• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The Self-defeating nature of the Green movement

Migrated topic.
Its come to my attention that many of the energy alternatives and biodegradable products pushed by eco-friendly organizations actually have one major downfall: they increase the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere which increases the rate of global warming. Where corn PLA resins reduce the amount of non-degradable plastics in land fills, the decomposition process of corn PLA produces carbon dioxide. And as for fuel alternatives, many of them, although from renewable resources, still release large amounts of carbon dioxide, for example, ethanol fuels for cars. Has anyone else noticed this strange antagonism that is present in trying to solve a variety of the problems facing the earth? It seems that in a lot of cases, what solves one environmental problem leads to another.
 
I remember seeing an episode of Penn & Teller's [i:ca45d2cece]Bullshit![/i:ca45d2cece] that was about how the infrastructures that support the recycling movement actually contribute more carbon emissions than are being saved. I think however, that the modern Eco-mindedness is still in its infancy, and that on the whole, all the efforts towards sustainibility are the baby steps that must be taken before the most efficient methods can be developed and new infrastructures supersede our current models. Super perfundo on the early eve of your day, -The Dream Walker
 
[quote:15042ca093="The Dream Walker"]I remember seeing an episode of Penn & Teller's [i:15042ca093]Bullshit![/i:15042ca093][/quote:15042ca093] That same episode they got hundreds of signatures at a Green rally on a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. [quote:15042ca093="TrYpt / PhEnEtHyl -AMinE"]still release large amounts of carbon dioxide, for example[/quote:15042ca093] Breathing :roll:
 
[quote:fa63da03bd="DeadLizard"]That same episode they got hundreds of signatures at a Green rally on a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. [/quote:fa63da03bd] Indeed they did :twisted: That pun came across my mind about a week ago and I was trying to come up with something equally ridiculous...
 
Why not start a petition to enforce strict regulation of the carbon emissions of organic systems. In other words, get people to sign a petition to have the government limit how much they are allowed to breath. Hahaha!
 
[quote:056d77bd1b="DeadLizard"]Well it's already illegal to posses or use your brain because it contains a class 1 prohibited substance so why not. 😉[/quote:056d77bd1b] Wow...I can't believe that I have never made that connection before...
 
yeah, Ive seen a lot of chatter involving this claim recently.

lot of people seem to think its as good as proven

I actually concur with the theory, but not due to strassman's evidence, or whoever it was...
its the elements of the experience itself,
that make me feel like the spice is connected in some unique way to the fundamental components
of existential machinery
 
to me techonology was pushed too fast, but who wants to hold out on something that makes everything easier. You can't get around work.

it seems harder to me to take care of a car then it is to take care of a horse(although putting the horseshoes on, fuck, i'd hate to be the guy that does that)

my grandfather seems to have a huge disagreement with the whole concept of technology making things harder.

it does make things easier, but not for everyone, construction workers have to work hard. Well, building wasn't harder before we had technology, but now technology allows a machine to go in and take out a whole shit load of dirt, so since THAT'S easier, now they can have 20 people dig the holes for twice as many electric lines then before they had the bobcat or whatever since you can dig more.

sure, technology makes things easier, but i guarantee people wouldn't drive cars if EVERYONE had to fix their car if it broke, or would they?

would people want such a big building built if you had to build the house you live in? or the building you work in?

then there's farming, farming is much easier because of the sprinklers, without it it's be a pain in the ass to wait for rain, and without knowing if it's going to rain, you can lose your entire crop.

so it goes both ways, but i don't think EVERYTHING is easier, i know without technology some things would be harder, but total, would it? without all the plumbers and construction workers and steel mill workers and fuckin mechanics would it be harder? you'd sure as fuck have to cut some wood, and dig some holes, and move some trees, and whatnot. I don't know

my grandfather tells me it's insane to think otherwise, but whatever. I think he sees it from the perspective of getting one guy to do ALL the hard work, not matter what you have, if you get one guy to do all the hard work, it's always going to be a pain in the ass for someone.



I guess that got off subject.

what I'm trying to say is, when someone invents something, they should limit it's use, until further discovery of the tools. Somehow, for hundreds of years, people SEEMED to live alright, without technology, am I wrong?

before that there were no bussling cities, and metropolis and crap, people knew they had to be frugal, if you can be frugal you can do a lot less work. A t.v. is nice, i could live without one, my life would probably be better without one.

Anyway, a car is great, i'm sure they didn't know all the Co2 was destroying the ozone layer, or did they? i guess you never know, so many people know so many things.

I bet tons of people knew the world was round when everyone thought it was fuckin flat.
 
CO2 is not destroying the ozone layer. CO2 is a critical part of our atmosphere. technology is a great thing. of course we need to learn how to use it properly while at the same time respecting the life we share this planet with. this is possible.

go to a place where people dont have clean water and youll see why technology is a good thing.
 
if C02 doesn't destroy the atmosphere, then what does? Also, what did people do for thousands of years without technology? i've heard that in every country without technology, they have disease, screwed up water, hunger. That's not because of screwed up governments? see, i'm not saying it is, but how did people do it before we had technology? that's what I want to know, did everyone just live in poverty, hunger, and disease and shit?

also, if c02 doesn't screw up the atmosphere, what does?
 
see, i'm not saying it is, but how did people do it before we had technology? that's what I want to know, did everyone just live in poverty, hunger, and disease and shit?

many people did. not everyone (rich royalty) but many people did. Of course people survived before technology and probaly led good lives. But if you got a bacterial infection it was probaly less likely that you would survive then then now. thats just one small example.

if C02 doesn't destroy the atmosphere, then what does?

CFC's can destroy ozone maybe thats what your thinking. CFC's are banned in the US however still used in some other countries.

also, if c02 doesn't screw up the atmosphere, what does?

CO2 is absolutely essential for human life. Plants use CO2 to make sugar that sugar forms the food chain we all depend on. CO2 is a greenhouse gas meaning it holds in heat and radiation. This is also an essential thing! Without greenhouse gases earth would not be a nice place for humans to live! People are concerned that a rise in CO2 from burning fossil fuels etc will lead to an excessive increase in temperature. Although its a reasonable idea and there is evidence for it climate science still doesnt know whats going on. Global warming isnt going to destroy the world but we should be careful with what we are doing. However I do not think human beings could upset the balance so much something will kick us in the ass. Dont buy into the carbon tax its just a corporate scam. Reducing carbon emissions is a resonable thing to do and a good idea but more stupid bullshit rich benefiting taxes will not solve the problem.
 
demius said:
Well it's already illegal to posses or use your brain because it contains a class 1 prohibited substance so why not. 😉

this is theory, don't tout it as fact, please

What is theory, DMT within the brain?

It has been found throughout the body, (gut, urine, stool, lungs and a few other places I can think of off the top of my head) this has been proven. If you need the link to the studies let me know.

However, I don't know if it has been proven to be within the brain.

So I guess it is illegal to posses our bodies.
 
acolon_5 said:
demius said:
Well it's already illegal to posses or use your brain because it contains a class 1 prohibited substance so why not. 😉

this is theory, don't tout it as fact, please

What is theory, DMT within the brain?

It has been found throughout the body, (gut, urine, stool, lungs and a few other places I can think of off the top of my head) this has been proven. If you need the link to the studies let me know.

However, I don't know if it has been proven to be within the brain.

So I guess it is illegal to posses our bodies.

has anyone been able to prove that dmt isn't simply a good stable molecule, easy to hold somewhere or everywhere in the body, readily available for the body to soak up and use for something else? tryptophan and 5-htp have been found in the blood, they're amino acids, needed for synthesis into seratonin. I don't know, that would seem more likely, and that some receptor is easily overloaded by dmt. Why is something found in a plant, AND a human, if it's not a nutrient or protein or amino acid of some sort. Plants don't need nuerotransmitters.

HOWEVER, if they could prove that a plant needs dmt AND a human needs it as a nuerotransmitter, that brings up cool questions. Why would a plant need something a person would use for a nuerotransmitter? or is this something already been questioned a researched? for example, they've found adrenaline in a plant, right?
 
burnt said:
CO2 is absolutely essential for human life. Plants use CO2 to make sugar that sugar forms the food chain we all depend on. CO2 is a greenhouse gas meaning it holds in heat and radiation. This is also an essential thing! Without greenhouse gases earth would not be a nice place for humans to live! People are concerned that a rise in CO2 from burning fossil fuels etc will lead to an excessive increase in temperature. Although its a reasonable idea and there is evidence for it climate science still doesnt know whats going on. Global warming isnt going to destroy the world but we should be careful with what we are doing. However I do not think human beings could upset the balance so much something will kick us in the ass. Dont buy into the carbon tax its just a corporate scam. Reducing carbon emissions is a resonable thing to do and a good idea but more stupid bullshit rich benefiting taxes will not solve the problem.

Close to my own sentiments. I'm not sure we're incapable of destroying everything, we might be. But I wouldn't take it at face value from a politician. There's always a hidden agenda on their part.

As far as fuel goes, there is no one answer. Thinking like that is thinking in the same box that oil is the one resource. There should be a diversity of fuel resources. You can run a car on batteries, which can be charged by anything, burning shit, windmills, solar panels, ...whatever. Or you can run it on pure waste vegetable oil that you buy from a restaurant, if they don't just give it to you. Or you can run it on ethanol or petroleum, or even hydrogen. The latter isn't very resource efficient though, since the amount of energy it takes to create it is astronomical.

It's much cheaper to buy a couple solar panels and a windmill in the near future than it is to rely on oil, or ethanol.

One of my ultimate goals is to have an off-grid house with subsistence permaculture. This ensures a much greater degree of immunity to bull-shit geopolitical happenings.
 
i agree about there not being one magic solution to this issue. I think its a key point. the best thing is for local communities to find ways to conserve (thats the first step) and then produce more close to home energy sources. this also gives people a lot more power over their lives which in these times with all our fucked up politicians is a powerful thing.
 
imachavel said:
don't they have a car now that runs on water? how the hell does THAT work?

it works by creating hidrogen from the water, here's a description from a site :
Water Powered Cars or Hydrogen/Oxygen Powered Cars, using 100% water as fuel is real. By spiltting water by electrolysis and creating hydrogen/oxygen gas, you can replace gasoline. We have been taught this is impossible! Engineers, scientists and professors may in fact tell tell you you're crazy to believe such non sense. They will also set out to prove you wrong. They base their laws of physics form 1825 thinking. Faraday's laws. Did you know that the first ICE engine ran on hydrogen from water? BMW has them! Hyunda will be making them. Japan indorses them. Many patents, inventions have been bought and there project is shelved, yes it is true. Some of the stubborn inventors who don't sell out disappear. Yes that's right. It happens in the US, Aus, NZ, UK and India. We are in a crunch to find alternative fuels. The pressure is on. War for oil is not the way to go. Talking politics about a hydrogen future that never comes, is not going to help either. Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.

1) "It's nonsense,"
2) "It is not important,"
3) "I always said it was a good idea," and
4) "I thought of it first."

If all ICE motors (Internal Combustion Engines) were converted to burn hydrogen and oxygen in the water, as fuel to propel our cars, trucks, semi's etc., we would no longer need gas stations, oil tankers, refineries, SMOG and war. The only problem would be that the large Oil Corporations would go under and SMOG would leave the planet for good. The Ozone would get healed and we would survive. God will then once again smile down on the Earth, instead of letting the powers to be, destroy it. If we stopped producing SMOG, the ozone and global warming and greenhouse effects would go away. The present US administration and DOE (US Dept. of Energy) seems to not want this to happen, they make too much money selling you gas and feeding you the media. Only outlaws drive water powered cars, according to our present laws. Why there are not making any SMOG for us to breathe. Fighting for oil under the sand never made any sense to me. They feed us a conspiracy about 19 Arabs with box cutter knives, that took down the Twin Towers, when in fact, C4 explosives , a planned demo. took them down. A bomb went off in the basement, before the first plane struck the North Tower. Please read below.

For all the Red voters who back the War President, let me ask you 2 questions? Who Would Jesus Bomb? Who would Jesus kill? 650,000 Iraqis?, because of one set-up bad evil dictator & and a group of religious militants? Know that no terrorists took down our twin towers, bombs did! Judas Iscariot tried to get Jesus to kill all the Romans, but his plan failed. Under Iraq lies the richest, best untouched oil reserves in the world. Formally the location of the "Garden of Eden", underneath all that sand is the old Tigris / Euphrates River valleys, once lush green vegetation, now rich black oil. Who has WMD's? we do, and we use them! Depleted uranium that comes from blown exhausted charges is WMD. Their next strategic step is to take out Iran, because Iran has all the oil pipelines, that they need to finish the world oil conquest We don't need the stinking damn Oil we need Water as fuel & electric cars! Alternative Joe Cell devices, perpetual generators.


I AM CHEMICAL HUMAN BEING , MY OWN BODY IS MY DRUG DEALER, :)
 
nature has a course, it rises and passes, things come and go. I guess people will eventually take the place of leaving in the natural destruction of all things, will it be sooner or later? if only I could really grasp all this.
 
Back
Top Bottom