Climate change and overpopulation

[Midnight-Phantom]

As I said and I quote '' It's important to recognize that everyone's viewpoint is shaped by their knowledge, life experiences, biases, empathy, and a range of emotions. There will never be a single topic that all humans or any sentient life form within society can unanimously agree upon or will follow

If they were raised in Western civilization they likely do share a lot of the same principles as us, the only difference is those people don't care about trying to be moral people. Anyone that would try to justify such heinous behavior is either too delusional to be judged on the same scale as normal people or is sane but knowingly evil.

''

 

[Deleted member 113259]

As I said and I quote '' It's important to recognize that everyone's viewpoint is shaped by their knowledge, life experiences, biases, empathy, and a range of emotions. There will never be a single topic that all humans or any sentient life form within society can unanimously agree upon or will follow


''

And as I said that's wrong. Bias and life experiences don't shape the "Can you kick a baby?" question. It's almost as black and white as it gets. Even the people that would kick a baby agree that it's wrong. They just don't care.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

And as I said that's wrong. Bias and life experiences don't shape the "Can you kick a baby?" question. It's almost as black and white as it gets. Even the people that would kick a baby agree that it's wrong. They just don't care.

As I said ''will follow ''

'' they will do that under circumstances, which I can't comprehend, but will do nothingness ''

taking an action knowing that is morally, ethically, or any way for the matter wrong, will put the whole thing in the same category.

and as you said (They just don't care) .. rationalizing why they don't do that is the point ... they either can't agree upon that action and even if they do they will not follow ..

 

[Deleted member 113259]

As I said ''will follow ''

'' they will do that under circumstances, which I can't comprehend, but will do nothingness ''

taking an action knowing that is morally, ethically, or any way for the matter wrong, will put the whole thing in the same category.

and as you said (They just don't care) .. rationalizing why they don't do that is the point ... they either can't agree upon that action and even if they do they will not follow ..

I think we're speaking past each other, so let's stop this. I won't reply to your next message. I brought the baby thing up as a way of saying there isn't nuance in every discussion because it seemed like you were trying to say every opinion has something of value. The baby question proves that's not always the case. If you weren't saying this and were just saying that people have opinions then that's fairly obvious.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I didn't say it because I hoped you knew the general concept. And the way you speak about it shows you don't hold much stock in what they're selling. Which is fair, cause I'm dubious about them as well.

Example: Canada claims to be carbon neutral with their massive woodlands. Too bad scientific review shows them to be ignoring things like wild fires and oil refinement to get that claim.

Example 2: carbon capture plastic leaves. It's just a dumb pipe dream with no physical prototypes.

Personally, I see the graphine techs being worked on as a way to create carbon demand. The holy grail techs would be cheap conversions of CO and CO2 and diamond formation. Do note cell phone screens are made of the same stuff as ruby these days. I'd love for artificial diamond to get cheap enough that we use that instead.

Actually I have to say I’m wrong about the wood stuff. Wood has about 40% oxygen molecules in its elemental composition so trees might be good for converting CO2 to O2, but if we try to account for all the theoretical carbon in the ground it might not work well.

Green leafy plants would function better as carbon storage.

your example 2 is more interesting as a solution in the sense that if carbon is made into carbon fiber, which is also not toxic, and then perhaps stored in an area where no one could touch it, then no one can do anything. Diamond making takes a lot more energy to heat up,

however, I think there is something most people aren’t accounting for. I believe there is a huge amount of oxygen stored beneath the earth’s crust as well. There are many gases there that are not touched, helium and other heavier elements. this is only a theory however, and I believe it is due to the volcanic activity, especially since a lot of volcsnoes are underwater.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Which is why I don’t put huge stock in that argument despite knowing about it. There is still a lot to discover.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

I think we're speaking past each other, so let's stop this. I won't reply to your next message. I brought the baby thing up as a way of saying there isn't nuance in every discussion because it seemed like you were trying to say every opinion has something of value. The baby question proves that's not always the case. If you weren't saying this and were just saying that people have opinions then that's fairly obvious.

I had the same thought, my friend. It seems like we ended up discussing different topics altogether. I was focused on highlighting various logical conclusions within a debate, while you were pointing out that every subject should not have a strictly logical standpoint. It seems we got off track a bit.

 

[ZukoMee]

All I know is, any idiots claiming "Going green" is the answer, are idiots. Electric cars, windmills, and other similar "green" solutions cannot replace oil. Not even close. The energy output/conservation numbers are wildly different.

Nuclear power and better food distribution will solve the problem....but it's costs money no one is willing to spend.

I'm against mass immigration because it's a short-term solution that will only backfire later, especially if the immigrants come from wholly different cultures. No, people do not assimilate "just because they are here for a while." Some actually do, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. If the immigrants were from similar cultures than sure, it would be a possible solution, but this isn't what is happening. That isn't how immigration populations are being chosen.


If you cannot assimilate to the local culture, you should not be there.

 

[melchi]

While I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. In the 19th century millions of Irish immigrated to the USA. At the time being Catholic was seen as against US culture. How many of those people became vagrants and problems?

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

While I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. In the 19th century millions of Irish immigrated to the USA. At the time being Catholic was seen as against US culture. How many of those people became vagrants and problems?

Considering you are mentioning Catholicism...
How many of them assimilated and converted Protestant?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

While I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. In the 19th century millions of Irish immigrated to the USA. At the time being Catholic was seen as against US culture. How many of those people became vagrants and problems?

The Catholics have a large voting block now that is a problem ?

 

[ZukoMee]

Its still European culture and despite the slight difference in religion, the morals, mannerisms, and general idea of the way society is viewed is very similar between Americans and Irish then and now. So yes, the culture argument I made is still valid here. It's strange that of all the many examples possible, THAT is the one you chose. It's one of the most laziest and easily explainable examples possible.

While I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. In the 19th century millions of Irish immigrated to the USA. At the time being Catholic was seen as against US culture. How many of those people became vagrants and problems?

 

[melchi]

Considering you are mentioning Catholicism...
How many of them assimilated and converted Protestant?

I'm not sure, looking at a few articles it says they were a mixed bag. However, considering great Brittan abolished slavery in 1807 and all of the slaves freed in 1838 it would make sense that Catholic priests efforts to provide schooling for free black people didn't go over well in the south. According to Wikipedia the population wasn't heavily catholic until the 1830s.

Also, there was a really strong anti-Catholic movement. For example, the KKK got many anti-Catholic bills into law.

https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/kkk_i49.htm

Here is an example of how catholic schools were made illegal. The rational was that the children needed to go to public school where they could get an education on how to become a real American.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

I'm sure there are still places that will gladly kick the babies in the head. They would still need to have that, "completely fuck up your enemies" culture.

 

[Daitengu]

Actually I have to say I’m wrong about the wood stuff. Wood has about 40% oxygen molecules in its elemental composition so trees might be good for converting CO2 to O2, but if we try to account for all the theoretical carbon in the ground it might not work well.

Green leafy plants would function better as carbon storage.

your example 2 is more interesting as a solution in the sense that if carbon is made into carbon fiber, which is also not toxic, and then perhaps stored in an area where no one could touch it, then no one can do anything. Diamond making takes a lot more energy to heat up,

however, I think there is something most people aren’t accounting for. I believe there is a huge amount of oxygen stored beneath the earth’s crust as well. There are many gases there that are not touched, helium and other heavier elements. this is only a theory however, and I believe it is due to the volcanic activity, especially since a lot of volcsnoes are underwater.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Which is why I don’t put huge stock in that argument despite knowing about it. There is still a lot to discover.

I heard the volcano hypothesis presented before. Just a shame it falls apart when the CO2 increase aligns with the industrial revolution, and there's just no evidence of increased volcano activity in the same duration.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I heard the volcano hypothesis presented before. Just a shame it falls apart when the CO2 increase aligns with the industrial revolution, and there's just no evidence of increased volcano activity in the same duration.

The problem is how did we even measure the CO2 increase during the Industrial Revolution?
the first measurement device for atmospheric gases was 1934, way after the Revolution which started in the 1800s

Then, how did we know what volcanic activity is taking place during that time? Underwater volcanos, over 20,000 of them. Do we know exactly when they were active? I’m just questioning why we can be so sure of something when there isn’t actual proof but “suggestive evidence” that isn’t backed by much but conjecture.

EDIT: It was actually only in 1958 that they could do measurements of atmospheric CO2, before then the analytics and sensors could only measure through a container with known volume.

Hence I find your statement about the Industrial Revolution correlation dismissing away a volcanic theory to be unfounded.

This doesn’t mean you have to accept volcanic theory, it just means it’s on the same level as manmade emissions for now.

 

[Gryphon]

I know it's probably past the point of no return, but for future reference, I recommend going to actual sources and not asking a bunch of people on a forum site that may or may not have the qualifications to give an educated opinion. And even if there is someone that studies the field you're writing a paper about and gives a good opinion, that opinion would be null because of where you got the source because there is always the chance the person you're speaking to is full of crap. Especially on a topic like climate change.

Also you might want to go into researching something without a biased answer in mind. If you go into research already having a preconceived notion on the answer you want to be true, then it'll affect the legitimacy of your research. Keep that in mind as you go forward.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

I know it's probably past the point of no return, but for future reference, I recommend going to actual sources and not asking a bunch of people on a forum site that may or may not have the qualifications to give an educated opinion. And even if there is someone that studies the field you're writing a paper about and gives a good opinion, that opinion would be null because of where you got the source because there is always the chance the person you're speaking to is full of crap. Especially on a topic like climate change.

Also you might want to go into researching something without a biased answer in mind. If you go into research already having a preconceived notion on the answer you want to be true, then it'll affect the legitimacy of your research. Keep that in mind as you go forward.

Truth be told, my research on the topic was already finished. However, there are two more things I needed to address in my script:
1. The general misconceptions
2. If there are people who disagree, exactly why?
Additionally, I was hoping to find an interesting perspective or tidbit. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find these three things just by reading papers. So data collection (sorry) was my natural option. While Reddit is usually my go-to platform for endeavors like this, I opted out this time due to a few reasons.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Truth be told, my research on the topic was already finished. However, there are two more things I needed to address in my script:
1. The general misconceptions
2. If there are people who disagree, exactly why?
Additionally, I was hoping to find an interesting perspective or tidbit. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find these three things just by reading papers. So data collection (sorry) was my natural option. While Reddit is usually my go-to platform for endeavors like this, I opted out this time due to a few reasons.

I think the purpose was achieved, as convoluted as it was. You at least had multiple sides to look at, and at the very least disagreement didn't lead to a flame war.

I agree that using Reddit is not a good choice.

Good luck.

 

[melchi]

The problem is how did we even measure the CO2 increase during the Industrial Revolution?
the first measurement device for atmospheric gases was 1934, way after the Revolution which started in the 1800s

Then, how did we know what volcanic activity is taking place during that time? Underwater volcanos, over 20,000 of them. Do we know exactly when they were active? I’m just questioning why we can be so sure of something when there isn’t actual proof but “suggestive evidence” that isn’t backed by much but conjecture.

EDIT: It was actually only in 1958 that they could do measurements of atmospheric CO2, before then the analytics and sensors could only measure through a container with known volume.

Hence I find your statement about the Industrial Revolution correlation dismissing away a volcanic theory to be unfounded.

This doesn’t mean you have to accept volcanic theory, it just means it’s on the same level as manmade emissions for now.

I think they can get ice cores from the antarctic. I don't know how accurate that can be. Measurements in the parts per million in gas is hard, not sure how they do it in ice.

 

[Deleted member 1244]

Hot take: topics don't get threads locked, people acting like ass holes when talking about said topics gets threads locked.