they take radical actions to get attention, which they obviously did, albeit didn't change anything.. it's not different than the guy killing abortion doctors etc...

as far as cap and trade... to me pollution is bad. paying to pollute more seems silly, i personally think the government should put restrictions on pollution and instead of paying money to pollute more, spend that money on research and technology to make, whatever it is they are doing more eco-friendly so to speak... it is no myth that fossil fuels will run out, now is the time, at the peak of our reserves, or at the beginning of the slope downwards that we invest in new technology... wind, solar, etc...
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:46 AM   #28
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
I support eco-terrorism. Its not our planet to do with as we please. Where did human primates ever get the idea that we could destroy and use up all the resources on a planet that we need to survive. Human pride is probably the answer to all of our problems.
I find this to be a very disturbing position. So because you believe that the earth belongs to no one in particular, and that humans in general do not have the right to use its resources without regard to the consequences, you support the actions of groups that destroy private property and potentially could put lives in danger (groups like ELF have employed firebombs to inflict damage on targets, but there's no way to know if people won't also be injured or killed)?

Muslim terrorists believe that US and other Western country involvement in Middle East and Israeli/Palestinian affairs is wrong, and employ the use of death and property destruction via terroism to try to bring about change. One can very easily extend the logic you use in supporting eco-terrorism to conclude that you likewise support the use of terror in achieving the goals of Muslim terrorists. Is this the case?

To the other point about our belief that we can use earth's resources however we see fit, who exactly will make the decision as to how much use is too much?

And lastly, I find your views to be inconsistent with the type of car your profile says you drive. There are more fuel efficient vehicles than an E92 335xi that you could have purchased. Why purchase that car if you truly believe in your position on the environment and earth?
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 11:50 AM   #29
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I find this to be a very disturbing position. So because you believe that the earth belongs to no one in particular, and that humans in general do not have the right to use its resources without regard to the consequences, you support the actions of groups that destroy private property and potentially could put lives in danger (groups like ELF have employed firebombs to inflict damage on targets, but there's no way to know if people won't also be injured or killed)?

Muslim terrorists believe that US and other Western country involvement in Middle East and Israeli/Palestinian affairs is wrong, and employ the use of death and property destruction via terroism to try to bring about change. One can very easily extend the logic you use in supporting eco-terrorism to conclude that you likewise support the use of terror in achieving the goals of Muslim terrorists. Is this the case?

To the other point about our belief that we can use earth's resources however we see fit, who exactly will make the decision as to how much use is too much?

And lastly, I find your views to be inconsistent with the type of car your profile says you drive. There are more fuel efficient vehicles than an E92 335xi that you could have purchased. Why purchase that car if you truly believe in your position on the environment and earth?
i'm gonna step in on this... firstly...

I don't blame Muslim extremist for what they do... not saying i approve of it, or that it is in any way right... but if i was backed into a corner but an empirical force like the united states, and had the same whacked out religious views as some of them (this refers no just to islam, but all crazy religious people) then i would probably do the same thing...

also, i believe he drive a 335xi because it is bad ass.
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:02 PM   #30
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
well you see... now you call them eco terrorists... had this been the late 1700's you would call them revolutionaries...

personally i think their actions were dumb, but you know those kinds of people don't have the majority support, so they take radical actions to get attention, which they obviously did, albeit didn't change anything.. it's not different than the guy killing abortion doctors etc...

as far as cap and trade... to me pollution is bad. paying to pollute more seems silly, i personally think the government should put restrictions on pollution and instead of paying money to pollute more, spend that money on research and technology to make, whatever it is they are doing more eco-friendly so to speak... it is no myth that fossil fuels will run out, now is the time, at the peak of our reserves, or at the beginning of the slope downwards that we invest in new technology... wind, solar, etc...
I think even in the late 1700s I would have labeled them eco-terrorists. I do see the comparison you are making (England considering the rebel colonists as terrorists), however. But even that argument I think is not correct. The rebel colonists formally declared their independence, assembled an easily identifiable army, and fought clear battles with England. Terrorism I believe is defined more by being a loose collection of individuals who share a similar belief who take illegal actions against other individuals or property, without any formal recognition and through the use of covert attacks -- a far cry from the rebel colonists of the late 1700s.

And I do agree with your comparison to right-wing extremists who believe that it is okay to murder doctors who provide abortions -- both the right-wing extremist and eco-terrorist hold beliefs very dear to them, but through their use of death and destruction only serve to further alienate their position from more mainstream (and appropriate-acting) groups.

With respect to cap & trade, I do believe that one of the ideas behind it was that although large companies could simply pay to continue with the status quo, the money received by doing so could go to initiatives that would promote more environmentally-friendly industries. But I'm also skeptical that the money received from such a plan would entirely go to its stated goals -- a lot would be lost through government inefficiencies and general spending waste.

I also agree with the need to research alternative power sources, but believe that the correct approach would be to invest more heavily in clean-coal and nuclear power, and not as much as wind and solar. Clean-coal, because presumably this technology could be retrofitted to existing coal power plants, and would likely be one of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce our environmental impact. And nuclear because it will be the next stepping stone in our path to (hopefully) eventual fusion power, nuclear plants can produce significant amounts of energy, and there is no real limitation on where these plants can be placed (proximity to human population centers aside). Technologies like wind and solar are far more limited in their placement and power generation abilities/efficiencies. Much like my position with health care reform, I believe that the best approach is to make smaller, logical and more easily obtained steps (clean-coal and nuclear) rather than to try to do a massive overhaul. Of course, regardless of what we do in this space, reducing our dependency on foreign oil is a positive in any event.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:05 PM   #31
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
i'm gonna step in on this... firstly...

I don't blame Muslim extremist for what they do... not saying i approve of it, or that it is in any way right... but if i was backed into a corner but an empirical force like the united states, and had the same whacked out religious views as some of them (this refers no just to islam, but all crazy religious people) then i would probably do the same thing...

also, i believe he drive a 335xi because it is bad ass.
Agreed!

Nostrum09, I dont support muslim terrorists at all in any shape or form. However, I do support anybody that insists that our food, water, and air supply must be preserved. You do realize that we need the earth to eat, drink and breathe, right?

We cant survive without the earth. So logically, I would assume that we would do anything to preserve our only means of survival, yet we destroy it. Sounds pretty dumb to me. The pollution and deforestation and loss of life is extremely high, so these "eco-terrorists" need to be just as radical.

Id take a beautifully abundant earth with fresh water and clean air, over a bunch of arguing selfish greedy humans anyday. Sorry, I just dont fall for this super special human nonsense.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:14 PM   #32
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
Agreed!

Nostrum09, I dont support muslim terrorists at all in any shape or form. However, I do support anybody that insists that our food, water, and air supply must be preserved. You do realize that we need the earth to eat, drink and breathe, right?

We cant survive without the earth. So logically, I would assume that we would do anything to preserve our only means of survival, yet we destroy it. Sounds pretty dumb to me. The pollution and deforestation and loss of life is extremely high, so these "eco-terrorists" need to be just as radical.

Id take a beautifully abundant earth with fresh water and clean air, over a bunch of arguing selfish greedy humans anyday. Sorry, I just dont fall for this super special human nonsense.
I can't deny that the E92 335xi is badass (I wouldn't mind having one, but I still like my E90 325i hehe) =)

We do need the earth to survive, but there is clearly a certain level of use of the earth which can be extracted while still maintaining relative harmony with the planet. However, there are those whose beliefs are so strong in this matter that they think they are justified in the use of terrorist acts to draw attention to their beliefs. Likewise, Muslim terrorists have beliefs so strong that they too believe they are justified in the use of terrorist acts to draw attention. They believe that by not fighting for their cause, they are doomed to spend eternity in hell, which in the context of their fervent beliefs, is probably worse to them than not having a clean earth on which to live. How can one make an argument supporting the moral correctness of one group's actions (the eco-terrorists) while not also extending that same logic to other groups which hold similarly strong beliefs?

And I need to ask again, whose call is it to determine just how much of the earth's resources we can use, and what would make their claim any more believable or enforceable than any other person's?
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:21 PM   #33
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I can't deny that the E92 335xi is badass (I wouldn't mind having one, but I still like my E90 325i hehe) =)

We do need the earth to survive, but there is clearly a certain level of use of the earth which can be extracted while still maintaining relative harmony with the planet. However, there are those whose beliefs are so strong in this matter that they think they are justified in the use of terrorist acts to draw attention to their beliefs. Likewise, Muslim terrorists have beliefs so strong that they too believe they are justified in the use of terrorist acts to draw attention. They believe that by not fighting for their cause, they are doomed to spend eternity in hell, which in the context of their fervent beliefs, is probably worse to them than not having a clean earth on which to live. How can one make an argument supporting the moral correctness of one group's actions (the eco-terrorists) while not also extending that same logic to other groups which hold similarly strong beliefs?

And I need to ask again, whose call is it to determine just how much of the earth's resources we can use, and what would make their claim any more believable or enforceable than any other person's?
Muslims are fighting for an opinion (faith) based religion against other people. The ecos are fighting for the earth which is the only known planet with life. Its hard to make a comparison between the two. All the humans disappear and the earth goes on fine. The earth disappears and we all die. The earth and its resources are much bigger then humans are our goofy wars.

But, I have no idea who should determine the acceptable use of resources. At one time "terrorists" were freeing blacks and slaves. They were giving freedoms to women and demanding that torture and being burned alive was unacceptable. Nowadays, a few radicals are thinking ahead and have realized that the earth and its other creatures should get the same freedoms to enjoy life as humans.

We dont just use resources, we exploit them. The 5 billion year old earth is more important then our tiny 6000 year old human history. But to see what kinds of horrors we have invented against ourselves and our life sustaining earth is just atrocious.

Is it to much to ask that all life gets a fair chance? To a higher power or aliens, we are just 99% dna equivalent chimpanzees. A bunch of primates running around killing everything on a planet that we dont own. I just want all life to experience the pleasures that I have.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:31 PM   #34
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I think even in the late 1700s I would have labeled them eco-terrorists. I do see the comparison you are making (England considering the rebel colonists as terrorists), however. But even that argument I think is not correct. The rebel colonists formally declared their independence, assembled an easily identifiable army, and fought clear battles with England. Terrorism I believe is defined more by being a loose collection of individuals who share a similar belief who take illegal actions against other individuals or property, without any formal recognition and through the use of covert attacks -- a far cry from the rebel colonists of the late 1700s.

And I do agree with your comparison to right-wing extremists who believe that it is okay to murder doctors who provide abortions -- both the right-wing extremist and eco-terrorist hold beliefs very dear to them, but through their use of death and destruction only serve to further alienate their position from more mainstream (and appropriate-acting) groups.

With respect to cap & trade, I do believe that one of the ideas behind it was that although large companies could simply pay to continue with the status quo, the money received by doing so could go to initiatives that would promote more environmentally-friendly industries. But I'm also skeptical that the money received from such a plan would entirely go to its stated goals -- a lot would be lost through government inefficiencies and general spending waste.

I also agree with the need to research alternative power sources, but believe that the correct approach would be to invest more heavily in clean-coal and nuclear power, and not as much as wind and solar. Clean-coal, because presumably this technology could be retrofitted to existing coal power plants, and would likely be one of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce our environmental impact. And nuclear because it will be the next stepping stone in our path to (hopefully) eventual fusion power, nuclear plants can produce significant amounts of energy, and there is no real limitation on where these plants can be placed (proximity to human population centers aside). Technologies like wind and solar are far more limited in their placement and power generation abilities/efficiencies. Much like my position with health care reform, I believe that the best approach is to make smaller, logical and more easily obtained steps (clean-coal and nuclear) rather than to try to do a massive overhaul. Of course, regardless of what we do in this space, reducing our dependency on foreign oil is a positive in any event.
Boston tea party, un-uniformed destruction of property to oppose a government tax... this could be considered political terrorism?

i feel that the word terrorism is thrown around too loosely now adays... terrorism implies to instill fear... people burning down a hummer dealership really doesn't scare me, someone sending bombs through the mail to kill abortion doctors, does...

that's why i think cap and trade is dumb, i don't think it solves anything... like you said large companies can just pay to maintain their current pollution rates... sure they take a small marginal hit on their profits, but it probably wouldn't be a large enough hit to cause them to invest in clean energy (if they were large enough)

as far as not jumping to wind and solar... while yes "baby-steps" can work i feel like we are just putting off the inevitable here.. eventually we have to get away from fossil fuels all together, not just foreign ones... and while nuclear power is great, it can be unsafe...

nothing scary about wind or solar, and they are 100% renewable... sure it may take some time, but this is what i am saying, we start now instead of waiting until the last minute.
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:38 PM   #35
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
Muslims are fighting for an opinion (faith) based religion against other people. The ecos are fighting for the earth which is the only known planet with life. Its hard to make a comparison between the two. All the humans disappear and the earth goes on fine. The earth disappears and we all die. The earth and its resources are much bigger then humans are our goofy wars.

But, I have no idea who should determine the acceptable use of resources. At one time "terrorists" were freeing blacks and slaves. They were giving freedoms to women and demanding that torture and being burned alive was unacceptable. Nowadays, a few radicals are thinking ahead and have realized that the earth and its other creatures should get the same freedoms to enjoy life as humans.

We dont just use resources, we exploit them. The 5 billion year old earth is more important then our tiny 6000 year old human history. But to see what kinds of horrors we have invented against ourselves and our life sustaining earth is just atrocious.

Is it to much to ask that all life gets a fair chance? To a higher power or aliens, we are just 99% dna equivalent chimpanzees. A bunch of primates running around killing everything on a planet that we dont own. I just want all life to experience the pleasures that I have.

It certainly is tough to try to determine how much is enough, and I would not envy the person who was ever tasked to try. However, are we prepared to give up what progress we have made for the sake of the planet, or to slow down potential future progress? We have certainly committed atrocities in nature that didn't have to happen, but we've at the same time expanded our knowledge of the universe and have been able to appreciate its beauty, which is something that no other species can lay claim to. Better now I think, since we've already come this far, to see what we can do now to improve the environment, while maintaining what we have and not resorting to the actions of groups like ELF.

And I disagree that it's hard to compare the two groups. Both groups possess beliefs that failure to take radical action against their aggressors will result in the destruction of their way of life. I use way of life for the eco-terrorists because I believe that their goals are markedly different from what any rational person might agree is sound environmental policy -- thus, they are looking for society to conform to their standards, and not necessarily are they simply trying to bring awareness so that society can, acting together, implement agreed-upon solutions.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:45 PM   #36
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
It certainly is tough to try to determine how much is enough, and I would not envy the person who was ever tasked to try. However, are we prepared to give up what progress we have made for the sake of the planet, or to slow down potential future progress? We have certainly committed atrocities in nature that didn't have to happen, but we've at the same time expanded our knowledge of the universe and have been able to appreciate its beauty, which is something that no other species can lay claim to. Better now I think, since we've already come this far, to see what we can do now to improve the environment, while maintaining what we have and not resorting to the actions of groups like ELF.

And I disagree that it's hard to compare the two groups. Both groups possess beliefs that failure to take radical action against their aggressors will result in the destruction of their way of life. I use way of life for the eco-terrorists because I believe that their goals are markedly different from what any rational person might agree is sound environmental policy -- thus, they are looking for society to conform to their standards, and not necessarily are they simply trying to bring awareness so that society can, acting together, implement agreed-upon solutions.
But the universal knowledge that humans are learned, is limited to humans. Its a selfish benefit. All of our advances have only led to our own benefits. Our benefits at the cost of other life and resources is not fair. See, I look at all the creatures on earth as being equal. Some are faster, or can see or hear better, humans just happen to think abstractly. So with our better minds, we should have created a paradise.

Come to baltimore if you want to see what humans have done with this earth. Its not pretty. Organizations like ELF believe that all life is sacred and do what they must. Would you be opposed to ELF breaking into a hospital and saving human children that were being experimented on? What difference does it make if the children are primate children like chimps.

Since I dont selfishly see humans are anything special, I dont see ELF doing anything that I wouldnt do for you, a human stranger, or a dog. Its about respect. And humans dont have it for other humans or any other creature on this earth.

edit: I dont condone ELF or any organization or religion hurting any innocent person however. Lets just make that clear. Im about peace for all life.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:46 PM   #37
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

i think you are misinterpreting the beliefs of "eco terrorists"

IMO i think they are more about grabbing the attention of society via radical means. Where Islamic extremists grab peoples attention because of radical means...

as in, Islamic extremist carryout their beliefs in an extreme way, but to them they are doin gthe work of god and nothing is wrong with it...

"eco terrorist" on the other hand, purposely do things they know are extreme because they want the attention.
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:47 PM   #38
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
Boston tea party, un-uniformed destruction of property to oppose a government tax... this could be considered political terrorism?

i feel that the word terrorism is thrown around too loosely now adays... terrorism implies to instill fear... people burning down a hummer dealership really doesn't scare me, someone sending bombs through the mail to kill abortion doctors, does...

that's why i think cap and trade is dumb, i don't think it solves anything... like you said large companies can just pay to maintain their current pollution rates... sure they take a small marginal hit on their profits, but it probably wouldn't be a large enough hit to cause them to invest in clean energy (if they were large enough)

as far as not jumping to wind and solar... while yes "baby-steps" can work i feel like we are just putting off the inevitable here.. eventually we have to get away from fossil fuels all together, not just foreign ones... and while nuclear power is great, it can be unsafe...

nothing scary about wind or solar, and they are 100% renewable... sure it may take some time, but this is what i am saying, we start now instead of waiting until the last minute.
Perhaps you are correct in that the term terrorism is thrown around too much -- eco-terrorism (for lack of a better term) seems only to annoy and hinder, more than instill fear, which I must agree is a key component of terrorism. Likewise then, those participating in the Boston Tea Party would be considered "terrorists" in the same vein as the eco-"terrorists" are, but their actions did not instill widespread fear. So perhaps I will refrain from using eco-terrorist and call them radical environmentalists =)

As for wind and solar, even those have aspects which some might (or have) considered objectionable. Both take up huge swaths of land (relative to the amount of power they produce) and wind has been criticized as harming too many birds. While nuclear has the risk of power plant malfunctions, and the issue of storage of nuclear waste still needs to be settled, I think that nuclear holds the broadest appeal for our future energy needs.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:51 PM   #39
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
Perhaps you are correct in that the term terrorism is thrown around too much -- eco-terrorism (for lack of a better term) seems only to annoy and hinder, more than instill fear, which I must agree is a key component of terrorism. Likewise then, those participating in the Boston Tea Party would be considered "terrorists" in the same vein as the eco-"terrorists" are, but their actions did not instill widespread fear. So perhaps I will refrain from using eco-terrorist and call them radical environmentalists =)

As for wind and solar, even those have aspects which some might (or have) considered objectionable. Both take up huge swaths of land (relative to the amount of power they produce) and wind has been criticized as harming too many birds. While nuclear has the risk of power plant malfunctions, and the issue of storage of nuclear waste still needs to be settled, I think that nuclear holds the broadest appeal for our future energy needs.
well they instilled fear in the British government, their reign was no longer unquestionable and stable which i am sure they feared... but anywhoo, i think we have reached common ground on that issue...

as far as solar taking up too much land, i feel you are misinformed.
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:58 PM   #40
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
But the universal knowledge that humans are learned, is limited to humans. Its a selfish benefit. All of our advances have only led to our own benefits. Our benefits at the cost of other life and resources is not fair. See, I look at all the creatures on earth as being equal. Some are faster, or can see or hear better, humans just happen to think abstractly. So with our better minds, we should have created a paradise.

Come to baltimore if you want to see what humans have done with this earth. Its not pretty. Organizations like ELF believe that all life is sacred and do what they must. Would you be opposed to ELF breaking into a hospital and saving human children that were being experimented on? What difference does it make if the children are primate children like chimps.

Since I dont selfishly see humans are anything special, I dont see ELF doing anything that I wouldnt do for you, a human stranger, or a dog. Its about respect. And humans dont have it for other humans or any other creature on this earth.

edit: I dont condone ELF or any organization or religion hurting any innocent person however. Lets just make that clear. Im about peace for all life.
My apologies if I made it seem as if I thought you supported the injury/death of others -- I merely wanted to press the issue a bit about how you supported radical environmentalists.

Where we disagree then is on the relationship between humans and all other life on the planet. I do not view that we are inherently equal, and that what separates us from other life on this planet (our cognitive differences) is what gives us the right, if you will, to use this planet's resources. Conserving resources and protecting the planet is both a good thing in and of itself, but also good because it will allow humans to survive longer.

For example, in no way do I support or condone the like of people like Michael Vick who participated in dog fighting and related inhumanities solely for their personal entertainment (which had no bearing on anything required to survive). However, I do eat meat, so I believe that the slaughter of animals is permissible in that it allows me and other humans to receive nutrients which allow us to survive. I don't believe in wearing fur, however, since to my knowledge none of the animals used in commercial fur operations have a use other than their fur (as opposed to the leather shoes I'm wearing, which presumably came from a cow that was also slaughtered for its meat).
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 12:59 PM   #41
Prowess Symphony
Major General
 
Prowess Symphony's Avatar
 
Drives: ///Mistress
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WV

Posts: 5,860
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
Electricity and power needs have just arisen in the past few centuries. We could easily lose all of our technology and still exist fine. The pyramids were built without power.

So if we have to reduce our power consumption and switch to solar and wind energy, then why not? Its just like every other problem on earth. We could easily stop murdering, easily stop wars, easily fix our resources supply. But greed and pride prevent the simplest solutions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
My apologies if I made it seem as if I thought you supported the injury/death of others -- I merely wanted to press the issue a bit about how you supported radical environmentalists.

Where we disagree then is on the relationship between humans and all other life on the planet. I do not view that we are inherently equal, and that what separates us from other life on this planet (our cognitive differences) is what gives us the right, if you will, to use this planet's resources. Conserving resources and protecting the planet is both a good thing in and of itself, but also good because it will allow humans to survive longer.

For example, in no way do I support or condone the like of people like Michael Vick who participated in dog fighting and related inhumanities solely for their personal entertainment (which had no bearing on anything required to survive). However, I do eat meat, so I believe that the slaughter of animals is permissible in that it allows me and other humans to receive nutrients which allow us to survive. I don't believe in wearing fur, however, since to my knowledge none of the animals used in commercial fur operations have a use other than their fur (as opposed to the leather shoes I'm wearing, which presumably came from a cow that was also slaughtered for its meat).
So we agree on some and disagree on others. Cognitive ability does not make one better. Its that same cognitive ability that has led to genocide and all the other human atrocities. Many would see our unique way of thinking as a problem and not a gift. And it would be different if we used our advanced thinking for good. Yet so many use it for not just evil but laziness and greed that its led to more problems then it has solved. Name just 5 examples where our human intellect has help something OTHER then human beings. If humans disappears then the earth would actually benefit from lack of destruction of plants and animals. Thats sad. I wish my species was better than that.

As for the meat eating. Technically and biologically, we are primates. Our intestines and teeth are designed to eat primate food which is fruits and leaves and such. All predators can naturally catch and digest their food naturally. We cannot. We need to construct traps and then cook our food. We are not natural meat eaters. People eat meat because they like the taste. Not because nature intended that for us. We are primates, not lions. We should stick to being what we are.

Finally, I think that our minds should allow us to have greater control over the earth. The sad thing is, is that we use our abilities to exploit, not help. Thats my concern. You believing that we have control over the earth is an opinion, just like my opinion is that all things on the earth are equal. The earth will never improve until people with different viewpoints can figure out a solution that doesnt involve killing.
Prowess Symphony is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 01:01 PM   #42
Carter N
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 09' GTI
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NoVa

Posts: 41
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
But greed and pride prevent the simplest solutions.
and conservatism.. don't forget the conservatives
Carter N is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 01:06 PM   #43
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter N View Post
well they instilled fear in the British government, their reign was no longer unquestionable and stable which i am sure they feared... but anywhoo, i think we have reached common ground on that issue...

as far as solar taking up too much land, i feel you are misinformed.
Doing a quick search I was unable to find anything on either side of the solar power land use question, other than a Wikipedia article that solar uses less land for its power than either hydro or coal (counting the land disturbed to mine the coal), but I would still think nuclear would be more efficient on a land use basis than solar. Nevertheless, solar *does* have the advantage of scaling to very small and very large sizes, so it can certainly be installed in places where no other power source could (inhospitable land, rooftops, car roofs, etc.). I see solar more as a specific application solution (e.g., individual house or cars), and at best a localized power source (I don't think solar would work too well where I live -- NJ), rather than a global solution.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-17-2009, 01:18 PM   #44
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
Electricity and power needs have just arisen in the past few centuries. We could easily lose all of our technology and still exist fine. The pyramids were built without power.

So if we have to reduce our power consumption and switch to solar and wind energy, then why not? Its just like every other problem on earth. We could easily stop murdering, easily stop wars, easily fix our resources supply. But greed and pride prevent the simplest solutions.



So we agree on some and disagree on others. Cognitive ability does not make one better. Its that same cognitive ability that has led to genocide and all the other human atrocities. Many would see our unique way of thinking as a problem and not a gift. And it would be different if we used our advanced thinking for good. Yet so many use it for not just evil but laziness and greed that its led to more problems then it has solved. Name just 5 examples where our human intellect has help something OTHER then human beings. If humans disappears then the earth would actually benefit from lack of destruction of plants and animals. Thats sad. I wish my species was better than that.

As for the meat eating. Technically and biologically, we are primates. Our intestines and teeth are designed to eat primate food which is fruits and leaves and such. All predators can naturally catch and digest their food naturally. We cannot. We need to construct traps and then cook our food. We are not natural meat eaters. People eat meat because they like the taste. Not because nature intended that for us. We are primates, not lions. We should stick to being what we are.

Finally, I think that our minds should allow us to have greater control over the earth. The sad thing is, is that we use our abilities to exploit, not help. Thats my concern. You believing that we have control over the earth is an opinion, just like my opinion is that all things on the earth are equal. The earth will never improve until people with different viewpoints can figure out a solution that doesnt involve killing.
I think you underestimate the challenges that would be present in reducing our energy consumption, and don't think that that is a viable solution. I also disagree that such moves would stop murders, stop wars and fix our resource supply. Civilizations far older than ours have fought wars, murdered others and have had resource issues (I bet that many of the wars fought were over resources). We would just be fighting and murdering for different reasons.

Where I have a hard time with your position is that it appears to treat the earth as something sentient (for lack of a better term) which needs to be protected for its own sake, rather than an inanimate object which should be protected to the extent that it allows for human survival and advancement.

As for primates' diets, I believe that there are some which feed on other living creatures. That we must capture and cook our food, to me, is not an indication that we weren't meant to eat meat. Rather, much like a lion uses its speed, strength and sharp teeth to capture and eat its prey, we use our cognitive abilities and use of tools to capture and eat our prey.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST