• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Environment

Environment

  • No. Our influence on the planet's health is minimal.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes. If nothing changes we'll destroy the planet.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

DJ

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
291
Location
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Car(s)
Volvo S60 T5
Clarkson being hit with a pie made me wonder what's the general opinon on this forum about environment.
 
you need a middle ground. . . we are damaging the planet... but it will only effect us. The planet will keep on spinning until it plunges back into our dying sun many years from now. How can a force as weak as the human race destroy a planet?

You'd need a death star or 2. . .
 
Ianspeed said:
you need a middle ground. . . we are damaging the planet... but it will only effect us. The planet will keep on spinning until it plunges back into our dying sun many years from now. How can a force as weak as the human race destroy a planet?

You'd need a death star or 2. . .

We'll destory ourselfs, oil will run out and we have NOTHING left..everything will be gone after oil, nobody will survive.( At least, not the city folks)
 
Ianspeed said:
you need a middle ground. . . we are damaging the planet... but it will only effect us. The planet will keep on spinning until it plunges back into our dying sun many years from now. How can a force as weak as the human race destroy a planet?

You'd need a death star or 2. . .

I should have made a 3rd option in the pool. Sorry.

Destruction of the planet wasn't ment as a planet blowing up, but rather changing to something lot less greener with only the most resilient life forms surviving.
 
Ianspeed said:
you need a middle ground. . . we are damaging the planet... but it will only effect us. The planet will keep on spinning until it plunges back into our dying sun many years from now. How can a force as weak as the human race destroy a planet?

You'd need a death star or 2. . .
We're the only species intelligent enough (and I use that phrase loosely) to completely recreate our surroundings. Look at Biodome, New York, the Hoover Dam, etc. So naturally, we can both fuck up and/or improve it as well. We could destroy this planet with nuclear arms alone; what makes you think we can't at least severly damage the environment with anything else?

I blame opposable thumbs. :thumbsdown: ;)
 
I am taking AP Environmental as a course this year, basically its a course about all the bad things humans are doing to destroy the Earth. I could read off some facts that would blow your mind. We are destroying the Earth at an alarming rate, and if we don't do anything about it in the next decade or so, things may get ugly and the death count may go into the millions world wide. Its really bad, air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, greenhouse gases, melting of the ice caps, etc etc. Its really bad out there, and we aren't doing a damn thing about it. I fear we won't do anything about it either. Everybody always says, "Yeah, we are not treating the Earth well." So if you think that way, why don't you try and help the problem. Everybody always wants problems solved for them, lazy people, the world governments need to get together now and discuss. Prime example, the UN is getting together this week, perfect time to discuss something like this, but I doubt it will be discussed at all. If anybody disagrees with me, I want truthfull facts, becuase I have facts to back up my claim.
 
Global Warming is a myth. The earth is getting hotter, because the sun is getting hotter. And it was Swiss* scientists (and "They're the best kind you can get") who figured that out.

*I think it was Swiss, it was either Swiss or Swedish.
 
I don't think that is the case, it could be partly becuase of that, but it would be really weird that the sun is heating up exactly after the start of the Industrial Revolution.....
 
Oh well, I dunno, the Swiss are usually a pretty smart bunch, you're right, it would be a solid coinkidink, but hey, the Swiss Scientisits said it!!
 
It's not entirely our fault, but we hold the majority of the blame.

That doesn't mean to me that sports cars and all of those gas guzzlers should be outlawed, just that we need the option to have more hybrids and such.
 
Viper007Bond said:
It's not entirely our fault, but we hold the majority of the blame.

That doesn't mean to me that sports cars and all of those gas guzzlers should be outlawed, just that we need the option to have more hybrids and such.
Hybrids are neat, but the problem is the public regards them as the only savior of the masses, the ultimate answer to everything, God-sent from the Rising Sun. (Frankly, the Prius annoys me to no end, but that's another rant for another time.) Hybrid technology needs to be developed more, but alternative fuels such as ethanol, alcohol, grease, fecal matter, people, etc. can't be forgotten. Remember, hybrids run on gasoline, too, and they'll be just as useless when the fossils crumble up.
 
Hybrids suck. If you buy one it will kill your dog.

Consider the materials used in those 'eco friendly' hybrids. Heavy metal batteries, acids, a raft of expensive polymer components to keep weight in check. All in addition to the material used in a 'conventional' motor vehicle. How will we recycle a world filled with hybrid cars?

Steel and Aluminium aren't high tech anymore but outdated safty regulations bar them from being used as effectively as they could be. Cars? They are not the problem in regard to global warming. They are a hell of a target for campeigns though.

We have the technology today to run alternative (renewable) fuels... but I've spouted off about that before - and killed the thread If I remember right. :D
 
We are actually in an ice age currently because we have the North and South Poles. The earth technically is cooler than it used to be. I had some interesting facts some time ago about how small of an impact humans have on the environment although I agree that humans are a plague and don't learn from their mistakes. We deplete everything but don't look at how to replenish it.
 
BlaRo said:
Viper007Bond said:
It's not entirely our fault, but we hold the majority of the blame.

That doesn't mean to me that sports cars and all of those gas guzzlers should be outlawed, just that we need the option to have more hybrids and such.
Hybrids are neat, but the problem is the public regards them as the only savior of the masses, the ultimate answer to everything, God-sent from the Rising Sun. (Frankly, the Prius annoys me to no end, but that's another rant for another time.) Hybrid technology needs to be developed more, but alternative fuels such as ethanol, alcohol, grease, fecal matter, people, etc. can't be forgotten. Remember, hybrids run on gasoline, too, and they'll be just as useless when the fossils crumble up.

Don't spout off about hybrids too much. Don't get me wrong. I hate them. Current production Hybrids are the scourge of the earth. Especially the Prius. There isn't a measurement for how much I hate that thing. But it seems that Hybrids may be about to come good. Why you ask? No the Audi Q7 Hybrid is not the answer either. The answer lies with Nissan and the next GT-R. Now before you get all narky and tell me the next GT-R can never be a hybrid and cry and stuff like I did when I read the rumors, stop, listen (or read) and think. The current rumors flying around are that the next GT-R will not have the ATESSA ET-S AWD system from the R32, R33, R34 line, but a beefed up big arse version of the ATESSA FRAME from the March (Micra). This means a traditional Front Engine, rear drive layout, with electric motors in the front wheels. It still sounds terrible, I know, but consider that an electric motor develops 100% of its torque from 0rpm, and you have the perfect recipe for on-demand front wheel torque. All of a sudden it starts to get better. Nissan has made no secret all along that the performance target for the GT-R is the Porsche 911 Turbo :D So it seems that the next GT-R will be some kind of uber Prius/Hybrid/Environmentally friendly (to a point) hyper car.

Hybrids are bad, but the sports application that is highly possible will appear in the next GT-R makes it all look sunny and good and stuff. Just someone kill all Priuses and Prius owners. Please.
 
Don't let media and scientist embellishment and sensationalism fool you. Global warming is not nearly as pressing an issue as many make it out to be. Things are progressing if not entirely naturally, then at a very slightly increased rate due to emissions from many artificial things.

"omg cows r farting n putting greenhouse gases in the air!!1! kill all the cows!1!!"
 
Hmm, anyway, if you wanna do something about the environment, don't blame the cars, as they make only a tiny bit of polluting. Blame America. :lol:

Buba
 
I usually don't support tree-hugging, llama-humping hippies. As a biochem student, I do have my views.

I was a bit surprised that Jezza had the same opinion about me. Engineering and technology will eventually make the environment healthy again. Right now, we're still in the early stages of industrialisation (it's only been 100+ years!). At our current point in history, we're polluting much less than we were a century ago. Even if we have more factories and pollutants overall, we have learned to clean up our act a very long way. I think the 70's saw more smog than we'll ever see (until all the Chinese & Indian people start to drive cars).

I think most people buy into the twisted data and facts that environmentalists and politicians feed us. We shouldn't just abuse the environment or be overly obsessive over it either. As with anything, we need a healthy balance that is practical enough for everybody to follow. I actually think we are a bit too tight on the environment right now. We should loosen up a bit and concentrate on more immediate matters.
 
Z Draci said:
I usually don't support tree-hugging, llama-humping hippies. As a biochem student, I do have my views.

I was a bit surprised that Jezza had the same opinion about me. Engineering and technology will eventually make the environment healthy again. Right now, we're still in the early stages of industrialisation (it's only been 100+ years!). At our current point in history, we're polluting much less than we were a century ago. Even if we have more factories and pollutants overall, we have learned to clean up our act a very long way. I think the 70's saw more smog than we'll ever see (until all the Chinese & Indian people start to drive cars).

I think most people buy into the twisted data and facts that environmentalists and politicians feed us. We shouldn't just abuse the environment or be overly obsessive over it either. As with anything, we need a healthy balance that is practical enough for everybody to follow. I actually think we are a bit too tight on the environment right now. We should loosen up a bit and concentrate on more immediate matters.

Bravo :clap:
 
Z Draci said:
I usually don't support tree-hugging, llama-humping hippies. As a biochem student, I do have my views.

I was a bit surprised that Jezza had the same opinion about me. Engineering and technology will eventually make the environment healthy again. Right now, we're still in the early stages of industrialisation (it's only been 100+ years!). At our current point in history, we're polluting much less than we were a century ago. Even if we have more factories and pollutants overall, we have learned to clean up our act a very long way. I think the 70's saw more smog than we'll ever see (until all the Chinese & Indian people start to drive cars).

I think most people buy into the twisted data and facts that environmentalists and politicians feed us. We shouldn't just abuse the environment or be overly obsessive over it either. As with anything, we need a healthy balance that is practical enough for everybody to follow. I actually think we are a bit too tight on the environment right now. We should loosen up a bit and concentrate on more immediate matters.

As an Environmental Science student I have my views as well... and they're pretty much the same as yours :eek: Except that the environment is also an immediate matter but not as immediate as some other things.

Hell, I'm no hessian-wearing, pot-smoking*ahem*, tree-hugging hippie. For God sake, I love sports cars that use lots of petrol and I eat meat!!

Due to technology, we are polluting less than our forefathers did in the industrial revolution, cars are cleaner, oil is cleaner. The problem is, that we haven't yet found technology good enough to further reduce the pollution.

The Kyoto protocol was a good thing. Until Australia and the US decided not to ratify. [For the record, Australia is the highest (or 2nd highest) greenhouse gas emitter per capita.] Instead of arguing with the UN, Bush and Howard should get off their arses and put money into projects to find this better, cleaner technology to improve our environment.

These fucking idiots (ie: Greenpeace) are always chaining themselves to trees, trucks and whaling boats. They give environmentalists a bad name, as do the other radicals. Quite frankly, it'd be easier if environmentalists thought like Jeremy Clarkson. Let engineering and technology evolve so we have a cleaner world.

All we have to do now, is sit back, enjoy life and enjoy the technology we have.

The End.
 
Top