Author Topic: Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!  (Read 7079 times)

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2008, 02:44:51 PM »
Quote
We live so my idea is that intelligence is a good point(it is in our case). But what is good in evolution, we humans live now but will the specie survive, that can only be told far far in the future. There was a mammel that survived the dinosaurs. Well mammals are overall in animal species smart. And most species that survive nowadays are warmbloaded smart or coldbloaded energiesaving, I thought, could be wrong. So smart survives that's good isn't it.

You got a point there, though there are some that believe the dinosaurs might have been both intelligent and warm blooded, a theory mensioned in a program I saw last year. It was a program about how the world would have looked like if that meteor had missed. It was said that the raptor might have been the dominant species instead, and maybe intelligent like us.
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2008, 03:18:19 PM »
Quote from: Testlund
Quote
No species delibertly tries to live "in balance with nature".

No, but they don't try to separate themselves from nature either. What I mean is that humans must agree to live in balance with nature, while other species just do it instinctively. Humans is a species that just suddenly appeared and went crazy on the planet, while other species makes slow progress and changes just a little so nature can keep up, and other species can keep up.
Just a question what is the definition of nature in your way anyway?

To my definition, practically everything in europe isn't nature. How can we split off or live in balance with something that doesn't exist anymore.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline EricL

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2008, 03:30:36 PM »
Quote from: Testlund
What I mean is that humans must agree to live in balance with nature, while other species just do it instinctively. Humans is a species that just suddenly appeared and went crazy on the planet, while other species makes slow progress and changes just a little so nature can keep up, and other species can keep up.
 Well, I think your wrong on the reasoning.  No species lives in balance with nature.  Every species (every gene actually) is out for itself and would cheat the system if there was a reproductive fitness advantage in it.  Humans are no different nor are they recent.  Homo did not suddenly appear.  Our genus and the 20+ species of human within it (all but one now extinct) have been around for more than 2.5 million years.  My point is that there is no difference between the way individual humans act and the way individuals of any other species act.  They always act selfishly, locally, which is what makes evolution work in the first place.  They would be selected against if they acted otherwise.  (And yes, there are various examples of locally altruistic behaviour.  But they are actually in the end selfish in that they still serve to maximize reproductive fitness.)

You are of course correct to say that the consequences of 6.5 billion humans all making locally optimal selfish decisions is an onslaught unlike anything the planet as seen before given the extent of our extended phenotype (which includes everything from fusion bombs to deforestation to massive CO2 emission) and that the result is likely to be global disaterious for both humans and many other species.  Personally, I am incredibly pessimistic that humans will change our collective behaviour.  Our biology is against it.

Quote
How I define self awareness is to understand yourself and what you are.
Okay, define "understand" then.  You see how hard this is?  People think that terms like "self aware" or "consciousness" are obvious and self evident but they arn't, not really.  You can say something specific like "humans are probobly the only animal which has learned enough to contemplate their own evolution" but its very hard to deal in more abstract terms like self awareness.   IMHO, humans represent more of an incremental leap than a revolutional leap in these areas.  We have bigger brains with incrementally more capabilities yes but dogs as well as most other mammals are surprisingly good at very complex reasoning, for example at understanding intentional stance (putting yourself in another's shoes) or even transitive intentional stance ("I think this is what he thinks I'm thinking").  This can be demonstrated and is a direct result of preditory/prey evolution.   Bottom line, it's just plain arogant to elevate humans to far beyond other species w.r.t. such abstract concepts as "self awareness".

Quote
Saying those are self aware is like saying your computer is self aware, or your car.
No, it's not.  There is a huge difference between designed and evolved complexity.  A single celled organism is orders of magnitude more complex and more general purpose than a computer.  It has far more self awareness (to use that sloppy term) than any designed object humans have made which arguably all have none.  It flees, it pursues, it feeds, it eliminates waste, it reproduces, it is "aware" of it's cell wall and controls substances passing through it.  It "knows" what is itself and what is not.
Many beers....

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2008, 03:37:24 PM »
Quote from: Testlund
You got a point there, though there are some that believe the dinosaurs might have been both intelligent and warm blooded, a theory mensioned in a program I saw last year. It was a program about how the world would have looked like if that meteor had missed. It was said that the raptor might have been the dominant species instead, and maybe intelligent like us.
Warmbloaded dinosaurs, well sounds strange. They are placed in reptile-species. But could be true.

About intelligence anything can be said, any scientist could say there could be an uber-intelligent dinosaur specie. Mainly it is said dinos are stupid becouse there brain is small in comparison, and I mainly tend to share that opinion. They are probably stupid.

Becouse of the high number of species that we don't even know of, there could always be an dino that's smart. And there could be a dinosaur we know of that could be smart. But really scientists are just guesing in many ways and this is guesing. Intelligence it a hard point to determine, even with today living species we can't determine whitch one is smarter then the other,(well most agree that we are one of the smartest species  , well maybe a dolphine is smarter, you never know), smart dinos is just a pure gues. I can't say different.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2008, 03:47:20 PM »
Quote from: EricL
You are of course correct to say that the consequences of 6.5 billion humans all making locally optimal selfish decisions is an onslaught unlike anything the planet as seen before given the extent of our extended phenotype (which includes everything from fusion bombs to deforestation to massive CO2 emission) and that the result is likely to be global disaterious for both humans and many other species.  Personally, I am incredibly pessimistic that humans will change our collective behaviour.  Our biology is against it.
Can you explain why fusion bombs, deforestation, and massive CO2 emmion, could be disaterious to other humans and other species.
Couse I don't we have that high impact on the enviroment. I think humans don't have as big of an effect on enviroment as you think.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline EricL

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2008, 04:03:50 PM »
Quote from: Peter
Can you explain why fusion bombs, deforestation, and massive CO2 emmion, could be disaterious to other humans and other species.
Couse I don't we have that high impact on the enviroment. I think humans don't have as big of an effect on enviroment as you think.
Are you kidding?  You must not get out much.  What metric should we use?  Atmospheric CO2 levels?  Average global tempertues?  Percent forest land converted to mono-specie human crops?  PCB or lead levels in Lake Michigan?  Oceanic fish sizes and fishery depletions?  Number of endangered or extinct species world wide?  Coral reef destruction?  I went scuba diving a few months ago in a place in Hawaii where I went 30 years ago.  Huge change for the worse.

And BTW, dinosaurs are not reptiles despite the Latin name.  They are recognized as separate families today, as different as reptiles and mammals..  In fact there were two different families of dinosaurs, as unrelated to each other as to mammals and there is strong evidence that at least one was homothermic.  Today we call their descendants "birds".

There may very well have been "smart" dinosaurers though there are none in the fossil record I know of with brain to body mass ratios approaching that of humans (or dolphins which are barely below us on that scale).  What is fairly conclusive is that there is no trace of dinosaur tool users in the fossil record.
Many beers....

Offline Jez

  • Bot Overlord
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2008, 05:09:42 PM »
I have to go with Eric on this one; the vast majority of scientists who study things like global warming think we are causing a problem so why shouldn't I? Do you have any idea how few degrees the oceans would have to warm before they're turned into giant methane jacuzzi's?
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have in your hands is a non-working cat.
Douglas Adams

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2008, 05:38:54 PM »
Quote from: EricL
Are you kidding? You must not get out much. What metric should we use? Atmospheric CO2 levels? Average global tempertues? Percent forest land converted to mono-specie human crops? PCB or lead levels in Lake Michigan? Oceanic fish sizes and fishery depletions? Number of endangered or extinct species world wide? Coral reef destruction? I went scuba diving a few months ago in a place in Hawaii where I went 30 years ago. Huge change for the worse.

Co2 levels : What is the enviromental damage of a higher CO2 level

Average temperatures : There have been many temperature shifts in time. What does a rise in temperature actual mean. In the 50er years there where also scientists who said there was going to be an icetime. Another thing is that the temperature of mars has also been measured form out the 70s. Mars seems to have globally desame temperature rising as on earth.

percent forest land converted to mono-specie human crops: your point is. There is a bigger chance of crop-deseases if that is what you mean. But I gues the farmers are taking that into account. What is the enviromental loss on big scale on the world when destroying the rain forest. I know the animals that use to live there aren't very happy.

PCB and lead : PCB is forbidden and lead forbidden or allowed in low concentrations. New products of today are thoughrough checked before letting them use.

oceanic fish sizes and fishery depletions : As far I know there are in the Netherlands strict regulations about fishery. In the rest of Europe there are also regulations about fishery(altrough less regulated). My gues that desame is in america and the rest of the world, atleast the ones with big fisherships.

Number of endangered or extinct species world wide : Well, true there are many endangered species. That probably mostly becouse their habitat is taken over by humans and the increasing of the habitat of other species created by human, I don't see a way to stop humans from growing further and decreasing their habitat and the increasing of the habitat of other species. There are much species that are endangered. So is that really bad, is it. We could put them in zoo's.

Coral reef destruction : True, there is much coral reef destruction. On the other side, there are (mostly for tourism) projects set up to recreate the coral reef at some places.

Quote
I have to go with Eric on this one; the vast majority of scientists who study things like global warming think we are causing a problem so why shouldn't I? Do you have any idea how few degrees the oceans would have to warm before they're turned into giant methane jacuzzi's?
Everybody is against me, giant methane jacuzzi's. Hmmm, nice methane we can use that for energie.
Good    
But yes, I am pretty sceptic about global warming.

Oh, and I am not saying the effect of humans on the whole enviroment is nihil. But that the effect of human is heavily overdriven(is that the right word)exspecially on the climate.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 05:42:32 PM by Peter »
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2008, 01:22:52 AM »
Quote from: Peter
Quote from: Testlund
You got a point there, though there are some that believe the dinosaurs might have been both intelligent and warm blooded, a theory mensioned in a program I saw last year. It was a program about how the world would have looked like if that meteor had missed. It was said that the raptor might have been the dominant species instead, and maybe intelligent like us.
Warmbloaded dinosaurs, well sounds strange. They are placed in reptile-species. But could be true.

Wikipedia hints at this.  It's very recent, but DNA analysis (yep, they managed to find Dino DNA, like in the last year) strongly supports the idea that Dinos and birds are directly related.  This, with other evidence, suggests that Dinos might have had some sort of endothermic ability, though most likely more primitive than modern mammals or birds.  Thus giving rise to the term "luke-warm blooded."  It's not quite 100%, but the evidence is strongly leaning in that direction.  It's not a far fetched assertion at all.

Quote
About intelligence anything can be said, any scientist could say there could be an uber-intelligent dinosaur specie. Mainly it is said dinos are stupid becouse there brain is small in comparison, and I mainly tend to share that opinion. They are probably stupid.

Not all dino brains are small.  Veloceraptor (sp?) brains are on par with most mammalian species.  It's not a stretch to suggest that there were Dinos as smart as something like a wolf or dog.  Sapience is something of a stretch, but considering how fragmented the fossil record is it's hardly impossible.  If humans all died right now we'd barely be a blip in the geological record.  Plus most human burial practices are not conducive to fossilization.

Quote
even with today living species we can't determine whitch one is smarter then the other,(well most agree that we are one of the smartest species  , well maybe a dolphine is smarter, you never know), smart dinos is just a pure gues. I can't say different.

Not true, see this link.  There's a certain level of fudging involved when you cross class boundaries (ie: from mammal to dinosaur), but it can give rough estimates of intelligence with respect to brain size and body weight.

Offline Endy

  • Bot Overlord
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2008, 01:34:21 AM »
Let's see...

Rising CO2: Think Venus... Just me, but an out of control Green House Effect would be really bad.

Methane in Oceans: There's enough methane down there to litterally burn the atmosphere. If we could tap into it it'd be great; but we're just as likely to cause a run-away reaction releasing it.

The main problem with the destruction of Rain Forests and Coral Reefs is that the loss of biodiversity has a net effect on many species. We're also not doing nearly enough to compensate for the loss. (On a personal note I'm stationed over in Guam and can see the effects of "bleaching" washing up on the shore. It's mainly just nasty to look at.)

My own belief is that we'll eventually be forced to accept a more enviromental friendly lifestyle. If it became logically better(government, climate change) to wisely use resources, then it would become smart on a local level.

Intelligence: The problem with the Evolution alone approach is that Evolution can't adjust to sudden changes. Out of all the larger lifeforms, we have the best odds of surviving any climatic change.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2008, 01:55:55 AM »
Quote from: Peter
Co2 levels : What is the enviromental damage of a higher CO2 level

Increases in global ambient temperature through the well understood greenhouse effect.

Quote
Average temperatures : There have been many temperature shifts in time. What does a rise in temperature actual mean. In the 50er years there where also scientists who said there was going to be an icetime. Another thing is that the temperature of mars has also been measured form out the 70s. Mars seems to have globally desame temperature rising as on earth.

Average temperatures usually change extremely slowly, and even then have dramatic effects on the planet.  A hotter planet means more extreme weather (to put it simply there's more energy in the system).  Places that were once wet become dry, and vice versa.  Which means floods and droughts.  Many plant and animal species, already on the brink of extinction, could be pushed to the extinction.  This would decrease the global biodiversity.  Most of humanity is surviving on the brink of death themselves.  Consider the little ice age which had profound effects on Europe.  A hotter planet means a wetter tropic and a drier temperate zone.

On the other hand, a warming planet could have profound positive effects as well.  Changes to global temperature could make the planet more hospitable to human life.  For example extending growing seasons in various agricultural areas, or opening up arable land in the subarctic.  The problem is that the effects and magnitudes are way beyond our ability to properly predict or control.  It's like rolling the dice with billions of lives.

Also, while the evidence is irrefutable that humans are warming the planet, we don't know how much of the observed warming is human influenced.  It's possible that the sun is going through a period of increased activity, which in theory could be causing the vast majority of the obsesrved warming.  The little ice age is believed to have been caused by the reverse: a solar cooldown.  So not only are the effects indeterminable, but we might not even have the ability to stop or reverse it.

Quote
percent forest land converted to mono-specie human crops: your point is. There is a bigger chance of crop-deseases if that is what you mean. But I gues the farmers are taking that into account.

Monocrops are huge profit makers in the short term.  But most species are not hardy at all.  They're grown for their ability to produce money, not survive.  They grow on a razor thin margin that can easily be upset.  Witness the Irish potato famine.

Quote
What is the enviromental loss on big scale on the world when destroying the rain forest. I know the animals that use to live there aren't very happy.

A loss of biodiversity and soil quality.  That land doesn't suddenly become farmland.  After a few years it becomes unarable, and is left fallow.  Left unchecked, eventually the entire amazon basin could look like the sahara.

Quote
PCB and lead : PCB is forbidden and lead forbidden or allowed in low concentrations. New products of today are thoughrough checked before letting them use.

Forbidden or not, they've had and are having strong effects on the environment.  Consider your computer monitor.  It has roughly a pound of lead in it, if I remember correctly.  All sorts of volatile and toxic chemicals exist in all sorts of household products.  And they're routinely disposed of improperly.

Quote
oceanic fish sizes and fishery depletions : As far I know there are in the Netherlands strict regulations about fishery. In the rest of Europe there are also regulations about fishery(altrough less regulated). My gues that desame is in america and the rest of the world, atleast the ones with big fisherships.

Those requlations go against the natural tendancy of the fishing industries, and are largely a consequence of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s.  When environmentalism goes out of vogue, so will those regulations.

Quote
Number of endangered or extinct species world wide : Well, true there are many endangered species. That probably mostly becouse their habitat is taken over by humans and the increasing of the habitat of other species created by human, I don't see a way to stop humans from growing further and decreasing their habitat and the increasing of the habitat of other species. There are much species that are endangered.

Actually, human growth does seem to have a natural sense of carrying capacity, at least in industrialized areas with ample supply of birth control and a social acceptance.  Europe's birth rate, I believe, is in strong decline.  Apparently economic pressures might actually be sufficient to limit human growth, when birth control allows parents to choose to conceive or not.  But it remains to be seen if this birth rate decline is just a short term fad or a long term trend, and wether this self-limiting growth is universal to humanity or a side-effect of the rather liberal European culture.

Quote
So is that really bad, is it. We could put them in zoo's.

Like we did with the Tasmanian tiger?  Zoos are only barely beginning to reach a break even point with animal breeding.  It wasn't all that long ago that most zoo specimens were hunted from the wild.  Go to your local zoo and find out how many of the animals were born in captivity.  I'll bet you anything that it's in the far minority.  Plus, populations need a large gene pool to remain stable.  Zoos have to spend a lot of money to get breeding pairs together.  It's just not economically viable as a long term solution.  Zoos are not the way to ensure long term species survival.

Quote
Coral reef destruction : True, there is much coral reef destruction. On the other side, there are (mostly for tourism) projects set up to recreate the coral reef at some places.

Proper coral reefs are centuries in the making.  It might be possible to create faux coral reefs, but I doubt they'll be effective on a large, hundreds of miles scale.

Quote
But yes, I am pretty sceptic about global warming.

Sounds to me like your skepticism is confused.  Ask yourself these five questions:

1.  Is global warming hapening?
2.  Is it humanity's fault
3.  Can humanity fix it
4.  Should humanity fix it (that is, is global warming a net positive for humanity?)
5.  Do other co-inhabitors of our planet have a right to existance (that is, do Polar Bears deserve to live?)

A lot of your reasoning seems to give conflicting answers for these three questions.  My answers: 1. Yes. 2. Probably, though it could be the sun, too.  3.  Probably, by drastically cutting emissions down to zero, the planet could recover in a century or so.  But until it's economically driven, it won't happen. 4. Probably, but there is a chance that a warmer planet would increase the carrying capacity for humanity.  But I wouldn't bet on it.  5.  Yes, absolutely.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 05:08:46 AM by Numsgil »

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2008, 03:34:11 AM »
Quote
Our genus and the 20+ species of human within it (all but one now extinct) have been around for more than 2.5 million years.

That's what I mean with suddenly appear. It's just a fart in the earths history.
Here's a very nice site that shows how we spread on the planet:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

According to this my guess is that human evolution took the next step here, only 160000 years ago, starting spreading out like a plague.

Quote
My point is that there is no difference between the way individual humans act and the way individuals of any other species act. They always act selfishly, locally, which is what makes evolution work in the first place. They would be selected against if they acted otherwise. (And yes, there are various examples of locally altruistic behaviour. But they are actually in the end selfish in that they still serve to maximize reproductive fitness.)

I totally agree with you here! It's just that other species selfish behavior don't get out of bounds. It always end up in balance with nature. If our way is natural than mother nature made a blunder indead and it will probably be corrected. We change our ways or we die out together with a destroyed planet.

Quote
You are of course correct to say that the consequences of 6.5 billion humans all making locally optimal selfish decisions is an onslaught unlike anything the planet as seen before given the extent of our extended phenotype (which includes everything from fusion bombs to deforestation to massive CO2 emission) and that the result is likely to be global disaterious for both humans and many other species.

EXACTLY!

Quote
Personally, I am incredibly pessimistic that humans will change our collective behaviour. Our biology is against it.

I don't think that would be a problem. We don't have to struggle the same way as other species for survival, as we are in total control. If you think about it, there are still tribes of people living in harmony with nature, in Africa and Amazonas for instance and the only thing that threatens them are we who don't live like they do. But I'm not saying we all have to go back to hunting and gathering, just that we need to slow down and stop raping the planet.

Quote
Okay, define "understand" then. You see how hard this is? People think that terms like "self aware" or "consciousness" are obvious and self evident but they arn't, not really.

It's hard to prove the level of self awareness in an animal that can't talk to you. You can only observe it's behavior and compare it to yourself. Well... That would be self awareness that we humans can ponder such things. Would a dog think "Why am I the only one in this flock walking on all four? I want that cap you're wearing! Give it to me!"

Quote
mammals are surprisingly good at very complex reasoning,


I agree with that. Animals that grow up among humans tend to show a learning capability beyond what they would need for survival on their own, which is quite remarkable. Dogs that can learn words for instance but...

Quote
for example at understanding intentional stance (putting yourself in another's shoes) or even transitive intentional stance ("I think this is what he thinks I'm thinking").

This I highly doubt though.

Quote
bout intelligence anything can be said, any scientist could say there could be an uber-intelligent dinosaur specie. Mainly it is said dinos are stupid becouse there brain is small in comparison, and I mainly tend to share that opinion. They are probably stupid.

They COULD have had the same intelligence as a rat. Rats have pretty small heads but they show increadible cunning. I've had rats myself and they show quote interesting behavior. I tried to prevent my rats from digging into my plants, and reprimand them to not go there. It had the totally opposite effect, exactly like a small child that finds it more interesting to touch things they are forbidden to touch.

Quote
QUOTE(Peter @ Jan 4 2008, 12:47 PM) *

Can you explain why fusion bombs, deforestation, and massive CO2 emmion, could be disaterious to other humans and other species. Couse I don't we have that high impact on the enviroment. I think humans don't have as big of an effect on enviroment as you think.

Are you kidding? You must not get out much.

LOL

Ok, this post is going to get long so I think I'll stop here.  
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2008, 04:32:19 AM »
Quote from: Numsgil
1.  Is global warming hapening?
2.  Is it humanity's fault
3.  Can humanity fix it
4.  Should humanity fix it (that is, is global warming a net positive for humanity?)
5.  Do other co-inhabitors of our planet have a right to existance (that is, do Polar Bears deserve to live?)5.

1. Yes, but some scientists thinks it might start to get cooler already within a few years from now.

2. No. there are some well made explanations at Youtube to believe it's not human made. From what I've seen, the info that claims it's man made looks more like propaganda than scientific explanations, while the ones that claim it's natural shows more in depth scientific explanations, and how the scientists that came up with the theory that it's man made actually not really believe what they're saying. They manipulated the scientific results and seems more interesting in prestige and profit.

The Global Warming Swindle is a good place to start and then you can dig up the rest at Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ

3. Highly unlikely.

4. No, we should adapt to it.

5. Yes, because they have evolved to be here, and just whiping them out might have catastrophic results, tipping the balance in a way we can't predict. And let them get extinct is just an unnecessary waste, because we COULD live together with them!
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2008, 07:26:12 AM »
Quote
1. Is global warming hapening?
2. Is it humanity's fault
3. Can humanity fix it
4. Should humanity fix it (that is, is global warming a net positive for humanity?)
5. Do other co-inhabitors of our planet have a right to existance (that is, do Polar Bears deserve to live?)

First global warming is the theory of extra greenhouse effect due to extra CO2-levels. And I don't believe in that theorie

1. No, there is an increase in temperare due to the sun.

2. No, it is the sun.

3. No, they can't fix the sun.

4. The positive depends on where you live. Maybe we should, maybe we should not. I don't even think we could. But climate is conplicated and if we're powerfull enough to change stuff, we could better not do it, something may seem right but will turn out the other way, it is too complicated. We could better adept.

5. Yes, atleast until they get in our way. If there is a sudden complete food-shortage and we can eat them. And we could alos eat the fish they will not eat after becouse we just took them out. So complete anwser Yes/No. They may live but not if it could cost human-lives.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2008, 09:13:03 AM »
Global warming simply means that the planet is warming.  If you don't want to look like a fool needlessly, I would admit that global warming is happening when you talk to other people, since it's all just semantics.

Otherwise very telling responses