Tweet
Thanks a bunch for getting a seriously intended thread closed, you guys. You know who you are 
Ming, please don´t close this one. It´s seriously intended (at least as serious as you can get in OT).
To return to business. Here´s my response to Dalgettis constructive criticism of my proposal.
------
We need to free ourselves from the fossil fuel. I say continue building new nuke powerplants , and push on with the fusion power research instead.
No, nuclear power is a threat to mankind. What we need to do is to lower our entire energy consumtion.
Why not ? If there is any place where a minimal amount of wildlife is damaged while resources are gathered, it is antarctica.
I´m against this perpetual exploitation of nature, we will not benefit (in the long run) by strip-mining Antarctica.
What exactly are you referring to?
GE crops that barrens the soil.
toxic waste that is.
ALL waste. Organic waste spreads infectious diseases. Marine life is also threatened by irresponible dumping of rubbish. Fish get caught up in old fishing nets for instance.
not familiar with the subject.
It´s referring to two great dam projects (NOT nuclear, my mistake...
) that will seriously affect the lifes of the people that live there.
I agree . We should use antarctica instead.
NO! we shall not use Antarctica as a dumping ground for our waste. If your country produces toxic waste you will also deal with it!
We support:
Actually , a much more correct decision , IMO,would be to produce most of the food in europe , and ship it to places where it's much more difficult to grow them.
No, this will increase the amount of transportation needed, and therefore also an increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus negating the benefit of centralized food production. This is after all not Civ you know...
Lots of food is being destroyed to keep prices up, non?
Yes, but this will be rectified when we get a more just distribution of wealth.
most of them already are. It depends actually.
Well, yeah. Sort of, I guess...
it will never support the world. you know it , I know it .
Not if we continue to waste energy like we do now. If we aim for more effiecient energy systems for the industry and domestic areas it will work IMO.
sure, no pesticides . GM crops instead. And the transferring of genes from one species to another is VERY rare.
better ask PH , though, he's a pro.
Genetic engineering represents an intervention with unprecedented depth and power. Radical artificial alterations of the code of life, the genetic makeup, can be created. Such changes may have very complex consequences, difficult to foresee. Complications that cannot be imagined presently may occur.
Once released into nature the genetically engineered organisms and their altered genes may spread widely and uncontrollably century after century, yes indefinitely. Scientists have warned for a number of potential hazards, some of which may be serious.
Genetic engineering may cause changes in the biochemical processes of organisms in ways that are impossible to predict with present knowledge. Poisons, mutagens (substances causing genetic changes that may be harmful) and carcinogens (substances that stimulate the appearance of cancer) might be created in harmful concentrations.
Check this site for more info.
I am not sure . So do you mean we don't need sewers ?
No, what I mean is that the sewer system we have today is inadequate. Therefore we must produce less waste. Less pollution = happier planet
Ming, please don´t close this one. It´s seriously intended (at least as serious as you can get in OT).
To return to business. Here´s my response to Dalgettis constructive criticism of my proposal.
------
We need to free ourselves from the fossil fuel. I say continue building new nuke powerplants , and push on with the fusion power research instead.
No, nuclear power is a threat to mankind. What we need to do is to lower our entire energy consumtion.
Why not ? If there is any place where a minimal amount of wildlife is damaged while resources are gathered, it is antarctica.
I´m against this perpetual exploitation of nature, we will not benefit (in the long run) by strip-mining Antarctica.
What exactly are you referring to?
GE crops that barrens the soil.
toxic waste that is.ALL waste. Organic waste spreads infectious diseases. Marine life is also threatened by irresponible dumping of rubbish. Fish get caught up in old fishing nets for instance.
not familiar with the subject.
It´s referring to two great dam projects (NOT nuclear, my mistake...
) that will seriously affect the lifes of the people that live there. I agree . We should use antarctica instead.
NO! we shall not use Antarctica as a dumping ground for our waste. If your country produces toxic waste you will also deal with it!
We support:
Actually , a much more correct decision , IMO,would be to produce most of the food in europe , and ship it to places where it's much more difficult to grow them.
No, this will increase the amount of transportation needed, and therefore also an increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus negating the benefit of centralized food production. This is after all not Civ you know...
Lots of food is being destroyed to keep prices up, non?
Yes, but this will be rectified when we get a more just distribution of wealth.
most of them already are. It depends actually.
Well, yeah. Sort of, I guess...
it will never support the world. you know it , I know it .
Not if we continue to waste energy like we do now. If we aim for more effiecient energy systems for the industry and domestic areas it will work IMO.
sure, no pesticides . GM crops instead. And the transferring of genes from one species to another is VERY rare.
better ask PH , though, he's a pro.
Genetic engineering represents an intervention with unprecedented depth and power. Radical artificial alterations of the code of life, the genetic makeup, can be created. Such changes may have very complex consequences, difficult to foresee. Complications that cannot be imagined presently may occur.
Once released into nature the genetically engineered organisms and their altered genes may spread widely and uncontrollably century after century, yes indefinitely. Scientists have warned for a number of potential hazards, some of which may be serious.
Genetic engineering may cause changes in the biochemical processes of organisms in ways that are impossible to predict with present knowledge. Poisons, mutagens (substances causing genetic changes that may be harmful) and carcinogens (substances that stimulate the appearance of cancer) might be created in harmful concentrations.
Check this site for more info.
I am not sure . So do you mean we don't need sewers ?
No, what I mean is that the sewer system we have today is inadequate. Therefore we must produce less waste. Less pollution = happier planet
Comment