The Impossibility of Growth

[Felch]

We are discussing it. You are just bad at math and science.

[Fake Boris]

When you actually have a fact to share with us, I would welcome it.

You're like the leftist version of reg.

"I say it" = fact

Let's start with an obvious simple fact.

Carbon emissions. Making iPods burns carbon. Greenhouse gases are waste.

[kentonio]

It might be, but I doubt it.

Given that it probably either requires us to have been wrong about the laws of physics, or to invent a power source of almost unimaginable magnitude, I wouldn't be quite so confident about that. Especially as it's also a good argument for the Fermi paradox being a crock of ****.

[Sava]

Also, if we're talking about toxins present in the ocean at any level, then the entire ocean is contaminated and we're already dead. Which means that we're just a bunch of zombies communicating over the internet, and we need to stop RIGHT NOW and go eat some delicious braaaaaaaaaains!

IMO, OB's mistake (one of them, anyways) is that he thinks people are destroying the planet... and that this is morally wrong because we should strive to live a pristine, utopian existence in harmony with nature.

This is wrong.

Humanity's impact on the planet is a threat to our own existence. The planet will be here long after we're gone. Life goes on. The planet has suffered huge catastrophes that have irrevocably changed conditions on the surface... moreso than humanity could ever dream, at this point.

"Nature" has been trying to kill us for our entire existence. Environmental issues are about our own survival... or at the very least, keeping conditions stable as to not make our survival cost us a lot more than it already does. Our current short-sided policies probably have more of an economic impact on us than the solutions to said problems... making the "it costs too much" argument null and void.

[Fake Boris]

We are discussing it. You are just bad at math and science.

Exhibit A: Sava asks for "proof" that the manufacturing industry burns more energy than there is in the good.

[Felch]

Let's start with an obvious simple fact.

Carbon emissions. Making iPods burns carbon. Greenhouse gases are waste.

Carbon dioxide belongs in the atmosphere where it supports plant life (CO2 is essential for photosynthesis) and helps warm frozen regions of the Earth. Hence, iPods help the world (and I say this in spite of hating Apple).

[Sava]

Exhibit A: Sava asks for "proof" that the manufacturing industry burns more energy than there is in the good.

I don't know if you're being intellectually dishonest... or if you're just a blithering idiot.

[Lorizael]

The garbage patch is not a good thing, fakeboris, but there's considerable scientific debate about how not good it is. It's not necessarily an emergency, but it's probably something we should try to clean up (and keep clean in the future). Yes, we're always going to produce waste, but we can become more efficient and produce less of it. But to do that, we need to learn more about how the world works. And to do that, we need to keep the engine of capitalism going, so that it can fuel more scientific discovery. That's our best bet for the foreseeable future.

[Fake Boris]

IMO, OB's mistake (one of them, anyways) is that he thinks people are destroying the planet... and that this is morally wrong because we should strive to live a pristine, utopian existence in harmony with nature.

This is wrong.

Humanity's impact on the planet is a threat to our own existence. The planet will be here long after we're gone. Life goes on. The planet has suffered huge catastrophes that have irrevocably changed conditions on the surface... moreso than humanity could ever dream, at this point.

"Nature" has been trying to kill us for our entire existence. Environmental issues are about our own survival... or at the very least, keeping conditions stable as to not make our survival cost us a lot more than it already does. Our current short-sided policies probably have more of an economic impact on us than the solutions to said problems... making the "it costs too much" argument null and void.

War against nature

[Sava]

War against nature

Yes. It's called survival.

[Felch]

We've been winning it ever since we mastered fire and exterminated the saber-tooth tigers.

[Fake Boris]

Carbon dioxide belongs in the atmosphere where it supports plant life (CO2 is essential for photosynthesis) and helps warm frozen regions of the Earth. Hence, iPods help the world (and I say this in spite of hating Apple).

Exhibit B: carbon emissions are okay because there's carbon in the atmosphere.

[Lorizael]

Given that it probably either requires us to have been wrong about the laws of physics, or to invent a power source of almost unimaginable magnitude, I wouldn't be quite so confident about that. Especially as it's also a good argument for the Fermi paradox being a crock of ****.

There's nothing in physics that prevents us from leaving the solar system. There's an almost 40-year old space probe in the process of doing that right now. Slower than light colonization is slow, yes, but not an insurmountable challenge.

[Felch]

Exhibit B: carbon emissions are okay because there's carbon in the atmosphere.

Yup yup yup!

Where do you think fossil fuels got their carbon? A bunch of plants sucked it out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago, they trapped it underground instead of releasing it after death, and now we're finally liberating it and putting it back where it belongs.

[Fake Boris]

I don't know if you're being intellectually dishonest... or if you're just a blithering idiot.

Think about the production chain of an iPod for a minute or two. And the lifecycle of the product.