COMMENTS:
More like the next 10 years.
funny you should make this ballot. most of my friends say that after 9/11 they've felt a really nagging feeling and have been kind of depressed ever since. even adam who is from england has said something similar.
i'd say within the next 10 -15 years this planet will be pretty much destroyed and life as we know it will be a thing of the past.
Voted : No, a very/small number will survive
Earth will defend itself against The Filthy, churn us up and start over.
Until it does we'll keep fighting over God and power, thinking we've evolved :p
by Jyl on Thu Feb 01, 07 9:55am
[+]
No, I do not see the human race completely destroying itself in the next 100 year. Not at all.
Voted : No, the majority will survive
Humanity will survive for many millinia to come. What we see and hear happening is politics at work. Hollywood and the Network Media depend on just this type of propaganda and mass insecurity to *market* ideas (whether it's true or a hoax) and generate profits.
I've seen dozens of programs recently promoting natural disasters and global destruction ranging from tsunomi to dooms day asteroids. In truth, these events, though possible, are highly unlikely to ever happen in Biblical proportions.
The enviromentalists do the same thing screaming global warming, acid rain, air pollution, save the rainforest, stop oil exploration, ayadda, ayadda, ayadda...
Now I'm not saying that there's no reason for concern, of course there is, what I am saying is :
There are thousands of organizations and agencies out there wanting the biggest slice of pie that they can get so they propagandize their issue to increase public awareness and gain support. But there's only so much pie to go around, so the bigger the propaganda, the bigger slice of the pie they get. Analogous to thugs and bullies, the more they intimidate and scare the public, the more pie they're gonna acquire.
Across the board, making a moderate estimate of most issues, it's safe to say that for every issue proported as being of grave concern, the urgency of the issue is actually less than half what's being reported.
For example, when it's reported that there is only enough fossil fuel reserves left in the world to last, at the current rate of consumption, for 50 years, the actual amount will last a little over a hundred years. We can make this assumption because their estimate is just that, an over-estimate.
So naturally if we don't do anything, then at some point we're going to pay the piper, but what hasn't happened probably won't ever happen and to be paranoid about it and *vaguely unsettled* is unnescessary and unhealthy.
As someone who pays Zero attention to "Hollywood and the Network Media" I need help understanding what's leftist, paranoid or unhealthy about believing we should very quickly find some way to power our machinery than with fossil fuels?
If this many people think there's no reason to save forests then don't worry about them being bullied into changing, sleep tight ;)
by Jyl on Thu Feb 01, 07 11:27am
[+]
Paranoid and vaguely unsettled induces stress, stress weakens the immune system and prematurely ages the body. In turn, you become susceptible to frequent illness', depression and even develop psychological disorders living with a lingering fear over nothing terribly tragic. That's unhealthy.
I don't recall saying anything about being leftist, but don't believe all the hype you hear about this *critical* state of affairs the worlds in.
Sure, we have problems facing us in the future, and we have hurdles to overcome, but worrying about the next hurdle 3 generations down the road seems ridiculasly premature, distracting and non-productive, and works against you in the full course of the race.
I'm just saying the world's not in such dire straights and to fear or exceedingly burdening oneself over something unlikely to occur is extremely unhealthy.
We have developed alternative power sources. Finding them isn't the problem. The problem is the transition from a fossil feul based economy to an alternative power source based economy. The global infrastructure must change slowly over time. And it has been for 30 years.
but "PARANOID"? Is that what y'all are getting from your tube these days, no wonder I stopped watching.
by Jyl on Thu Feb 01, 07 8:54pm
[+]
I understand psychoneuroimmunology.
The state of the environment and the pollution we are pumping into the land, sea, and air is not a stressor from a purely personal standpoint. Personally I know I'll be living in places where the environment is in decent or manageable shape for the rest of my life. But I can't just wipe my conscience clean like a dry-erase board. Future generations will suffer--and already are in heavily polluted areas. It has been proven that living in or near these areas leads (at least) to reduced lung capacity. That's a problem, particularly for pregnant women and children.
You mentioned fossil fuels lasting at least another 100 years at current rates of consumption. First I would point at that the human population is multiplying at a very fast rate, so rates of consumption will be increasing dramatically over time.
America contributes about 25% of the world's population. We are at the point now where curbing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner fossil fuels is our goal. I feel we have a duty as such a powerful country and significant source of pollution affecting not only ourselves but the rest of the world to be spearheading anti-pollution efforts. Of course, neither America nor the majority of Americans and certainly not megacorps are going to be willfully sacrificing money and standard of living for intangible, delayed benefits to overall physical health.
I don't think it's necessary to be alarmist, but I do believe that, from a humanistic standpoint, this is something we need to be addressing.
I wholly agree Applerod, pointing out that the world population is at 6.7B and the population of America is merely 300M, making America's population only 5% of the world population, yet, we're one of the biggest offenders of enviromental pollution.
However, over the last 20 years, America's enviromental conservation and protection laws have resulted in significant improvements in the air quality in most of the larger cities. Sanitation, recycling and human waste disposal technology has improved the quality of ground water, pose significantly less risk of spreading disease, and are actually producing some useful products in the agricultural and construction industries.
As to the issue of energy, future generations will not suffer anymore than we do today. Are we conservation conscience? Yes. Could it be improved? Yes. Will future generations have to do the same? Probably, but I don't think they will be worse off.
Reflect back in history. When has the human race ever prospered or benefited more than in this modern age? Never, and it will keep getting better providing we are civic minded and don't distroy ourselve with war.
The fossil fuel dependant state of the world is of concern, but it's not of dire concern. My point is that the time frame of 50 years before the reserve runs dry has been grossly over-stated. Exploration and discovery of new crude oil resources isn't taken into account and alternative energys are in the works and already available.
The problem is they are expensive, and though more efficient, people want as much as possible with the least expense, even if it's less efficient.
The Auto Industry and Oil Companies are stiffening competion for R&D because it threatens the markets for existing products, production methods and maintenance costs (fuel and oil sales).
Several people expressed the belief that the world was doomed in a decade or two, so the bulk of my prior comments where directed toward them.
Voted : No, the majority will survive
It'll take 'em longer than a century to get the job done. All of the internecine combinations available for conflict would take that long to stage.
|
