"Top Kill" Fails To Plug Leak

[CoffeeIncluded]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30spill.html?hp

*Sigh* That's it. The Gulf's dead. You simply can't clean up that much oil out of the marshes. It's impossible.

And hurricane season officially starts next week...

The Brown Pelicans just went off the endangered species list last month, and the Kemp's Ridley Turtle only lives in the Gulf...

[Flickerdart]

Well, looks like we just got a setting for the crossover between S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Bioshock.

[KilltheToy]

Wonderful. As if the Gulf near Houston wasn't bad enough already.

Seriously, the water is a horrible green color. When I saw the Gulf of Mexico in Florida I was amazed the water was actually blue.

Thanks for everything, BP. First the explosion that was practically in my backyard and now this.

[Maximum Zersk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30spill.html?hp

*Sigh* That's it. The Gulf's dead. You simply can't clean up that much oil out of the marshes. It's impossible.


Oh, can't we?

"Uh, no, we can't."

...

[Gamerlord]

Pity, of course we must be careful not to stray into politics, which could very well happen, in fact, I already have a chart on what the path to TOTAL FLAME WAR would be:

1.Current line of discussion
2. One group blames it on the oil company, other group rushes to their defense
3. Arguments over environmentalism begin
4. Leads to arguments over regulations
5. Socialism vs. Capitalism arguments begin.
6. TOTAL FLAME WAR!

AKA lets try to keep a wide berth.

Anyway, sounds like something out of post-apocalyptic shows from what I hear,

[CoffeeIncluded]

Oh, can't we?

"Uh, no, we can't."

...

...Really. You can't. The oil's all tangled up in the marshes and reeds and soil and little puddles of water and it'll seep in there and won't get out for years, if ever.

There's still oil in the lower layers of the beaches affected by the Exxon Valdez spill. If you want to get the oil out, you'll literally have to tear these marshes apart.


Pity, of course we must be careful not to stray into politics, which could very well happen, in fact, I already have a chart on what the path to TOTAL FLAME WAR would be:

1.Current line of discussion
2. One group blames it on the oil company, other group rushes to their defense
3. Arguments over environmentalism begin
4. Leads to arguments over regulations
5. Socialism vs. Capitalism arguments begin.
6. TOTAL FLAME WAR!

AKA lets try to keep a wide berth.

Anyway, sounds like something out of post-apocalyptic shows from what I hear,

I'm just talking about the factual environmental destruction that will occur and is already occurring because of this. I'm keeping my personal opinions on what should be done and what should happen to them out of this topic.

[Maximum Zersk]

...Really. You can't. The oil's all tangled up in the marshes and reeds and soil and little puddles of water and it'll seep in there and won't get out for years, if ever.

There's still oil in the lower layers of the beaches affected by the Exxon Valdez spill. If you want to get the oil out, you'll literally have to tear these marshes apart.

...Damn.

So the best thing they can do now is contain it?

[Mikeavelli]

Pity, of course we must be careful not to stray into politics, which could very well happen, in fact, I already have a chart on what the path to TOTAL FLAME WAR would be:

1.Current line of discussion
2. One group blames it on the oil company, other group rushes to their defense
3. Arguments over environmentalism begin
4. Leads to arguments over regulations
5. Socialism vs. Capitalism arguments begin.
6. TOTAL FLAME WAR!

AKA lets try to keep a wide berth.

Anyway, sounds like something out of post-apocalyptic shows from what I hear,

I was always a fan of the "this is Great Britain's revenge on the rebellious colonies" argument. Throws some real flavor into the tired old flame war.

[Syka]

...Damn.

So the best thing they can do now is contain it?

Given that they are pretty sure it's already in the Loop, that option is out.

:smallsigh:

And Mike...I like the way you think. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

...Damn.

So the best thing they can do now is contain it?

Even that's difficult. I've heard an interview where an environmentalist said that even if we somehow got all these swimming oil barricades (no idea what htey are called in English), it wouldn't be enough.
Currently, they are dumping chemicals into the water to dissolve the oil. Which means that it gets mixed up with the sea water better, dispersing in new water layers. Oh, and we also don't know if the chemicals are dangerous to sea live.

[Maximum Zersk]

Even that's difficult. I've heard an interview where an environmentalist said that even if we somehow got all these swimming oil barricades (no idea what htey are called in English), it wouldn't be enough.
Currently, they are dumping chemicals into the water to dissolve the oil. Which means that it gets mixed up with the sea water better, dispersing in new water layers. Oh, and we also don't know if the chemicals are dangerous to sea live.

So wait a second; they're using chemicals to try to get rid of the oil so it won't make even more damage?

Sounds like something Aperture Science would think of.

[CoffeeIncluded]

And also there's a less toxic chemical that's on the market...That BP is refusing to use.

Also, there chemicals just break up the oil and make it sink to to the bottom...Where it's still there and now creatures that live on the seafloor are in even more trouble, and the Florida Keys is one of the biggest coral reefs in the world.

[Mystic Muse]

And also there's a less toxic chemical that's on the market...That BP is refusing to use.


Ummmmm. Why?

[CoffeeIncluded]

Ummmmm. Why?

I have no idea. Money is likely a factor somewhere, but I don't know.

[SurlySeraph]

The less toxic one probably works less well. In any case, the dispersant's effect seems to be more aesthetically pleasing than practically useful; little droplets of oil are worse for fish than big globs, since they can inhale them, and only slightly better for everything else.

There is, in fact, still at least one thing they can do, namely drill another well to take the pressure off. Which is generally a foolproof solution, and which I think they're starting now. But that won't be completed for several months, and so they'll have to keep ineffectually poking at the leak for the time being.

Hurricane season will actually be a good thing, because it'll spread the oil over a much wider area so it'll do less damage. That's the concept behind the dispersants, but they don't do nearly as much.

[deuxhero]

Good thing no one bragged about how they were responsible for stopping it.

[Trog]

The issue with the chemical dispersant is that there is not enough on hand to do the job save for the one they are currently using. The whole thing is a big mess and the sooner someone steps in and blows up the sea floor there to utterly destroy/bury the pipe (which goes down a couple of miles into the earth) the better if you ask me. It's not like, at this point, there is any marine life left in the immediate area. But then again maybe that's already been considered. Or maybe the cost of drilling a new one is more than the cost of this whole debacle for BP. Who knows.

[CoffeeIncluded]

The less toxic one probably works less well. In any case, the dispersant's effect seems to be more aesthetically pleasing than practically useful; little droplets of oil are worse for fish than big globs, since they can inhale them, and only slightly better for everything else.

There is, in fact, still at least one thing they can do, namely drill another well to take the pressure off. Which is generally a foolproof solution, and which I think they're starting now. But that won't be completed for several months, and so they'll have to keep ineffectually poking at the leak for the time being.

Hurricane season will actually be a good thing, because it'll spread the oil over a much wider area so it'll do less damage. That's the concept behind the dispersants, but they don't do nearly as much.

Not really, because that means that even more of the coastline will be damaged.

Also, the marshes are critical hurricane buffers. Without marshlands, Louisiana, Mississippi, all those coastal states will be hit much harder by hurricanes. Also also, hundreds of unique plants and animals live only there. Marshes are much more vibrant than what people commonly believe them to be.


The issue with the chemical dispersant is that there is not enough on hand to do the job save for the one they are currently using. The whole thing is a big mess and the sooner someone steps in and blows up the sea floor there to utterly destroy/bury the pipe (which goes down a couple of miles into the earth) the better if you ask me. It's not like, at this point, there is any marine life left in the immediate area. But then again maybe that's already been considered. Or maybe the cost of drilling a new one is more than the cost of this whole debacle for BP. Who knows.

If they blow up the sea floor, even more oil might spew out.

[Douglas]

There is, in fact, still at least one thing they can do, namely drill another well to take the pressure off. Which is generally a foolproof solution, and which I think they're starting now. But that won't be completed for several months, and so they'll have to keep ineffectually poking at the leak for the time being.
They started that one immediately... twice. BP has been drilling two relief wells just about since the moment they learned about the explosion. Everything else has just been attempts to stop it sooner at least temporarily, while the long term effort went on in the background.

[The Extinguisher]

They should have nuked the damn thing from the start. The Russians have used nukes to seal wells, and it's always successful with no side-effects.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Everything can be solved with nukes!

[Runestar]

And close to a billion burnt already. This brings back visions of that mud spill in Indonesia, where they gave up trying to plug it altogether. :smallyuk:

[Starbuck_II]

They should have nuked the damn thing from the start. The Russians have used nukes to seal wells, and it's always successful with no side-effects.

Well, dead sea life where they were nuked might be a side effect. :smallbiggrin:

[CoffeeIncluded]

They should have nuked the damn thing from the start. The Russians have used nukes to seal wells, and it's always successful with no side-effects.


Well, dead sea life where they were nuked might be a side effect. :smallbiggrin:

They wouldn't do that because the political fallout would be worse than the nuclear fallout, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

...I don't think there's anything alive next to the broken well anymore...

[Mando Knight]

They should have nuked the damn thing from the start. The Russians have used nukes to seal wells, and it's always successful with no side-effects.

1.) Those were land wells, not deep-sea wells.
2.) I don't think we've ever blasted a nuke a mile below the sea. Wanna be the first?
3.) There'll be a lot of fallout. Practically the entire gulf will become an irradiated mess.
4.) We still don't have something to seal the well with after we nuke the flow.

[MCerberus]

From what I've seen reported, the next step is to try the top-hat over again, except this time it'll be fancier and custom made.

[Fawkes]

I hear they're adding a monocle.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

1.) Those were land wells, not deep-sea wells.
2.) I don't think we've ever blasted a nuke a mile below the sea. Wanna be the first?
3.) There'll be a lot of fallout. Practically the entire gulf will become an irradiated mess.
4.) We still don't have something to seal the well with after we nuke the flow.

I think the nukes are to fuse the rocks to glass to seal it, not to burn away the oil.

And if it's the best way to stop the leak, the political reaction shouldn't be too bad if they can convince the public it's needed and the best option. But then again, Viewers are morons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreMorons), so yeah.

(I hope this wasn't too close to politics.)

[Flickerdart]

Aren't there more or less "clean" nuclear explosives now? I believe the trend ever since the Tsar Bomb has been less "how many megatons can we fit" and more about precision.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Aren't there more or less "clean" nuclear explosives now? I believe the trend ever since the Tsar Bomb has been less "how many megatons can we fit" and more about precision.

You're still nuking the Gulf of Mexico.

[Mando Knight]

I think the nukes are to fuse the rocks to glass to seal it, not to burn away the oil.

It'll still vaporize untold thousands of cubic meters of water. And send radioactive particles throughout the Gulf, which is a sufficiently active body of water that the radiation will spread quite rapidly throughout the entirety of the area. If the spill will doom the Gulf's fishers in a month, nuking the well will doom them in the blink of an eye.

[Boo]

I wonder how big of an explosion people are imagining...

[Tricksy Hobbits]

You're still nuking the Gulf of Mexico.

Alot of the problem is public opinion. I'm not sure about other places but half of Ontario's power comes from lesser nuclear reactions occuring in controlled circumstances not too far from Toronto. Does that sound crazy? No, it's controlled and regulated. If they did try sealing it with The Bomb, they wouldn't just drop a bomb and hope it works, they'd calibrate it to do the job the best and not kill people on the coast.

Edit: As do I, Boo.

[Coidzor]

2.) I don't think we've ever blasted a nuke a mile below the sea. Wanna be the first?

Yes. For Dwarven Science.


3.) There'll be a lot of fallout. Practically the entire gulf will become an irradiated mess.

And what information do you have to support this claim? Where are you getting this from?

[Lycan 01]

Well, crap. :smallmad:

Mississippi is screwed. Or at least our Coast is. I mean, we're mainly agricultural, and most of our fishing revenue is from catfish, which we farm from man-made water bodies not in contact with the coast. But all the fishing and tourism on the Coast is gonna get messed up. :smallsigh: Actually, since coastal fishing is gonna die a miserable death, it'll probably drive up the demand for catfish since shrimp and lobster will become more scarce and expensive. So... maybe it'll balance out? :smallconfused:


As for a nuke... NO. Ask anyone in the South, educated or ignorant, and they'll say no to that idea. Generally speaking, the average Mississippian is gonna automatically assume "NUKE BAD" in general. But even if there are no immediate side effects, and even if nuclear contamination is minimal, there are still problems. People will be afraid to eat fish and shrimp caught in the Gulf, for fear of radiation. Tourism will DIE, since no one will want to come swim on a beach where the water has been tainted by fallout. Even if there ISN'T anything wrong, the simple fear will cause lasting effects and economic destruction.


So yeah. No matter how you cut it, Louisiana and Mississippi aren't getting out of this one unscathed... :smallfrown:



Edit: Not to mention the fact that its going to drive prices THROUGH THE ROOF. The Mississippi River is a major shipping lane. A simple collision between barges has thrown shipping off for hours, causing delays and small price hikes in areas all across the country. But once the oil makes it to the river... Urrrgh. IIRC, shipping gets mucked up by oil spills and the precautions they have to take, which will make transportation and commerce more time consuming and difficult. Thus driving up prices. I've heard some local goods and services are already experiencing price climbs... :smallconfused:

[SDF]

1.) Those were land wells, not deep-sea wells.
2.) I don't think we've ever blasted a nuke a mile below the sea. Wanna be the first?
3.) There'll be a lot of fallout. Practically the entire gulf will become an irradiated mess.
4.) We still don't have something to seal the well with after we nuke the flow.

Operation Castle and Operation Ivy (not just a punk band!)

Of course with Castle Bravo we made a science error and upped the yield of the bomb X4 destroying most of Bikini Atoll, and irradiating a bunch of pacific islanders, Japanese fishermen, and probably our own(well, if you are American) observation vessels.

Underwater nuclear detonation is the only legal international way to test a nuclear or thermonuclear device.

Looking at past trends from other oil spills I estimate five years before all visible traces are gone, and ten before environmental impact has reached equilibrium. This is judging from other oil spills, it will probably be sooner. Yes, there is more oil here but it is also spreading over a further area. Not to mention there has never been as much effort to curb the impact before. Quote me on this, I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong. I don't believe I am.


"Nuke the whales!"
"Do you really believe that?"
"You gotta nuke something."

[Tricksy Hobbits]

As for a nuke... NO. Ask anyone in the South, educated or ignorant, and they'll say no to that idea. Generally speaking, the average Mississippian is gonna automatically assume "NUKE BAD" in general. But even if there are no immediate side effects, and even if nuclear contamination is minimal, there are still problems. People will be afraid to eat fish and shrimp caught in the Gulf, for fear of radiation. Tourism will DIE, since no one will want to come swim on a beach where the water has been tainted by fallout. Even if there ISN'T anything wrong, the simple fear will cause lasting effects and economic destruction.


So, we shouldn't use an option because people don't understand it rather than explaining it to them?

And I'm pretty sure animals dying covered in oil will hurt tourism as well.

[Leecros]

And I'm pretty sure animals dying covered in oil will hurt tourism as well.
hmm...might attract tourists who come down to help.



Everything can be solved with nukes!

i saw the avatar and thought i posted without remembering doing it, then i saw the name and realized it wasn't me

then i saw the post and realized that that was something i would've said anyways. :smalltongue:

[Lycan 01]

Explain it all you want, public opinion will still be against nuking it, even if that IS the best option. :smallsigh:

Like I said, we're screwed either way. :smallannoyed:

[Runestar]

So, we shouldn't use an option because people don't understand it rather than explaining it to them?

And I'm pretty sure animals dying covered in oil will hurt tourism as well.

I think the point is that it will be an uphill task to convince people of its (supposed) merits, given that nuclear activity has rarely been portrayed in a positive light in the media. Even then, you will want to first convince the people of it before nuking, and not nuke first and mount a PR offensive later. Which would still take a lot of time. I am pretty sure a simple debate could drag into weeks, if not months. Meanwhile, you still have the problem of an oil spill running rampant.

[Maximum Zersk]

Operation Castle and Operation Ivy (not just a punk band!)

Of course with Castle Bravo we made a science error and upped the yield of the bomb X4 destroying most of Bikini Atoll, and irradiating a bunch of pacific islanders, Japanese fishermen, and probably our own(well, if you are American) observation vessels.

Underwater nuclear detonation is the only legal international way to test a nuclear or thermonuclear device.

Looking at past trends from other oil spills I estimate five years before all visible traces are gone, and ten before environmental impact has reached equilibrium. This is judging from other oil spills, it will probably be sooner. Yes, there is more oil here but it is also spreading over a further area. Not to mention there has never been as much effort to curb the impact before. Quote me on this, I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong. I don't believe I am.


"Nuke the whales!"
"Do you really believe that?"
"You gotta nuke something."

Theodore Taylor made a book about the Bikini Atoll bomb blasts. It was quite good, actually.

[Trog]

I'm amused at how quickly this conversation went from using explosives to seal the well to nuking the Gulf. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Feels the need, somehow, to include this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flVlL4Mf8k).

[Thajocoth]

Life adapts. It sucks that some species will become extinct from this, but from this, a new habitat will be created, and inevitably, life will adapt to it and new species will form. That's one thing life's real good at.

[Lycan 01]

A new habitat? In an oil saturated swamp? I wander what sort of life can possible adapt to that...


*imagines some Cajun fishermen looking for crawdads in the murky bayous and black swampy mire. Then adds a Shoggoth to the equation.*

:smalleek:

[waterpenguin43]

*sniffysob* :smallfrown:

I feel like crying. No, really, I do. No joke.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

For a new species to form it would take millions of years. The oil contamination will not hang aroud that long.

The best thing we could do is try to save what we can and replace the dead things with stuff from unaffected areas.

[Rockphed]

Wait, have they actually found dead turtles who died from the oil, or are we just assuming things?

[dehro]

how about we use all the amazing brainpower that comes together on this forum to debate all things fantasy, to come up with an alternative "plug" solution?

http://www.unclesamsland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/uncle_sam.jpg
how would you seal the leak?
superpowers and "bigsby's enhanced finger in the well" spells are not allowed :smallbiggrin:

[Keld Denar]

If there is one thing that wetlands and marshlands ARE good at, its filtering contaminants and pollutants, settling them to the bottom where they are out of harms way. Its nature's kidneys. Sure, it'll have a dramatic initial impact, and it probably won't be fixed in our lifetimes, but it won't be permanent.

The thing I think that is worst out of all this is the amazing knee-jerk reaction of people wanting to ban offshore drilling. One of my friends even invited me to the facebook group "1,000,000 strong against offshore drilling". This makes me sad. Yea, tragidy sucks. But humans as a whole learn from our experiences. We develope new technology and new policies and new regulations. How many thousands of people died in industrial accidents? Now we have safeguards, light curtains, interlocks, and proper training to help reduce those accidents. We have OSHA (in America) to govern and police companies to make sure they comply with laws and regulations.

We can't just stop drilling for oil just because of a couple disasters. Its tragic, but we need to learn from it. We need to develope better technology, better methods, better safeguards. We do not need to recoil in fear over a setback, no matter how major.

[742]

ooh, what about wish: for the oil well to be sealed and oil already leaked from that well to be [somethingorother]

but we should remember its not the evil oil company thats at fault here; its the evil oil companies plural. that plural part is important.

[Griever]

I think we should all assume that we know more about what is happening than the hundreds of certified engineers that are currently doing their best to fix the problems.

Yeah. These people are professionals, if they choose one method over another, it is for a good reason.

[dehro]

I think we should all assume that we know more about what is happening than the hundreds of certified engineers that are currently doing their best to fix the problems.

Yeah. These people are professionals, if they choose one method over another, it is for a good reason.

I wasn't suggesting that we'd succeed...but it would be interesting to see what we could come up with...there are enough science boffins prowling this forums for a good theory or two to the surface...or at least a more informed debate about why one or the other plan couldn't work.
seems to me a valid alternative to descending into politics and have the thread locked

[Rockphed]

I wasn't suggesting that we'd succeed...but it would be interesting to see what we could come up with...there are enough science boffins prowling this forums for a good theory or two to the surface...or at least a more informed debate about why one or the other plan couldn't work.
seems to me a valid alternative to descending into politics and have the thread locked

The mark of a true science boffin is knowing when "Not enough information" on the subject really does disqualify you from commenting. I think plugging an oil well whose top is nearly a mile below sea level is far enough outside anybody but the oil business's experience that we really can't expect anything better than "Kill it with fire" and "Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Not that those are bad options mind, they just don't have much in the way of finesse or subtlety.

[The Extinguisher]

No one's suggesting we nuke it from orbit. That would be impractical. We can easily nuke on the ground.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

http://www.unclesamsland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/uncle_sam.jpg

How can you suggest coming up with original solutions when you just ripped off the classic 1914 recruitment poster featuring Lord Kitchener?
http://www.typophile.com/files/British_kitchener_5923.jpg
:smallamused:

[CoffeeIncluded]

Wait, have they actually found dead turtles who died from the oil, or are we just assuming things?

They found dead fish, dead turtles, dead dolphins, dead pelicans, dead everything.

The Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle was nearly extinct. Now they're starting to come back. Well, they were. They only live in the Gulf.

[Emperor Ing]

This is just sad, seems like no matter what X does, it doesn't work. At this point nuking the leak might actually be a good idea.

[Adumbration]

Would it be feasible to let it all go up in flames? If we set fire to the coastline, would most of the oil released be burnt up? (I'm feeling dubious myself, even as I'm typing it.)

[Emperor Ing]

Would it be feasible to let it all go up in flames? If we set fire to the coastline, would most of the oil released be burnt up? (I'm feeling dubious myself, even as I'm typing it.)

I can see why you'd be feeling dubious, setting a fire has the potental to create a flame that rivals the destructive power of both the Tzar Bomba and the streets of Detroit on a good day.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Would it be feasible to let it all go up in flames? If we set fire to the coastline, would most of the oil released be burnt up? (I'm feeling dubious myself, even as I'm typing it.)

They tried that first. Didn't work. The oil needs to be more clumped together than it is and if you damage the wetlands even more, if you burn the roots...

[Closak]

Well damn, there goes the ecosystem.

You know, in order to balance out the death of so much sealife we are going to have to kill a lot of humans in retaliation to make it fair.
We start with the people responsible for the whole mess, then we move on to executing corrupt and greedy executives and the like, kill them by drowning them in oil! :smallfurious:

Because karma is a bitch, and humanity really needs to have this crap come back to bite it in the ass.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Well damn, there goes the ecosystem.

You know, in order to balance out the death of so much sealife we are going to have to kill a lot of humans in retaliation to make it fair.
We start with the people responsible for the whole mess, then we move on to executing corrupt and greedy executives and the like, kill them by drowning them in oil! :smallfurious:

Because karma is a bitch, and humanity really needs to have this crap come back to bite it in the ass.

Closak, calm down and stay away from politics.

[Thajocoth]

For a new species to form it would take millions of years. The oil contamination will not hang aroud that long.

The best thing we could do is try to save what we can and replace the dead things with stuff from unaffected areas.

Actually, I remember reading about a case a while back where an oil company was being sued to clean up a spill, a much smaller spill than this, and the company's researchers found some small form of life that had already adapted to their spill, and used it's presence to say "Well, we can't clean it up, or we'll kill this brand new endangered species."

I really wish I kept the link to that article... But that was years ago.

[Boci]

Actually, I remember reading about a case a while back where an oil company was being sued to clean up a spill, a much smaller spill than this, and the company's researchers found some small form of life that had already adapted to their spill, and used it's presence to say "Well, we can't clean it up, or we'll kill this brand new endangered species."

I really wish I kept the link to that article... But that was years ago.

Others appear to share the view: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57448/

[Mando Knight]

Operation Castle and Operation Ivy (not just a punk band!)

Of course with Castle Bravo we made a science error and upped the yield of the bomb X4 destroying most of Bikini Atoll, and irradiating a bunch of pacific islanders, Japanese fishermen, and probably our own(well, if you are American) observation vessels.

Underwater nuclear detonation is the only legal international way to test a nuclear or thermonuclear device.

But have we tested them a mile down? Pretty sure both of those detonations were relatively barely below the surface.

[2xMachina]

But have we tested them a mile down? Pretty sure both of those detonations were relatively barely below the surface.

So, we should test it NAO!

[KnightDisciple]

Well damn, there goes the ecosystem.

You know, in order to balance out the death of so much sealife we are going to have to kill a lot of humans in retaliation to make it fair.
We start with the people responsible for the whole mess, then we move on to executing corrupt and greedy executives and the like, kill them by drowning them in oil! :smallfurious:

Because karma is a bitch, and humanity really needs to have this crap come back to bite it in the ass.*Smacks* No.

I'm wondering if Kevin Costner's invention (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7133821.ece) is working out, and if they're going to build more of them?:smallconfused:

[Midnight Son]

Deja Vu? (http://www.wimp.com/oilspills/) I'd lol if it weren't so serious.

[Kaiser Omnik]

i saw the avatar and thought i posted without remembering doing it, then i saw the name and realized it wasn't me

then i saw the post and realized that that was something i would've said anyways. :smalltongue:

*High five* person who's not me but has my avatar!

[Zevox]

Closak, calm down and stay away from politics.
I think that might have been his attempt at a self-parody, given the stuff he usually posts in the OotS section. At least, I hope it was, because if not, I fear for his sanity.

Well, anyway, oil leaks. Can't say I'm the type to particularly care about the animals or environmentalism or such, so I'm not really paying all that much attention to the whole matter, but still, I imagine that pumping all that oil into the gulf is a Bad Thingtm on plenty of other levels, so I am hoping they fix it soon.

Nuking it is an interesting idea. I wonder if that would actually work?

Zevox

[Mando Knight]

So, we should test it NAO!

Hold on, let me get a couple o' beers down first, then I'll meet you at the bottom of the ocean.

[Closak]

Can't say I'm the type to particularly care about the animals or environmentalism or such, so I'm not really paying all that much attention to the whole matter

Or in other words, you don't cae about the continued survival of the human race or any other species.


You know, if humanity's continued abuse of nature starts an apocalyptic chain reaction that ends up recreating one of those nasty mass-extinction events, then i am going to laugh.

Let's see...98% of all life on earth was it?

[Boci]

Or in other words, you don't cae about the continued survival of the human race or any other species.

I pretty sure it went without saying that they doesn't care in the sense that an endagered species dying out isn't a major concern for him since its not important for our survival.

For example, tigers. I love those animals, and would be grately saddened if they were to die out. But I;m pretty sure we as a race would pull through.

[Mando Knight]

You know, if humanity's continued abuse of nature starts an apocalyptic chain reaction that ends up recreating one of those nasty mass-extinction events, then i am going to laugh.

Psshh. If we cause one, it won't be because we poisoned one major body of water. It'll probably be because we nuke ourselves. We've got about 10-20 times the necessary number of nuclear weapons needed to eradicate all life on Earth.

[The Extinguisher]

Or in other words, you don't cae about the continued survival of the human race or any other species.


You know, if humanity's continued abuse of nature starts an apocalyptic chain reaction that ends up recreating one of those nasty mass-extinction events, then i am going to laugh.

Let's see...98% of all life on earth was it?

Mass extinction events happen. They've happened before (and it won't be 98% of all life).

And I hardly see how the holocene extinction (if it is happening, which it probably isn't) is any less natural than other mass extinctions, two of which have been the result of asteroids.

[Zevox]

Or in other words, you don't cae about the continued survival of the human race or any other species.
No, I don't really care about animals or environmentalism for its own sake. Humanity is another matter. But an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a hell of a long way from something that would threaten our species' existence. It's not like we're discussing global warming or something here.

You also seem to be ignoring the rest of the sentence you quoted, where I mentioned that said oil spill is still probably a bad thing on plenty of other levels, so I'm not totally unconcerned about it - just not concerned about it insofar as it relates to wildlife or the like.


You know, if humanity's continued abuse of nature starts an apocalyptic chain reaction that ends up recreating one of those nasty mass-extinction events, then i am going to laugh.

Let's see...98% of all life on earth was it?
Last I heard said extinctions were caused by the eruption of a supervolcano and the impact of a massive meteor impact blocking out the sun with smoke and ash for years. Again, big difference from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


I pretty sure it went without saying that they doesn't care in the sense that an endagered species dying out isn't a major concern for her since its not important for our survival.
Him. *points to the icon below his avatar*

Zevox

[Closak]

If a mass-extiction event happens because of humanity's actions rather than occuring naturally...
That would be the ultimate sign that humanity is full of self-destructive idiots.

And frankly, i won't be surprised if that does happen at the rate we are going.
I give it a century or two, max three before the planet is a giant desolate wasteland.
Nice work humanity.



No, I don't really care about animals or environmentalism for its own sake. Humanity is another matter. But an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a hell of a long way from something that would threaten our species' existence. It's not like we're discussing global warming or something here.
I wonder if you would still be saying the same thing if it was humans who were dying horrible death's by the hundreds of thousands down there.

Oh yeah, and if ever some sort of alien invasion was to occur where the aliens pollute the world to the point where humans die by the millions because of it, i expect you to shut up and take it.
After all, they are more advanced, that gives them the right to slaughter us :smallsigh:

[skywalker]

Well damn, there goes the ecosystem.

You know, in order to balance out the death of so much sealife we are going to have to kill a lot of humans in retaliation to make it fair.
We start with the people responsible for the whole mess, then we move on to executing corrupt and greedy executives and the like, kill them by drowning them in oil! :smallfurious:

I think we should start with all the people who cause oil drilling by driving gasoline powered cars.

Look, I can make blanket statements that turn out looking really silly too!

Why doesn't anyone ever want to execute the corrupt and greedy beggars?


Or in other words, you don't cae about the continued survival of the human race or any other species.


You know, if humanity's continued abuse of nature starts an apocalyptic chain reaction that ends up recreating one of those nasty mass-extinction events, then i am going to laugh.

Let's see...98% of all life on earth was it?

All species end eventually. One day, we will all be gone. So will everything else. Eventually, the sun will expand and eat our whole planet. Our chances of causing a mass-extinction are pretty slim, IMO.

[Zevox]

All species end eventually. One day, we will all be gone. So will everything else. Eventually, the sun will expand and eat our whole planet. Our chances of causing a mass-extinction are pretty slim, IMO.
Well, theoretically, if we acquire a viable means of interstellar travel, we could escape Earth's eventual destruction via solar expansion by migrating to other worlds. Still, even then we'd still have a time limit insofar as the universe itself will eventually end, whether that be in the Big Crunch or a heat-death due to infinite expansion.


I wonder if you would still be saying the same thing if it was humans who were dying horrible death's by the hundreds of thousands down there.

Oh yeah, and if ever some sort of alien invasion was to occur where the aliens pollute the world to the point where humans die by the millions because of it, i expect you to shut up and take it.
After all, they are more advanced, that gives them the right to slaughter us :smallsigh:
No and no. As I said, humanity is another matter. I make no pretensions to care about all life, just sapient life, of which humanity is the only known example.

Zevox

[Closak]

Say that again when the pollution in the atmosphere reaches levels where breathing will poison you to death.

There's your human-induced mass-extinction.

Sure, we probably have a few hundred years until then, but still...

[CoffeeIncluded]

Closak, please keep away from the politics.

[Eldan]

All species end eventually. One day, we will all be gone. So will everything else. Eventually, the sun will expand and eat our whole planet. Our chances of causing a mass-extinction are pretty slim, IMO.

Not necessarily true in every sense. After all, all live today evolved from earlier species. And those didn't die out, they evolved. Naming species in the fossil record is pretty much a difficult science, since you can't often really tell when one species ends and another one begins if they evolved from each other.


I pretty sure it went without saying that they doesn't care in the sense that an endagered species dying out isn't a major concern for her since its not important for our survival.

For example, tigers. I love those animals, and would be grately saddened if they were to die out. But I;m pretty sure we as a race would pull through.

Ever heard of trophic cascades or keystone species? One species dying out can have widespread and massive effects on entire ecosystems, or even cause chain reactions affecting other systems.

[The Extinguisher]

If a mass-extiction event happens because of humanity's actions rather than occuring naturally...
That would be the ultimate sign that humanity is full of self-destructive idiots.



Again, please inform me how an asteroid hitting the planet is more natural than human action.

[Boci]

Ever heard of trophic cascades or keystone species? One species dying out can have widespread and massive effects on entire ecosystems, or even cause chain reactions affecting other systems.

Yes, that is why I chose tigers as my example and not bees.

@Zerok: Sorry, pictures are more noticable than text.

[Closak]

Simple, the asteroid wasn't caused by living creatures being greedy and ridiculously self-destructive.

Unless we have aliens out there bumping asteroids around with their space ships.
Then that would make it artificial again.
And it would place the blame on the aliens.

[Boci]

Simple, the asteroid wasn't caused by living creatures being greedy and ridiculously self-destructive.

Evolutionarily inteligence could be described as a failure, or at least for us it was. We simply do not have the responsibility to handle it.

[skywalker]

Simple, the asteroid wasn't caused by living creatures being greedy and ridiculously self-destructive.

Unless we have aliens out there bumping asteroids around with their space ships.
Then that would make it artificial again.
And it would place the blame on the aliens.

This is the classic human fault, you remove yourself from nature as "something special."

If ants conquered the world and drove us into extinction, would that be natural? How is it any different if it's human extinction? We are, after all, "natural," yes?

[Closak]

Sentience makes the difference there.

So unless you are saying that ants are sentient...

We know what we are doing and where it may lead, yet we do it anyway just because we can, then we whine when it goes to hell and everyone dies horribly.
Typical human nature, do something stupid then complain about it when it comes back to bite you, totally ignoring that it could have been avoided if you had not done the stupid thing.
Made even worse if you knew where it would lead and then did it anyway.

[Boci]

Sentience makes the difference there.

So unless you are saying that ants are sentient...

We know what we are doing and where it may lead, yet we do it anyway just because we can, then we whine when it goes to hell and everyone dies horribly.
Typical human nature, do something stupid then complain about it when it comes back to bite you, totally ignoring that it could have been avoided if you had not done the stupid thing.
Made even worse if you knew where it would lead and then did it anyway.

Your daily dose of apocalyptic doom speak. Now avaialble online.

[KnightDisciple]

Seriously, calm down guys.

Closak, this is a serious issue with potential long-term ramifications, but it is not the End Of The World. Stop trying to make Zevox sound like a villain.

Seriously, folks. Internet rage one way or another is going to do jack-all in this situation.

[Eldan]

Yes, that is why I chose tigers as my example and not bees.

@Zerok: Sorry, pictures are more noticable than text.

Tigers are apex predators. Look up something like the impact of lions in the Serengeti (they mean the difference between bushland and grassland), artic foxes on the Aleuts (grassland to Tundra) or wolves in yellowstone (the difference between different kinds and densities of forests.)

Predators are important.

[PhoeKun]

I think we should start with all the people who cause oil drilling by driving gasoline powered cars.

Look, I can make blanket statements that turn out looking really silly too!

Why doesn't anyone ever want to execute the corrupt and greedy beggars?

Either the corrupt and greedy beggars are looked at as having a bad enough lot in life already, or there's an element of something other than righteousness in most calls to crucify the wealthy. Only my hairdresser knows for sure.

[Zevox]

@Zerok: Sorry, pictures are more noticable than text.
Evidently :smalltongue: . :smallwink:

Zevox

[Boci]

Tigers are apex predators. Look up something like the impact of lions in the Serengeti (they mean the difference between bushland and grassland) or wolves in yellowstone (the difference between different kinds and densities of forests.)

Predators are important.

Allow me to repeat myself: "But I;m pretty sure we as a race would pull through."


Evidently :smalltongue: . :smallwink:

Zevox

Oops. Oh well, 60% isn't bad.

[Murska]

Evolutionarily inteligence could be described as a failure, or at least for us it was. We simply do not have the responsibility to handle it.

I wouldn't call it a failure. We've done pretty well as a species, better than many others. Maybe not as well as some, but not as badly as some others.

And please, people above this post, make a difference between sapience and sentience and then provide a logical reason why being self-aware would be unnatural.

[Eldan]

As I'm saying: removing one species won't kill us. But we start transforming ecosystems. These transformations have wide-ranging effects even up to the global climate level, influencing other ecosystems.

Yes, it won't kill our species. But it has effects, and we will notice them. On agriculture, the availability of water, various ecosystem services. And things can get pretty bad for humanity when that happens.

[Trog]

Sentience makes the difference there.
“You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.”

[Hardcore]

Does gnomes count for Dwarvish science? If so this might be of interest...Project Gnome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome)

[Boci]

I wouldn't call it a failure. We've done pretty well as a species, better than many others. Maybe not as well as some, but not as badly as some others.

We most probably won't live that long as a species, and I doubt any other creature has done so much damage to their habitat. To me that indicates a failure.


As I'm saying: removing one species won't kill us. But we start transforming ecosystems. These transformations have wide-ranging effects even up to the global climate level, influencing other ecosystems.

I pretty sure that won't apply to tigers though, but I could be wrong.

[Closak]

We most probably won't live that long as a species, and I doubt any other creature has done so much damage to their habitat. To me that indicates a failure.


Now there's something we can agree on.

[Boci]

Now there's something we can agree on.

Maybe, but I'm using failure purely from an evolutionary point. You do not appear to be based on your previous posts.

[2xMachina]

Your daily dose of apocalyptic doom speak. Now avaialble online.

THE END IS NIGH! The sentient oil oozes will rise up and kill everything on earth!

[PhoeKun]

We most probably won't live that long as a species, and I doubt any other creature has done so much damage to their habitat. To me that indicates a failure.

Throughout the history of the world, species have become victims of their own successes, the very tools that allowed them to spread and dominate their particular corner of the world also devastating it and eventually starving them to death. If humanity manages a similar stunt, it just makes us another in a long list of lifeforms with the same epitaph.

Although while we're on the subject, we're not exactly riding the doomsday train right now. Absolutely massive efforts are being made every day to develop techniques and technologies that allow us to continue our current lifestyle (or improve it) while reducing or potentially reversing the impact on the ecosystem. There's a ton of work that still needs to be done before any congratulations are handed out, but maybe a little bit of credit for not blindly marching towards Armageddon would be nice.

[Murska]

Maybe, but I'm using failure purely from an evolutionary point. You do not appear to be based on your previous posts.

From an evolutionary point of view, we've adapted to pretty much every environment and spread all over the globe, we've already lived for pretty long and there's no signs of our species dying out any time soon. We might even achieve what no other species on earth has(to our knowledge) and colonize other interstellar bodies, which would give our race additional longevity.

I wouldn't call it a failure. Changing or even destroying their own habitat is no failure from an evolutionary point of view. Dying out is failure, and it's not like any species ever will 'succeed' as in never die out. Humans are not anywhere close to dying out.

[Boci]

Throughout the history of the world, species have become victims of their own successes, the very tools that allowed them to spread and dominate their particular corner of the world also devastating it and eventually starving them to death. If humanity manages a similar stunt, it just makes us another in a long list of lifeforms with the same epitaph.

Yes but I'm pretty sure we hold the record for dragging down the most species with us.


Although while we're on the subject, we're not exactly riding the doomsday train right now. Absolutely massive efforts are being made every day to develop techniques and technologies that allow us to continue our current lifestyle (or improve it) while reducing or potentially reversing the impact on the ecosystem. There's a ton of work that still needs to be done before any congratulations are handed out, but maybe a little bit of credit for not blindly marching towards Armageddon would be nice.

I never said we were marching blindly towards Armageddon, just that we do not have the responsibility to handle what intelegence allows us to do.


From an evolutionary point of view, we've adapted to pretty much every environment and spread all over the globe,

Thats the problem. We've cutting off other options of evolution. I'm not talking about the evolution of our race, but of evolution as a whole. Its natural to supress other races so your own can prosper, but we do it in almost every enviorment across the globe.

[Murska]

Evolution as a whole has no 'goal'. There is no singularity it's evolving 'towards'. It isn't a progress, it's a process.

So there can't really be a failure from the viewpoint of evolution as a whole either.

[Boci]

Evolution as a whole has no 'goal'. There is no singularity it's evolving 'towards'. It isn't a progress, it's a process.

So there can't really be a failure from the viewpoint of evolution as a whole either.

Yes there is, because we're shutting it off, and damaging the chances of the race that will come to replace us by what we do to the enviorment.

[Leecros]

So unless you are saying that ants are sentient...
Sentience is anything with a conscious. Basically anything self-aware. It's not well known since Sentience tends to be referred to as higher lifeforms even though most life (minus trees and bacteria/virus's/other single-celled organisms) are all considered sentient by definition.

So yes, there is a distinct possibility that ants are sentient.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Ok, this topic has already been derailed, so might as well go down that road (not into politics though).

I am still surprised at the number of people who see ecosystem balance and the progress of Humanity as somehow separate. Humanity is not superior to "Nature" and "Nature" is not superior to Humanity. We are part of the environment and environmental crises are affecting people all around the world. We must act smater and begin to think about the global consequences of our actions.

Destroying our habitat is bad, because one day, there won't be any more habitat to destroy. The fact that it's not affecting your lives (but I'm sure it does in many ways) doesn't mean it doesn't affect humans elsewhere. People are so stuck in the here and now and the mentality of consumerism...

And no, we won't be able to maintain our current way of life...the planet simply cannot support it.

[Murska]

Yes there is, because we're shutting it off, and damaging the chances of the race that will come to replace us by what we do to the enviorment.

And why would that matter? Evolution comes in where it makes the new species adapt to what we leave behind. Evolution doesn't try to create species which make life easier for the species that come after them nor does it aim for anything. No, not even the continued existance of life as a whole. It does not have a goal.

[PhoeKun]

I never said we were marching blindly towards Armageddon, just that we do not have the responsibility to handle what intelegence allows us to do.


We very much have the responsibility to handle our own intelligence. To pretend otherwise is to attempt to avoid culpability in the event of disaster.

Topic shift: We are the first species with the potential to prevent an asteroid-based apocalypse. If we are ever presented with the opportunity and subsequently make good on it, are we then allowed to turn to all the animals and plants on earth and say, "Now we're even."?

[Kaiser Omnik]

Topic shift: We are the first species with the potential to prevent an asteroid-based apocalypse. If we are ever presented with the opportunity and subsequently make good on it, are we then allowed to turn to all the animals and plants on earth and say, "Now we're even."?

I'm not sure that all the extinct species would agree. Stopping one extinction does not erase the previous extinction(s) which we caused (are causing).

But that depends on your view of morality. I don't consider it's about "getting even", personally. Saving our butt while saving all the others' butts too is not bad...but it's not altruistic either, you know.

[Boci]

We very much have the responsibility to handle our own intelligence.

Not in my opinion. IMO we're like a rock star. We produce wonderful things, but ultimatly a lot of our choices are pretty stupid.


And why would that matter? Evolution comes in where it makes the new species adapt to what we leave behind. Evolution doesn't try to create species which make life easier for the species that come after them nor does it aim for anything. No, not even the continued existance of life as a whole. It does not have a goal.

But there was a proccess: species rose, ultimatly met something to which they could not adapt, died out. Inteligence has screwed that up.

As the agent said in the Matrix. We aren't amammals. Mammals stay in one area until the natural resources are dipleted. Then they move on.

[Eldan]

And why would that matter? Evolution comes in where it makes the new species adapt to what we leave behind. Evolution doesn't try to create species which make life easier for the species that come after them nor does it aim for anything. No, not even the continued existance of life as a whole. It does not have a goal.

It matters because I, for one, have a little interesting in the continuing survival for humanity for, say, the next 80 years. More if there are good longevity treatments around by then.

Oh, and I'd also like to have a look at a lot of these ecosystems before I die, but it seems for many, like coral reefs, I'll really have to hurry up.

[Emperor Ing]

All this oil leak does for me is show how there are some legitimate manmade enviromental concerns that we should focus on instead of bizarro pseudoscience scaring us all into believing that the tiny percent of the fraction of total CO2 emissions given off by manmade activity is enough to cause the ice caps to melt.

[AstralFire]

Zevox and Phoe-Kun are heroically saving this topic. Not much to say about the rest of it that stays within this forum's rules.

[Kaiser Omnik]

All this oil leak does for me is show how there are some legitimate manmade enviromental concerns that we should focus on instead of bizarro pseudoscience scaring us all into believing that the tiny percent of the fraction of total CO2 emissions given off by manmade activity is enough to cause the ice caps to melt.

And your references are? I don't like people calling pseudoscience anything they don't agree with.


Zevox and Phoe-Kun are heroically saving this topic. Not much to say about the rest of it that stays within this forum's rules.

Then why even say that? I really don't understand the point. It just seems like a veiled insult.

[Milskidasith]

There seem to be a lot of people who are confused on what evolution is.

Evolution is not something that makes everything better. Creatures don't all evolve to be smarter, faster, stronger, etc. They don't evolve in ways that allow the species to be self sufficient for thousands of years when the species that burn the candle at both ends are better at living now.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionary failure." Stopping other species from existing is something that happens; plenty of animals cause other animals to die out. It just happens. Are humans bastards? No. We actually work to try to prevent the problems that we cause, which is far more than you can say of all other species. Yes, we cause problems. We're also the only species that has spread across the globe and has the steadiest food supply, best communication, best transit, and most advanced tools. Evolution didn't choose us to be some kind of guardian to all of Earth. We just got smarter, and used it. It's caused problems, sure, but we're no more or less responsible for the causes of our actions than any other creature, especially considering we try to mitigate them whenever possible.

I'm just getting really sick of the "humans are bastards messing with nature" argument. We are nature. Everything we do is natural. Yeah, we're sapient, but that doesn't mean that we've somehow removed ourself from the evolutionary chain and all of our actions are evil because of it.

[Emperor Ing]

And your references are? I don't like people calling pseudoscience anything they don't agree with.

There's a volcano in Iceland proving my point as we speak. :smallamused:

[Zevox]

Zevox and Phoe-Kun are heroically saving this topic.
We are :smallconfused: ? Well, maybe Phoe's trying, but my tangent kinda ended a page ago, and seemed only to encourage Closak's rambling, which I wouldn't exactly call saving the topic...

Zevox

[Boci]

I'm just getting really sick of the "humans are bastards messing with nature" argument. We are nature.

Fine, then there is a civil war, human greed on one side, practically everything else on the other side.

[Closak]

All this oil leak does for me is show how there are some legitimate manmade enviromental concerns that we should focus on instead of bizarro pseudoscience scaring us all into believing that the tiny percent of the fraction of total CO2 emissions given off by manmade activity is enough to cause the ice caps to melt.

Then WHAT is causing the ice caps to melt?

Because they damn sure are melting.

And if you really think that small amounts won't make a difference...oh boy...

What, it's only a small amount of poison! *Pours cyanide into someones water supply*
Obviously nothing bad will happen, it's only a small amount after all...why is everyone dying?

[AstralFire]

Then why even say that? I really don't understand the point. It just seems like a veiled insult.

There are some incredibly silly things being said in this topic and I want to wave the flag of morale at Phoe-Kun and Zevox.

[Boci]

Then WHAT is causing the ice caps to melt?

Some scientists blame the sone, citing the warming up of other planets as evidence that carbon dioxide isn't the main culprit. Not sure how credable that claim is though.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Then WHAT is causing the ice caps to melt?


This guy maybe? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TflRQdFliVY)

[Flickerdart]

Then WHAT is causing the ice caps to melt?

Because they damn sure are melting.

And if you really think that small amounts won't make a difference...oh boy...

What, it's only a small amount of poison! *Pours cyanide into someones water supply*
Obviously nothing bad will happen, it's only a small amount after all...why is everyone dying?
Yes, up to a certain point that cyanide will not be able to affect someone adversely. Many poisons are medicines when used in controlled doses, dontchaknow. There's nothing that's immediately fatal regardless of dosage.

[Emperor Ing]

Then WHAT is causing the ice caps to melt?

Because they damn sure are melting.


It's called "The Sun."

I dunno about you, but i'd be more inclined to say the increasing of the temperature of a colossal ball of Fusion Explosions that burns at millions of degrees has more of an effect than >1% of total CO2 being added to the atmosphere.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Closak, please stay away from politics.

And, just to clarify, I think he meant too small to have much of an effect, not small as in a little.

And there is nothing making humans activities less natural than an ant hill. Sure we have a choice whether to build a building or not, but that's just us reacting better to our habitat.

[Kaiser Omnik]

It's called "The Sun."

I dunno about you, but i'd be more inclined to say the increasing of the temperature of a colossal ball of Fusion Explosions that burns at millions of degrees has more of an effect than >1% of total CO2 being added to the atmosphere.

The fact that the Sun has a big impact (which is obvious) doesn't necessarily mean that the added CO2 has no additional negative impact. Please, there are tons and tons of scientific research on the matter. We won't find any answers discussing this here and now.

[Zevox]

Suggestion: anyone who does not want this topic locked should probably cease posting anything relating to the current global warming tangent now. That's entirely too politically charged a topic, and is likely to get the thread locked even in the lucky event that the discussion sticks solely to the science. Not to mention it's fairly off-topic for a thread that's supposed to be about the oil spill in the Gulf.

Zevox

[Milskidasith]

Fine, then there is a civil war, human greed on one side, practically everything else on the other side.

Other species are greedy and have war. Greed is good for a species evolving; the guy with plenty lives longer than the man content with little.

[Emperor Ing]

All i'm trying to say is "We should be focusing on X, not Y." This oil spill's a real disaster, and I think more can be done if we stop casting blame and start brainstorming ways to close the friggin' hole.

[Closak]

Fun little fact here.

With some types of poison taking only small doses at a time will let you build up a resistance to said poison.

With other types it will slowly accumulate in your body until it eventually reaches the fatal dose, even if you only take very small amounts at a time.


Compare to CO2.

Normally the amount is relatively stable.
Enter humanity, who keeps adding dose upon dose, slowly increasing the amount of CO2.
Cutting down the rainforests is not helping.
CO2 is added at a faster rate than it disappears, screwing up the balance royally and slowly but gradually increasing how much of it there is.

How long until the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches dangerous levels, how long until it get's to the point where everything goes straight to hell?

Whoops.
...Better start planting more trees...except they just get cut down again...DAMMIT!

Just you wait a few hundred years and see what happens if this continues :smalleek:

Get the damn aircleaners, the big ones.

[Murska]

But there was a proccess: species rose, ultimatly met something to which they could not adapt, died out. Inteligence has screwed that up.


Why? Human species has risen and probably we will some day meet something to which we can't adapt and die out. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, save for being the best way to adapt that's evolved yet.

And Milskidasith stated my point very well.

Not going to touch global warming here.

[Jack Squat]

This spill is fairly reminiscent of the Ixtoc spill (http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250) back in '79. That took about 10 months to stop the leak. If done right, this one should take about 4, if my information is correct.

You can't exactly just plug the hole. Another well (or two) has to be drilled to help lessen the pressure. Or rather, I'm sure there's a way you can plug it without drilling, but it's going to prove much more difficult.

What needs to be focused on in the meantime is damage control, and I'm sure that's being done and people aren't just standing around mouth agape at the crude that comes in with the tide.

EDIT: Closak. This topic is not about Global Warming, and I really don't want to see this thread locked. We've had various other threads about GW locked before, so I'm not sure this forum is the proper place to talk about it. However, if you wish to know more about the causes of CO2 on the environment, PM me and I'll send you a link that goes into detail.

[Boci]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it, save for being the best way to adapt that's evolved yet.

And allowing us to stay on in an area once all its natural resources are depleted.

[Closak]

Well excuse me for being upset at the common belief that humanity is perfect and can do no wrong.

Meanwhile the human race is commiting genocide, driving entire races into extinction, destroying the environment, poisoning the atmosphere, and heaven's know what.
Not to mention the whole killing stuff for the lulz that we have going.

And all the while we make ourselves out to be perfect saints.

Really makes me want to reach through the computer screen and strangle those people :smallfurious:

[Jack Squat]

Welcome to the Human race, we're some pretty arrogant bastards.

[Milskidasith]

And allowing us to stay on in an area once all its natural resources are depleted.

No it doesn't. It just eliminates the entire concept of "an area."

Our habitat is the entire Earth. As long as there are resources on the Earth, we aren't living without natural resources. And even if you do narrowly define human areas as small places despite the fact all humans are interconnected, so what? Evolution doesn't have a purpose, if we can produce part of what we need to live from one area and ship it to other areas, while importing from other areas to each individual area... more power to us.

Closak: Humanity isn't perfect. But it's not some horrible monster set out to destroy everything. It's the only species that actually can care about othes, and the fact we act on that instead of purely on helping ourselves is a testament to that fact.

Also, in case you didn't know, other animals commit atrocities too! Consider, say, Tapeworms, which are pure parasites, or Driver Ants, which can hunt nearly all the animals in a forest as they sweep by, or Dolphins, which routinely rape and kill others of their species/other animals, and all the horrible things other primates do. Humans aren't alone in being bad. We are alone in trying to be good.

[The Glyphstone]

This explains everything. Only Unobtanium can absorb and clean up all the oil in the oceans, so the oil company must be secretly building an interstellar expedition with giant mechas and helicopters to visit a planet teeming with life and blue space elves to Save The World!

[Boci]

Our habitat is the entire Earth.

I know, and I have already explained what bothers me about that fact.

I don't think the human race or inteligence is a bad thing, I just think we're bad from the perspective of evolution as a process.

[Closak]

Closak: Humanity isn't perfect. But it's not some horrible monster set out to destroy everything.

After all the crap i have seen i'm having a hard time believing humanity in general is anything else than exactly that.

I'm starting to think that a good 90 or so percent of the whole race is a bunch of selfish, greedy, omnicidal maniacs who just want to make themselves comfortable while destroying the rest of the world for the lulz.

Humanity is perfect at only one thing, that being the art of destroying everything around them.

Damn it, i'm actally ashamed of being of the same species as all those madmen and madwomen!

[Milskidasith]

I know, and I have already explained what bothers me about that fact.

I don't think the human race or inteligence is a bad thing, I just think we're bad from the perspective of evolution as a process.

There is no such thing as being bad to evolution. Evolution cannot be good or bad. It just happens. If a species screws over another species chances to survive, but it helps the first species, then that's what evolution says will be most likely to live.

Every animal screws over other animals/life. That's not a fault of evolution, and just because humans are sapient doesn't mean the fact we screw with other species (whether by killing them, or, in the case of some animals, saving them [pandas!]) is somehow unnatural or bad. It's natural. It's what it is, not bad, not good.

[Boci]

There is no such thing as being bad to evolution.

Yes there is. Its when it doesn't happen when one species dominates the entire world. I'm not a scientist or anything, so this is just my opinion. I think we goth agree on the situation, we just don't feel the same way about it.

[Milskidasith]

After all the crap i have seen i'm having a hard time believing humanity in general is anything else than exactly that.

I'm starting to think that a good 90 or so percent of the whole race is a bunch of selfish, greedy, omnicidal maniacs who just want to make themselves comfortable while destroying the rest of the world for the lulz.

Humanity is perfect at only one thing, that being the art of destroying everything around them.

Damn it, i'm actally ashamed of being of the same species as all those madmen and madwomen!

Yes, we're all selfish, evil, and greedy. /sarcasm

Except evil is subjective, and selfish and greedy are what all species are. Our species actively tries to help other species when our expansion hurts them, and you think somehow we are evil for it? Have you not seen what other species do? We're the only species that actually has the power to help other species, and we do just that, so how is that a bad thing? Sure, we do damage, but when we try to prevent it... y'know, I just don't see how that is bad.

As for being ashamed: Implying that you are better than other people because you think everybody else is bad is not exactly the best way to gather support, nor is it the best way to succeed at your apparent goal of removing humans from existence.


Yes there is. Its when it doesn't happen when one species dominates the entire world. I'm not a scientist or anything, so this is just my opinion. I think we goth agree on the situation, we just don't feel the same way about it.

You can't *have* an opinion about something being bad for evolution. That's like saying humans are bad for gravity, or the bond between Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. There's no such thing as being bad for it.

And no, we don't agree, since I can't even understand the concept of thinking something is bad for evolution.

[Jack Squat]

After all the crap i have seen i'm having a hard time believing humanity in general is anything else than exactly that.

I'm starting to think that a good 90 or so percent of the whole race is a bunch of selfish, greedy, omnicidal maniacs who just want to make themselves comfortable while destroying the rest of the world for the lulz.

Humanity is perfect at only one thing, that being the art of destroying everything around them.

Damn it, i'm actally ashamed of being of the same species as all those madmen and madwomen!

By "all the crap that i have seen", do you mean news reports? Or do you actually live in a 3rd world country that's run by a warlord?

Go out and experience humanity. We're not as bad as we seem to be once you get to know us.

[Boci]

You can't *have* an opinion about something being bad for evolution. That's like saying humans are bad for gravity, or the bond between Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. There's no such thing as being bad for it.

Thats your opinion. My opinion is otherwise. I may be wrong, but that doesn't change much.


And no, we don't agree, since I can't even understand the concept of thinking something is bad for evolution.

When one spicies prevents others from evolving.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Guys, please try not to get into these debates. I don't want to get in trouble if this thread ends up locked. (And I'm sure you know what my viewpoint is anyway.)

[Milskidasith]

Thats your opinion. My opinion is otherwise. I may be wrong, but that doesn't change much.

Err... what? That's kind of like saying your opinion is that humans are bad from gravity, because they prevent things from falling. You can't be "bad" for a natural law.


When one spicies prevents others from evolving.

Evolution isn't something that can be prevented. Animals evolve in different ways based on different circumstances, whether caused by humans or other natural factors.

[Closak]

And yet no other species has done anywhere near as much damage as we have.

Chances of the whole planet going FUBAR courtesy of humanity: Dangerously high.
And so far no one has been very effective at stopping it.

You know, i stop hating humanity once we reverse all the damage we have done.

1: Bring back the species we have driven extinct by destroying their natural habitats.
2: Do something about the damn deserts that keep spreading and getting bigger due to human influence.
3: Bring back the rainforests we have cut down.

And a whole lot more.

Which is sadly not going to happen, in fact, it will just keep getting worse.


You know, let's just drop this subject, then i can laugh at you and tell you i told you so when everything blows up in our collective faces.

[Boci]

Err... what? Your opinion is on the same level as having the opinion "Humans are bad for gravity, since they prevent things from falling.

To me there's clearly a difference, but I can't think of a way to make you understand. The human mind is a wierd thing.


Evolution isn't something that can be prevented. Animals evolve in different ways based on different circumstances, whether caused by humans or other natural factors.

Not if they killed off, and their evolution is badly affected if they are starved of land to live on and subject to polution.

[PhoeKun]

After all the crap i have seen i'm having a hard time believing humanity in general is anything else than exactly that.

I'm starting to think that a good 90 or so percent of the whole race is a bunch of selfish, greedy, omnicidal maniacs who just want to make themselves comfortable while destroying the rest of the world for the lulz.

Humanity is perfect at only one thing, that being the art of destroying everything around them.

Damn it, i'm actally ashamed of being of the same species as all those madmen and madwomen!

There exists a viewpoint outside of hyperbole, in which all of the reasonable, loving, and wonderful men and women who play roles of varying importance in your life (*insert warm and fuzzy forum feelings here*) exist.

There must be people you converse amicably with on a daily or near-daily basis. Perhaps surprisingly, these people are people too. For every person you read about who is consumed by greed, there is another who is forthright and helpful. Humanity as a whole is a great mixture of the best and the worst things out there. Trying to view the whole group through the same pair of either rose-tinted or darkest of the dark glasses is an exercise in futility, since there will inevitably be a very large group that just doesn't fit into this or that blanket worldview.

Furthermore, by adopting a "humanity is massively evil and needs to pay for its misdeeds" stance, you are rejecting the possibility of improvement. If there is something dissatisfying, it's vastly more productive to look for ways to correct it (they always exist) then to write the whole thing off and wait for it to burn to the ground.

[Elder Tsofu]

When one spicies prevents others from evolving.

By changing the environment we facilitate species evolving - by conserving it we lessen the need for evolutional drive in a species thus hindering it from evolving.
Evolution is adapting to the environment, if the environment is unchanging no evolution is really taking place.

And Coffeincluded, I don't see why you would be punished for starting an quite innocent thread - as long as you don't plan on making it a habit of creating hot-topic discussions that is. :smallsmile:

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Thats your opinion. My opinion is otherwise. I may be wrong, but that doesn't change much.



When one spicies prevents others from evolving.

No, nothing can be bad for evolution because evolution is something that has no goals or aims. It is an obseved effect of the way genes are passed on.

[Milskidasith]

To me there's clearly a difference, but I can't think of a way to make you understand. The human mind is a wierd thing.

You can't make me understand because it simply isn't possible. Again, it's like trying to make me believe we're bad for gravity. Evolution isn't like you hear it presented on TV, where the ultimate goal is some kind of supersoldier race, or like on Pokemon, where species evolve by suddenly getting a crapload stronger and bigger, evolution is just what happens. If one animal is better suited to living in oil than another of its species, it will live, and the oil adaptation will thrive.


Not if they killed off, and their evolution is badly affected if they are starved of land to live on and subject to polution.

Evolution can't be badly affected. If they're adapting to an environment, whether it be a perfect place or a horrible wasteland, it is evolution. Extinction is caused by other species, and humans actively attempt to prevent causing species extinction, so I don't know why you would consider that.

[CoffeeIncluded]

By changing the environment we facilitate species evolving - by conserving it we lessen the need for evolutional drive in a species thus hindering it from evolving.
Evolution is adapting to the environment, if the environment is unchanging no evolution is really taking place.

And Coffeincluded, I don't see why you would be punished for starting an quite innocent thread - as long as you don't plan on making it a habit of creating hot-topic discussions that is. :smallsmile:

Eh, I get nervous. :smalltongue:
Closak, I'm a person too. Everyone here is. Just because a few people are ignorant doesn't mean everyone is evil.

[Altaria87]

For a new species to form it would take millions of years. The oil contamination will not hang aroud that long.

The best thing we could do is try to save what we can and replace the dead things with stuff from unaffected areas.
[Sorry if this has alreayd been mentioned, but I don't have time to read through the whole topic and really wnat to mention this]
It has actually been proven that in extreme cases Evolution doesn't need millions of years to happen, it was an experiment to do with guppies, I forgot the details, but I read it in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (by Richard Dawkins).
Edit: *reads the page this was posted on*
.. Yeah, I think I got Ninja'd

[Closak]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

[Boci]

You can't make me understand because it simply isn't possible. Again, it's like trying to make me believe we're bad for gravity. Evolution isn't like you hear it presented on TV, where the ultimate goal is some kind of supersoldier race, or like on Pokemon, where species evolve by suddenly getting a crapload stronger and bigger, evolution is just what happens. If one animal is better suited to living in oil than another of its species, it will live, and the oil adaptation will thrive.



Evolution can't be badly affected. If they're adapting to an environment, whether it be a perfect place or a horrible wasteland, it is evolution. Extinction is caused by other species, and humans actively attempt to prevent causing species extinction, so I don't know why you would consider that.

Never mind, its my own personal belief, and pretty much the closest thing I have to a religion I follow. I don't expect you to understand based on what I've said, and if I elaborate further I may break the forume rules.

[Rothen]

As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

I'm usually not one for biblical references, but I have never found a better moment to say:
He who is without sin cast the first stone.

I don't live in America, so we don't get good views of how bad it is over there. About how much damage are we speaking here, at this moment?

[Milskidasith]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

You must be really unfortunate to be surrounded by 90% terrible people, especially when, judging by this community, everybody here (myself included) actually cares about the environment (I care, I just don't believe the "humans are horrible" bull; if 90% of people were terrible, we wouldn't be cleaning the spill at all). From my experience, I haven't ever met *anybody* who's horrible and only wants to ruin the Earth just to see it burn, let alone nine out of ten people I know. Granted, a lot of people are misguided, or uninformed, but very few people are like the Captain Planet level, "Let's crash an oil tanker just to screw the seals" villains.

[Jack Squat]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

Wishing death on the majority of humanity happens to put you in that 90% that you're trying to separate yourself from.

Can we get back to the oil spill now?

[Closak]

Unfortunate doesn't even begin to describe it, personal experience tells me the majority of all humans are bastards.

Sure, my personal experience can be wrong, but that's the lesson that has been drilled into me from being surrounded by people who think it's funny to set the grass on fire or throw their garbage on someone elses property.


Above: You could say that being surrounded by monsters has turned me into a different kind of monster, the type who really wants the former type to die horribly.
Being surrounded by that kind of people can do that to you.

[jmbrown]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

Well, you seem to enjoy spending your time posting on an internet forum as opposed to discovering new and alternative sources of energy so as far I'm concerned you're lumped into the bottom 90% where the rest of the self-hating hypocrites who complain but do absolutely nothing to fix.

[Kaiser Omnik]

This topic was doomed from the start. What kind of discussion can we have on this, exactly? We (or I assume most of us) are not scientists capable of figuring out a brilliant plan to stop the spill. We can only feel bad for it or relativize its importance. We cannot discuss anything related to that industry or governement response because of forum rules.

So yeah, it becomes about ethics and misconceptions relating to environmentalism/evolution.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

...but if the 90% die, the 10% left won't be able to live. (Stuff like agriculture, power generation and other infrastructure that needs lots of people to sustain.)

[Altaria87]

Above: You could say that being surrounded by monsters has turned me into a different kind of monster, the type who really wants the former type to die horribly.
Being surrounded by that kind of people can do that to you.
Erm... Dude... You have read OoTS right? You are kinda sounding like Miko right now (not a good thing).
And I know it can be bad living in a place with a load of antisocial something-or-others (I live in BURNLEY, to all you English people reading, we're pretty much the epitome of 'Oop North'). However, most of us get along without expressing desire to watch all these people burn or something, and just dismiss them as the mal-educated fools they are and have nothing to do with them.

Also, about the actual spill: Though I'm upset the latest method didn't work, I'm actually quite optimistic that, now some engineers have had more time to work on the cap, instead of making it in a rush, that the nest attempt may work, then the cleanup can begin.

[Emperor Ing]

1: Bring back the species we have driven extinct by destroying their natural habitats.
2: Do something about the damn deserts that keep spreading and getting bigger due to human influence.
3: Bring back the rainforests we have cut down.

1) It's natural selection, if they were unfit to survive our species' growing dominance on the planet then they probably deserve it. Quite frankly there's plenty of species that should be extinct but are kept alive because of human influence.
2) The only way this would be plausible is if we developed a weather control machine. Deserts are formed because moisture can't get to a certain area, not because...well...what is it that you think causes the spread of deserts again?
3) The western world has adapted the strategy of Managed Forests, where we replant what we cut down, and move onto new sections of uncut forest. If it's as bad as you think it is, prehaps we can provide incentives for foreign logging companies that don't use Managed Forests to begin to do so.

TL;DR: We DO!!

[Griever]

Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.


As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.

Holier than thou, much? *whistles*

You seem convinced that greed is a bad thing.

Without greed, why would the father barter the price down on a used car so he could save the difference for his daughter's college fund?

Without greed, the student would not crave understanding, knowledge, would not push himself to learn how things work, and why.

Without greed, when a disaster hits, why would you have more food on hand than you need?

Gordon Gekko said it best, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Is not the tree that grows beyond other plants, cutting off their sunlight, greedy? I'm sure it could live without cutting off the other plant's sun, but it would only live, not prosper.

To not be greedy is to be complacent, stagnant. Stagnant is another word for "dead" in evolutionary views.

[Altaria87]

1) It's natural selection, if they were unfit to survive our species' growing dominance on the planet then they probably deserve it. Quite frankly there's plenty of species that should be extinct but are kept alive because of human influence.
2) The only way this would be plausible is if we developed a weather control machine. Deserts are formed because moisture can't get to a certain area, not because...well...what is it that you think causes the spread of deserts again?
3) The western world has adapted the strategy of Managed Forests, where we replant what we cut down, and move onto new sections of uncut forest. If it's as bad as you think it is, prehaps we can provide incentives for foreign logging companies that don't use Managed Forests to begin to do so.

TL;DR: We DO!!
Aren't we actually well on our way to making a weather control machine? I know that cloud-making-thingys do exist, you'd just have to amp it up a bit to be able to create proper rainclouds and stuff, right?

[Thrawn183]

I get tired of people claiming that nature is some nice, cute, noble thing. Nature wants to kill you, eat you and lay its babies in you to eat your flesh and if you are very lucky, in that order. [/firefly reference]

Also, saying humans are bad for evolution is like saying hot air is bad for gravity.

[Closak]

Oh yes, i am very well aware that i am sounding like Miko.

And i hate myself for it, but cannot help myself because i'm so overwhelmed by BURNING BOILING HATE against them.
I have been quite effectively corrupted by the monsters around me, except i turned into a completely different kind of monster.
And they are surprised at my attitude, really, what the hell were they expecting?

Great, now you got me going...i better leave before i do something REALLY stupid out of sheer rage towards everyone and everything.

[Milskidasith]

Oh yes, i am very well aware that i am sounding like Miko.

And i hate myself for it, but cannot help myself because i'm so overwhelmed by BURNING BOILING HATE against them.
I have been quite effectively corrupted by the monsters around me, except i turned into a completely different kind of monster.
And they are surprised at my attitude, really, what the hell were they expecting?

Great, now you got me going...i better leave before i do something REALLY stupid out of sheer rage towards everyone and everything.

I'm being totally serious here: Find somebody who can help you. When you wish death upon 90% of the world and spend time on online forums bringing up your burning hate for the people around you, you need to find somebody you can trust, not random online strangers, to discuss the problem with.

[Kaiser Omnik]

1) It's natural selection, if they were unfit to survive our species' growing dominance on the planet then they probably deserve it. Quite frankly there's plenty of species that should be extinct but are kept alive because of human influence.
2) The only way this would be plausible is if we developed a weather control machine. Deserts are formed because moisture can't get to a certain area, not because...well...what is it that you think causes the spread of deserts again?
3) The western world has adapted the strategy of Managed Forests, where we replant what we cut down, and move onto new sections of uncut forest. If it's as bad as you think it is, prehaps we can provide incentives for foreign logging companies that don't use Managed Forests to begin to do so.

TL;DR: We DO!!

1) Oh, because extinction never has any negative effect on humans! Natural selection is not a religion, yet some people just invoke it like it is some great universal truth. Can you even consider that some of the things humans do to their environment is bad for the entire ecosystem, especially themselves? And "deserve"...seriously? You're bringing morals in while trying to talk scientific fact.
2) For the love of...read about desertification before making claims such as this.

[Emperor Ing]

You really don't need to strangle anybody, you just need to accept things as what they are, and try to see the world through your eyes instead of the Doomsday Scopetm. Truth be told, we're getting better. New technology in the form of wood preservatives reduces our demand of wood and clean coal plants with advanced air scrubbers and filters reduce pollutant emission.

[jmbrown]

Oh yes, i am very well aware that i am sounding like Miko.

And i hate myself for it, but cannot help myself because i'm so overwhelmed by BURNING BOILING HATE against them.
I have been quite effectively corrupted by the monsters around me, except i turned into a completely different kind of monster.
And they are surprised at my attitude, really, what the hell were they expecting?

Great, now you got me going...i better leave before i do something REALLY stupid out of sheer rage towards everyone and everything.

How about you take your rage and furiously plant a tree or help scrub marine animals in Louisiana or writing to your local politician demanding more parks or doing something other than complaining about problems that are easily corrected.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I've been somewhat wrapped up in events on this side of the pond over the past little while. Just how bad is this oil spill? From the reports I'm seeing it seems an ecological and - knowing America - political disaster.

Incidentally, while skimming the thread I saw "don't talk about global warming, it's a really politically charged topic"... it really isn't, unless it's specific to America again, since I know American governments denied its existence until a little while ago.

Forgive my Little England ignorance of the way these matters are received overseas, but I've always viewed forums as a source of inquiry.

[Quincunx]

Desertification happens when the moisture in the ecosystem can't be captured at a usable level, and we humans (and our livestock) are quite good at removing too many of the plants which capture and recycle the moisture at usable levels. Mind you, some humans also figured out that light fabrics could capture moisture, not as efficiently as the plants collected dew, but still enough to upgrade a denuded area to semi-arid conditions.

[Zevox]

Incidentally, while skimming the thread I saw "don't talk about global warming, it's a really politically charged topic"... it really isn't, unless it's specific to America again, since I know American governments denied its existence until a little while ago.
It may very well be specific to the US, but whether that's the case or not, it is a very politically charged topic here - and with most of the posters here being from the US, plus Rich and (I think) Roland, that's going to translate into thread lock due to too much discussion of it. I know I've seen it happen at least once before, in an official OotS comic thread no less.

Zevox

[skywalker]

This topic was doomed from the start. What kind of discussion can we have on this, exactly? We (or I assume most of us) are not scientists capable of figuring out a brilliant plan to stop the spill. We can only feel bad for it or relativize its importance. We cannot discuss anything related to that industry or governement response because of forum rules.

So yeah, it becomes about ethics and misconceptions relating to environmentalism/evolution.

A quick summary of the thread so far:

1. Thread started about how the "top kill" failed. Some whinging about endangered species, BP, etc.
2. Responses along the same line, all with a dual-pronged undertone of overblown doomsday (all the pretty turtles will die!) and the evils of capitalism ( damn the corporate greed!)
3. A small, funny tangent towards the idea of using nukes to correct the problem.
4. Some rather alarming and absolutist raving about how humans suck.
5. Responses to said raving.
6. Another (continuing) tangent of intellectual debate on the very nature of what evolution is.
7. An argument about whether or not humans are good/bad/evil/helpful/hurtful/natural/potato/etc.

I'm not really sure where we supposed to go to start with. We could either go down the evironmentalist path, or we could go down the "corporate greed" path. Neither one of them seems like a particularly safe discussion for this forum.

In short, I pretty much agree. It's not technically against the rules to discuss the industry itself, tho.

EDIT:
It may very well be specific to the US, but whether that's the case or not, it is a very politically charged topic here - and with most of the posters here being from the US, plus Rich and (I think) Roland, that's going to translate into thread lock due to too much discussion of it. I know I've seen it happen at least once before, in an official OotS comic thread no less.

Zevox

Couldn't that also be because of being very, very off topic for an OotS thread? I don't deny your original answer, just proposing additional potential causes.

And yeah, Fred, it's a pretty charged topic 'round here. Not because of gov't denials, just because... That's the nature of the beast.

[Thrawn183]

I'm actually kinda curious as to why they can't excavate around it and just stick a bigger pipe down around the original. Even if the seal wasn't great, as long as your pumping up faster than the original pipe is leaking, negative pressure would just suck surrounding water in rather than let oil out. Unless the original pipe was just a mess for a really long distance down.

Or even just position a new pipe just above the opening of the old one. Even if you only managed to suck in about half the escaping oil it would still be better than what we have now.

Admittedly, I don't know just how hard it is to work in that much water pressure.

[SurlySeraph]

@^: That's pretty much exactly the idea behind the "top hat" they tried to put over it. Didn't work because a buildup of gas hydrates prevented it from fitting onto the sea floor tightly enough to stop the oil from leaking.


Psshh. If we cause one, it won't be because we poisoned one major body of water. It'll probably be because we nuke ourselves. We've got about 10-20 times the necessary number of nuclear weapons needed to eradicate all life on Earth.

I realize this is many posts back and a minor point, but no. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html).
The total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Therefore, each and every nuke would have to cover 6,770 kilometers just to take out the land area. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated and many times more powerful than a typical nuclear weapon, only had a total destruction radius of 35 kilometers. Even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was a Tsar Bomba, that's only 770,000 km completely destroyed. The vast majority of the land mass wouldn't even be in sight of any blasts assuming you concentrated on population centers. And that's without even getting into what you'd have to do to kill all life in the oceans.

Of course, there are enough nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of millions if not billions of people immediately and untold people and animals over the next decades from radiation poisoning, but human extinction would be far from guaranteed, much less the extinction of all life on Earth.

[Zevox]

I realize this is many posts back and a minor point, but no. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html).
The total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Therefore, each and every nuke would have to cover 6,770 kilometers just to take out the land area. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated and many times more powerful than a typical nuclear weapon, only had a total destruction radius of 35 kilometers. Even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was a Tsar Bomba, that's only 770,000 km completely destroyed. The vast majority of the land mass wouldn't even be in sight of any blasts assuming you concentrated on population centers. And that's without even getting into what you'd have to do to kill all life in the oceans.

Of course, there are enough nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of millions if not billions of people immediately and untold people and animals over the next decades from radiation poisoning, but human extinction would be far from guaranteed, much less the extinction of all life on Earth.
You know, I've always been curious about that, since I've seen such claims before, and the one time I recall seeing it explained the math was based on how many people were killed by the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs, which didn't seem like a sound way to estimate whether we could eradicate all life on earth with those bombs given the other factors involved, such as the space issues you bring up. Thanks for that analysis.

Zevox

[Tricksy Hobbits]

@^: That's pretty much exactly the idea behind the "top hat" they tried to put over it. Didn't work because a buildup of gas hydrates prevented it from fitting onto the sea floor tightly enough to stop the oil from leaking.



I realize this is many posts back and a minor point, but no. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html).
The total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Therefore, each and every nuke would have to cover 6,770 kilometers just to take out the land area. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated and many times more powerful than a typical nuclear weapon, only had a total destruction radius of 35 kilometers. Even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was a Tsar Bomba, that's only 770,000 km completely destroyed. The vast majority of the land mass wouldn't even be in sight of any blasts assuming you concentrated on population centers. And that's without even getting into what you'd have to do to kill all life in the oceans.

Of course, there are enough nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of millions if not billions of people immediately and untold people and animals over the next decades from radiation poisoning, but human extinction would be far from guaranteed, much less the extinction of all life on Earth.

I'm not sure about the smaller things like bacteria and bugs, but we don't need to burn all the land to kill everyone. If large amounts of nuclear weapons were used, it would throw up a whole bunch of aerosol particles and reflect sunlight away, cooling the earth and killing stuff. That and the whole radioactive clouds drifting around and very little surviving electronic devices for the remaining people to use to live longer.

It might not kill everyone, but it'd come close and the surviviors might not be able to reproduce enough to keep us going.

[Emperor Ing]

H-bombs, which is what the Tsar Bomba was, despite being WAY more powerful than an A-bomb, puts out signficantly less radiation. It's byproduct will do little more than make the survivors sound like they're in a Chipmunks sequel. The Nuclear Winter prospect is likely, the Radioactive Wasteland theory, not so much.

[Eldan]

Deep sea life would be the most likely to survive in those cases. But yes, what's killing surface life isn't the explosions, probably not even the fallout. It's the nuclear winter.

[Trog]

A quick summary of the thread so far:
*snip*
7. An argument about whether or not humans are good/bad/evil/helpful/hurtful/natural/potato/etc.
HUMANS ARE POTATO!!!!! :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:


I realize this is many posts back and a minor point, but no. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html).
The total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Therefore, each and every nuke would have to cover 6,770 kilometers just to take out the land area. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated and many times more powerful than a typical nuclear weapon, only had a total destruction radius of 35 kilometers. Even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was a Tsar Bomba, that's only 770,000 km completely destroyed. The vast majority of the land mass wouldn't even be in sight of any blasts assuming you concentrated on population centers. And that's without even getting into what you'd have to do to kill all life in the oceans.
As odd as this may sound, somehow this little factoid is comforting to me, a person who grew up during the height of the Cold War. Thanks for sharing it. :smallsmile:

[Green Bean]

I realize this is many posts back and a minor point, but no. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html).
The total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Therefore, each and every nuke would have to cover 6,770 kilometers just to take out the land area. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated and many times more powerful than a typical nuclear weapon, only had a total destruction radius of 35 kilometers. Even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was a Tsar Bomba, that's only 770,000 km completely destroyed. The vast majority of the land mass wouldn't even be in sight of any blasts assuming you concentrated on population centers. And that's without even getting into what you'd have to do to kill all life in the oceans.

I think your math's a little off. A blast with a radius of 35 kilometres would end up covering around 12 000 square kilometeres of area.

[Coidzor]

I think your math's a little off. A blast with a radius of 35 kilometres would end up covering around 12 000 square kilometeres of area.

circle = pi*(r^2)

Pi ~~ 3.14 (3,14 to those from the place where a decimal is a comma for whatever reason)

r = 35

35*35=35^2= 1,225
(35^2) * pi = 3,848.451

So... Not quite a third of what you estimate. About two thirds of what Surly Seraph estimated their effective area would have to be in order to carpet bomb the earth's landmasses.

[Green Bean]

I think this is why I'm an Arts major. :smallredface:

[Coidzor]

I think this is why I'm an Arts major. :smallredface:

What formula did you use to get 12K anyway? :smallconfused:

[Green Bean]

BEDMAS is a harsh mistress. :smallredface:

[SurlySeraph]

Thanks for correcting me, I was lazy in my calculations. As witnessed by my decision to just take the case of the most powerful nuke ever set off rather than trying to find a typical yield and then determine the destruction radius from there. (Incidentally, a very low yield for a nuke is one kiloton; the Tsar Bomba was 50,000 kilotons. Most US weapons seem to be in the 100-500 kt range, but I am too lazy to try to determine an average yield and then extrapolate from the destruction radius of a device of that yield. In any case, the total destroyed land area would probably be more than 770,000 square kilometers and certainly a lot less than the total land area of the Earth).

[Coidzor]

Thanks for correcting me, I was lazy in my calculations. As witnessed by my decision to just take the case of the most powerful nuke ever set off rather than trying to find a typical yield and then determine the destruction radius from there. (Incidentally, a very low yield for a nuke is one kiloton; the Tsar Bomba was 50,000 kilotons. Most US weapons seem to be in the 100-500 kt range, but I am too lazy to try to determine an average yield and then extrapolate from the destruction radius of a device of that yield. In any case, the total destroyed land area would probably be more than 770,000 square kilometers and certainly a lot less than the total land area of the Earth).

Indeed, plus the MRVs make things more of a headache as well.

[dehro]

There is no such thing as being bad to evolution. Evolution cannot be good or bad. It just happens. If a species screws over another species chances to survive, but it helps the first species, then that's what evolution says will be most likely to live.

Every animal screws over other animals/life. That's not a fault of evolution, and just because humans are sapient doesn't mean the fact we screw with other species (whether by killing them, or, in the case of some animals, saving them [pandas!]) is somehow unnatural or bad. It's natural. It's what it is, not bad, not good.
there is however such a thing as responsability...and it's there because we have created it, just as we have created the moral concepts of good, bad, environmental conscience and, as I said, responsability ...towards ourselves, as a species, and our environment simply for the egoistical reason that as a species, in the long run, we depend on that environment, and we don't have the means, scientific or otherwise to determine in what directions it may be safe to tip the balance of evolution so as to guarantee that at least those parts of environment that are essential to our own survival may survive.
we can say that the ice melting isn't our responsability or that we are only a part of evolution, but that doesn't mean we should lie on our backs and wait to die. the moment we started to acknowledge the fact that our actions have a profound impact on the environment, we became responsible for our actions towards it..
finding out what causes it and taking the responsability when due isn't important from a moral pov as much as it is because it enables us to come up with practical solutions
one can take the moral stance of indifference towards something that we are undeniably doing (see the dodo, see the several other species that are extinct by our direct actions or that today survive only in zoos and animal parks..which per se is more commendable than letting them die and rot). but is this ethically sound and, more importantly, is it safe? we are, I suppose all familiar with the butterfly effect..can we know for certain that our more or less wanton destruction of one species or the natural resources in one specific area will not have consequences ultimately fatal to ourselves? yes, that is part of evolution too, as is our extinction..but I for one don't like the idea of going down without a fight, and would like to think that acting responsably in managing the resources and protecting the environment is a better way to fight than looting and pillaging.
ultimately we WILL lose the fight for survival unless we find, as suggested, means for interstellar travel..and even then, it's only a question, whether we will find another habitat we can survive in.
I'd still try and not accellerate the process.


[Sorry if this has alreayd been mentioned, but I don't have time to read through the whole topic and really wnat to mention this]
It has actually been proven that in extreme cases Evolution doesn't need millions of years to happen, it was an experiment to do with guppies, I forgot the details, but I read it in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (by Richard Dawkins).
Edit: *reads the page this was posted on*
.. Yeah, I think I got Ninja'd
I believe you're thinking of groupies :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:


Like i said, about 90% of everyone i know of are horrible people.

This still leaves 10% who are actually decent.

As far as i'm concerned, those 90% can go burn, the world would be better of that way.
frankly, that makes you sound like a pretty despicable person yourself..maybe you should count yourself amongst the 90%... or step off the pedestal.


Unfortunate doesn't even begin to describe it, personal experience tells me the majority of all humans are bastards.

Sure, my personal experience can be wrong, but that's the lesson that has been drilled into me from being surrounded by people who think it's funny to set the grass on fire or throw their garbage on someone elses property.


Above: You could say that being surrounded by monsters has turned me into a different kind of monster, the type who really wants the former type to die horribly.
Being surrounded by that kind of people can do that to you.
I suggest you stop feeling sorry for yourself and try and look a bit further than your narrow perspective...as a species and as individuals we're supposed to learn from our mistakes and those of our fellow human beings..
pointing the finger and ranting will get you nowhere...and certainly seeing other people misbehave doesn't excuse an intelligent mature individual from doing better.
if everybody thought like you, the human race would still be stuck in the stone age.
if you really felt so strongly about what you preach, you would renounce the comforts of modern society and the impact you yourself have on the environment by benefitting from those comforts.
I assume you are aware that the internet and computers cause pollution? fibre optic cables, cross atlantic networks, satelites, waste of broken/outdated computers, the whole production industry..there are dozens of way in which using this very website to read my words is a small step YOU are taking towards polluting the world...and I'm pretty sure these are not the only benefits of society you enjoy... food, shelter, transport, information, health infrastructures...all things that living in today's world grants you a chance to have... or to renege.
if you feel this strongly about it, please by all means, build yourself a house made of sustainable and replaceable resources..do it on your own, in some remote place unscated by modern life..survive off food gathered and hunted using rocks and other simple tools..try to provide for your family that way... and let's see how long you can manage and whether you have the resolve to stick to that sort of life when you know things can be easier on yourself.

modern comforts and our elevated life expectancy come part and parcel with pollution and with environmental issues...whether you like it or not.
yes, it's not nice it should be that way and there are a lot of people who could do more than they do to.. do their bit (I must stop saying do)... and people who think they're entitled a priori...but that's who we are... and your 90% rant...is laughable. tell me again when you have actually met 90% of human population or found out what they actually think.
until then, please do stop trowing your toys out of the pram and grow up.


yes, I know I'll probably get a ban of some sort for these words..but frankly, so should you.


[/rant]

I don't suppose that using a giant condom would be a viable solution to the current predicament?

[Milskidasith]

there is however such a thing as responsability...and it's there because we have created it, just as we have created the moral concepts of good, bad, environmental conscience and, as I said, responsability ...towards ourselves, as a species, and our environment simply for the egoistical reason that as a species, in the long run, we depend on that environment, and we don't have the means, scientific or otherwise to determine in what directions it may be safe to tip the balance of evolution so as to guarantee that at least those parts of environment that are essential to our own survival may survive.
we can say that the ice melting isn't our responsability or that we are only a part of evolution, but that doesn't mean we should lie on our backs and wait to die. the moment we started to acknowledge the fact that our actions have a profound impact on the environment, we became responsible for our actions towards it..
finding out what causes it and taking the responsability when due isn't important from a moral pov as much as it is because it enables us to come up with practical solutions
one can take the moral stance of indifference towards something that we are undeniably doing (see the dodo, see the several other species that are extinct by our direct actions or that today survive only in zoos and animal parks..which per se is more commendable than letting them die and rot). but is this ethically sound and, more importantly, is it safe? we are, I suppose all familiar with the butterfly effect..can we know for certain that our more or less wanton destruction of one species or the natural resources in one specific area will not have consequences ultimately fatal to ourselves? yes, that is part of evolution too, as is our extinction..but I for one don't like the idea of going down without a fight, and would like to think that acting responsably in managing the resources and protecting the environment is a better way to fight than looting and pillaging.
ultimately we WILL lose the fight for survival unless we find, as suggested, means for interstellar travel..and even then, it's only a question, whether we will find another habitat we can survive in.
I'd still try and not accellerate the process.

You know, this rant would be a lot more relevant if it had anything to do with what I said. At all. Or evolution, which was the entire point of what I was talking about.

I really don't understand your point here. You're acting like I want all humans to die and screw themselves, which is the exact opposite of what I said. It's also kind of hard to parse when there are so many spelling and grammatical errors.

[dehro]

You know, this rant would be a lot more relevant if it had anything to do with what I said. At all. Or evolution, which was the entire point of what I was talking about.

I really don't understand your point here. You're acting like I want all humans to die and screw themselves, which is the exact opposite of what I said. It's also kind of hard to parse when there are so many spelling and grammatical errors.
I find it pretty relevant, but that may be my personal view..that said, I'd appreciate some actual feedback on my grammatical and spelling errors, especially if they are that many. I have 2 mother tongues and english is neither of them..so.. I can only improve, right?
to expand on why what I said is relevant to your point: as a species we have learned..or are learning, that our evolution and survival depends on our capacity to not blow our environment to smithereens...because we need it to produce oxygen and food...
in light of this, being aware that our presence here will come to an end, and that our presence here might bring other species to an end may be part of evolution as a broad concept is cool..but evolution of what? an extinct species (as opposed to one evolved in something else) pretty much stops evolving...because..well..they're dead.
and is this awareness of any value if we don't do anything with it?..
you say this is not the case you're arguing..but since we both agree that we should still do something ...then..what's the point of arguing whether the concept of evolution is affected by bad or good "for" evolution to begin with? seems more like semantics for it's own sake than a constructive contribution...

[Tricksy Hobbits]

I find it pretty relevant, but that may be my personal view..that said, I'd appreciate some actual feedback on my grammatical and spelling errors, especially if they are that many. I have 2 mother tongues and english is neither of them..so.. I can only improve, right?

Minor stuff like not capitalizing at the start of sentences and spelling things phonetically, actually, they don't seem too bad but that might be because I just forced myself to read My Immortal, so anything seems like good spelling.

Beyond that, I did enjoy that little rant, some parts did seem to single someone out, but alot of it can apply to most posters so it encourages introspection (always a good thing.)

And I do agree that we should act responsibly with regard to the environment, not nessecarily for the fuzzy feelings but for the effect it has on people.

[Brennan]

frankly, that makes you sound like a pretty despicable person yourself..maybe you should count yourself amongst the 90%... or step off the pedestal.


Yeah, but who are you to decide what makes a person despicable? Morality is relative, a vector imposed upon society by society. Without morality, society wouldn't exist, but also if society didn't exist... This kind of thing wouldn't happen. Technically, morality is an influence on mankind that makes us something we aren't by design: civilized. Human beings are beasts, each with instincts and needs and impulses. The only difference between us and the animals is that we put ourselves up on a pedestal and hold ourselves as more important than our feral neighbors.

Truly, who is the bad person? The one that believes that we should be culled to 10% of a population, or the one that believes that we should allow the majority of people to survive, thus killing and causing the extinction of many species of animal? Animals have just as much significance in their lives as we do, though we'd be hard pressed to see it that way. The idea of a void, of a nothingness after death, strikes them with fright just as it does to us.

Just a little moral conundrum to chew on. Hope it didn't go into the red zone... I don't believe general morals do.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Yeah, but who are you to decide what makes a person despicable? Morality is relative, a vector imposed upon society by society. Without morality, society wouldn't exist, but also if society didn't exist... This kind of thing wouldn't happen. Technically, morality is an influence on mankind that makes us something we aren't by design: civilized. Human beings are beasts, each with instincts and needs and impulses. The only difference between us and the animals is that we put ourselves up on a pedestal and hold ourselves as more important than our feral neighbors.

Truly, who is the bad person? The one that believes that we should be culled to 10% of a population, or the one that believes that we should allow the majority of people to survive, thus killing and causing the extinction of many species of animal. Animals that had just as much significance as we do, though we'd be hard pressed to see it that way.


I would think most people agree that both those people are wrong and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

As for the whole morality thing, I saw it as having two main sides, one proclaiming the sanctity of life in general and one caring mainly for people. Both these sides have problems but we can't go far on that in this forum. On most issues they agree on things, as maintaining the environmental status quo helps people more than randomly killing things and biodiversity has its uses. IMO, this is one of those things. The only way to really save the trees is to cut back on fuel usage but that disadvantages people (and the amount of people is increasing) so there should be a compromise where both sides lose, but both sides win at the same time.

[dehro]

Minor stuff like not capitalizing at the start of sentences and spelling things phonetically, actually, they don't seem too bad but that might be because I just forced myself to read My Immortal, so anything seems like good spelling.

Beyond that, I did enjoy that little rant, some parts did seem to single someone out, but alot of it can apply to most posters so it encourages introspection (always a good thing.)

And I do agree that we should act responsibly with regard to the environment, not nessecarily for the fuzzy feelings but for the effect it has on people.
If nothing else, I think the children I might have one day deserve that sort of effort from my part..and the same applies to them and their children, etc...all the way down..

Thanks for the heads up anyway...I tend to not care much about capitalisation, when I write on forums..my mistake of course.
as for the phonetical spelling...I blame lack of sleep..it's 5 am here and I have no idea as to why I'm not in bed...my english gets worse when I'm not fully awake

[Flickerdart]

I would think most people agree that both those people are wrong and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Therefore, we should only kill half the people and half the animals, to be fair. I am a rational and sensible man for taking the neutral position in this argument. :smallwink:

[Brennan]

I would think most people agree that both those people are wrong and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, but the majority of people are bound by morality, which would influence them to argue in morality's defense.

Now, I'm not saying that all of this is the case, but if it were the case, mind you, only the insane would be the truly pure, and all members of society would be the true lunatics.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Therefore, we should only kill half the people and half the animals, to be fair. I am a rational and sensible man for taking the neutral position in this argument. :smallwink:

Funny, I saw someone posting that exact type of statement on the OotS board a few months ago(Familicide of course, what else has that many morality arguments?)

Anyway, I was thinking more decrease birthrates, let the animals suffer this generation, resurge when this generation die, and both eventually come to a balance where the people can live without messing up the earth that much. Unfortunatly that won't happen for a while, as the whole world would have to agree on it and work together.

[dehro]

Yeah, but who are you to decide what makes a person despicable? Morality is relative, a vector imposed upon society by society. Without morality, society wouldn't exist, but also if society didn't exist... This kind of thing wouldn't happen. Technically, morality is an influence on mankind that makes us something we aren't by design: civilized. Human beings are beasts, each with instincts and needs and impulses. The only difference between us and the animals is that we put ourselves up on a pedestal and hold ourselves as more important than our feral neighbors.

Truly, who is the bad person? The one that believes that we should be culled to 10% of a population, or the one that believes that we should allow the majority of people to survive, thus killing and causing the extinction of many species of animal? Animals have just as much significance in their lives as we do, though we'd be hard pressed to see it that way. The idea of a void, of a nothingness after death, strikes them with fright just as it does to us.

Just a little moral conundrum to chew on. Hope it didn't go into the red zone... I don't believe general morals do.

I agree entirely with what you say in the rest of your post...as for the first sentence, calling Closak despicable is purely the reaction to his statements.
I can't help but think that somebody who considers 90% of humanity is bad and should therefore burn and die, has no right to put himself in the remaining 10%..and especially so when such a provocative statement is purely based on emotional outpouring over one, however relevant, limited aspect of life, humanity and modern society. plenty of people who litter and are not above "forgetting" to recycle spend their life doing things otherwise for the betterment of human society (which could be seen as potential resource for the betterment of...everything)..and plenty of people who are very eco-conscious spend their days acting in less than noble and dignified manner.
sweeping statements like the ones that prompted my disparaging remarks don't bring any positive influence in either direction and are there only because writing them makes who writes them feel better.

[fknm]

..that said, I'd appreciate some actual feedback on my grammatical and spelling errors, especially if they are that many. I have 2 mother tongues and english is neither of them..so.. I can only improve, right?
The main thing that makes it difficult to read your posts in this thread is the use of ellipses (the "..."). They are not proper English grammar, and although they are acceptable when used sparingly, when used frequently make a post read as though it were one long run-on thought. Structure your sentences so that you can either use a period and end the sentence, or use a comma. In general, using a period and ending the sentence is a better solution; you shouldn't make compound sentences, whether they're created by a semicolon or a comma-and-conjunction construction, unless the meaning of the second sentence relates very closely to the meaning of the first sentence, as is the case in this very sentence.

Also, when you start a new paragraph, it's more readable if you leave a blank line between paragraphs, as done here.

[Zevox]

I find it pretty relevant, but that may be my personal view..that said, I'd appreciate some actual feedback on my grammatical and spelling errors, especially if they are that many. I have 2 mother tongues and english is neither of them..so.. I can only improve, right?
A few suggestions then:
- As Tricksy Hobbits said, capitalize the first letter of the word at the start of a sentence.
- Put a space in between each paragraph of text when writing online (in other formats you would use indentation at the start of a paragraph instead, but you tend not to have that option online).
- Don't use so many ellipses (the three periods in a row). Those indicate something along the lines of a thought trailing off unfinished, and really should not be something you use too commonly in normal conversational writing. Use normal punctuation instead - a single period for most sentences, question marks for questions, and the like. For instance, in the part of your post I quoted, the first ellipses should be replaced with a simple period. The second and third could be left, but would perhaps be better altered so that the first is a comma and the third is taken out entirely. Like so:


I find it pretty relevant, but that may be my personal view. That said, I'd appreciate some actual feedback on my grammatical and spelling errors, especially if they are that many. I have 2 mother tongues and english is neither of them, so I can only improve, right?
Still not perfect, but much more readable.


As for the whole morality thing, I saw it as having two main sides, one proclaiming the sanctity of life in general and one caring mainly for people. Both these sides have problems but we can't go far on that in this forum.
Really? I was under the impression that morality and ethics were perfectly acceptable topics of conversation here so long as we don't stray into political or religious territory.

Zevox

[Brennan]

calling Closak despicable.

I didn't mean it to sound quite like that... I was rather showing him an interesting alternative to his own stance. I don't think anyone here is despicable.

[SDF]

But have we tested them a mile down? Pretty sure both of those detonations were relatively barely below the surface.

Not quite that far. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam) Radiation isn't much of a problem, but if you are detonating them far down tidal waves are. Depending on the yield of course.


Compare to CO2.

Normally the amount is relatively stable.
Enter humanity, who keeps adding dose upon dose, slowly increasing the amount of CO2.
Cutting down the rainforests is not helping.
CO2 is added at a faster rate than it disappears, screwing up the balance royally and slowly but gradually increasing how much of it there is.

How long until the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches dangerous levels, how long until it get's to the point where everything goes straight to hell?

Whoops.
...Better start planting more trees...except they just get cut down again...DAMMIT!

The worlds air comes almost exclusively from primary producing photosynthetic microorganisms that live in the oceans. Not from trees. Trees will produce oxygen and store the carbon, but as soon as that tree dies and starts rotting (or a fire comes through the area) that carbon goes right back where it came from.

Wood products manufacturers most often plant multiple trees for every one they cut down. If they just clear cut the land they owned they'd go out of business pretty fast. Many also work close with the forestry service in terms of good stewardship. You shouldn't grossly misrepresent groups of people without any facts. You haven't even produced one fact, figure, or link for the wild and often incorrect accusations you've been making.

[Coidzor]

Truly, who is the bad person? The one that believes that we should be culled to 10% of a population, or the one that believes that we should allow the majority of people to survive, thus killing and causing the extinction of many species of animal? Animals have just as much significance in their lives as we do, though we'd be hard pressed to see it that way. The idea of a void, of a nothingness after death, strikes them with fright just as it does to us.

Just a little moral conundrum to chew on. Hope it didn't go into the red zone... I don't believe general morals do.

It's generally hard to support a moral framework that supports wanton slaughter of innocents as good. Most actual organizations and entities that want to reduce the human population advocate population control rather than genocide for... ah, well, their own survival for one thing. You'd need to dial up this extreme misanthropy up to 11 before you'd have people willing to stomach that much killing on their hands. That's an awful lot of babies to dash on the rocks.

Plus there's the whole problem of having to find some way to devalue the 5.5+ billion people being killed in order to make it not seem like a morally reprehensible thing when one is morally outraged by the deaths of members of other species.

Also, it's intentional, malice-driven killing as opposed to the largely thoughtless actions of many individual actors adding up to a collective whole.

Besides, it's not that killing off 90% of humanity is necessary even for that goal of preventing the extinction of the species currently on the way there due to the influence of human activities. No, it was stated in the context of the only thing that would satisfy someone's misanthropy. Plus, what could actually be helpful to the situation isn't allowed to be discussed on these boards.

[SurlySeraph]

Yeah, but who are you to decide what makes a person despicable? Morality is relative, a vector imposed upon society by society.

I agree, but many would not. Try to be a bit less sweeping.


The only difference between us and the animals is that we put ourselves up on a pedestal and hold ourselves as more important than our feral neighbors.

I'll acknowledge that marmosets are important when they have can go to the moon.


Truly, who is the bad person? The one that believes that we should be culled to 10% of a population, or the one that believes that we should allow the majority of people to survive, thus killing and causing the extinction of many species of animal?

The one that wants to kill 5.4 billion people.


Animals have just as much significance in their lives as we do, though we'd be hard pressed to see it that way. The idea of a void, of a nothingness after death, strikes them with fright just as it does to us.

How many animals have you asked about it? Cite some evidence or you're just romanticizing.

[Maximum Zersk]

Damn, you guys. I leave you for two minutes and you go from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to morality. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I AM curious about what the company is trying out now to stop the spill from getting worse.

[Quincunx]

The same technique, but less of a half-a. . .rush job.

Good tips on page 7 for tidying dehro's posts, given without undermining his points.

[Zevox]

Damn, you guys. I leave you for two minutes and you go from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to morality. :smalltongue:
Hello and welcome to Giant in the Playground, the forum that takes the question "Is it Morally Justified?" and applies it to everything from rogue ex-Paladins to taking out the trash. Enjoy your stay. :smallwink:

Zevox

[Maximum Zersk]

Hello and welcome to Giant in the Playground, the forum that takes the question "Is it Morally Justified?" and applies it to everything from rogue ex-Paladins to taking out the trash. Enjoy your stay. :smallwink:

Zevox

Oh believe me, I know. I just didn't really expect it outside the OotS forum.

Next we're going to have threads about what gender people in real life are, and going by obscure quotes.

[Zevox]

Oh believe me, I know. I just didn't really expect it outside the OotS forum.

Next we're going to have threads about what gender people in real life are, and going by obscure quotes.
If you could find someone willing to intentionally obscure their sex for an indefinite period of time, I'd wager we could get a thread going on just that, actually.

Zevox

[AstralFire]

If you could find someone willing to intentionally obscure their sex for an indefinite period of time, I'd wager we could get a thread going on just that, actually.

Zevox

I'm actually pretty good about baffling people on this point (I've had in-thread discussions regarding this, and I don't exactly obscure it.)

[Brother Oni]

If you could find someone willing to intentionally obscure their sex for an indefinite period of time, I'd wager we could get a thread going on just that, actually.

I find it easier to assume everybody on forums to is male, unless I'm corrected by the actual poster (either by their posts or their listed details).

If they're female and are obscuring that fact, then they probably don't want the attention associated with being female. Some of us do remember the dawn of the internet where the userbase was almost exclusively male and people claiming to be female usually attracted a torrent of sexist remarks or requests for pictures.

With the exception of obvious topics, why would gender have any impact on the validity of a person's statements anyway?

[The Glyphstone]

If you could find someone willing to intentionally obscure their sex for an indefinite period of time, I'd wager we could get a thread going on just that, actually.

Zevox

Lady Gaga?

[/rimshot]:smallcool:

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Really? I was under the impression that morality and ethics were perfectly acceptable topics of conversation here so long as we don't stray into political or religious territory.

Zevox

It depends.
We can talk about morality and if something is moral, but not why what's moral is moral, because people tend to throw religion into that arguement (because some major religions say what is right and wrong). So we can't really define our terms and the arguements tend to go in circles.

[skywalker]

Indeed, plus the MRVs make things more of a headache as well.

MIRVs are just things that carry nukes... It seems like you might be saying that using a MIRV multiplies your nuke, which of course it does not. Now, the fact that we have fewer missiles than we have nukes means that it's less independently targetable, but then if we're getting into that discussion, there's a lot of other practical concerns like sub-launched missiles, air-dropped bombs, etc, etc, etc... I don't think any of them have much place in a theoretical discussion of whether or not we could burn ourselves to a cinder.


I don't suppose that using a giant condom would be a viable solution to the current predicament?

You're supposed to put those on first. :smallwink:


It's generally hard to support a moral framework that supports wanton slaughter of innocents as good.

In the extremely radical view, they have participated in our vast consumerist culture. So they're at least accomplices, even if unwitting ones.


If they're female and are obscuring that fact, then they probably don't want the attention associated with being female. Some of us do remember the dawn of the internet where the userbase was almost exclusively male and people claiming to be female usually attracted a torrent of sexist remarks or requests for pictures.

We're still in the dawn of the internet?!

[Zevox]

It depends.
We can talk about morality and if something is moral, but not why what's moral is moral, because people tend to throw religion into that arguement (because some major religions say what is right and wrong). So we can't really define our terms and the arguements tend to go in circles.
Sure we can talk about the whys, just so long as our reasons why don't go into religion. Not everyone's moral reasoning does you know. Heck, for those of us who aren't religious at all, such as myself, they kind of couldn't to begin with.


I'm actually pretty good about baffling people on this point (I've had in-thread discussions regarding this, and I don't exactly obscure it.)
Yeah, I actually think I've wondered about you a time or two myself. Think it has something to do with the ambiguous image you have for your avatar combined with the fact that you don't use the forum-provided "gender" icons.


With the exception of obvious topics, why would gender have any impact on the validity of a person's statements anyway?
It wouldn't - what in my remark would make you think I was implying otherwise? I was just saying that I fully expect that posters around here would happily spend time in a thread speculating on another poster's sex if there one were willing to intentionally obscure it so as to provide the topic of the conversation.

Zevox

[Flickerdart]

We're still in the dawn of the internet?!
Nope, dawn of the Internet ended in August 1993.

[Kroy]

I just found this jewel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo (sorry if this had already been brought up, I haven't read the whole thread.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Sure we can talk about the whys, just so long as our reasons why don't go into religion. Not everyone's moral reasoning does you know. Heck, for those of us who aren't religious at all, such as myself, they kind of couldn't to begin with.
Zevox

I agree that we (as in, people, not us forumites) should be able to, but many people practice a religion that sets out moral guidelines about what is right and wrong, and if two people are arguing about something that these guildlines would affect, they would not agree and would not be able to fully present their arguments, as the arguments require both sides to agree on some things that they can't make people agree on over these forums because the reasons behind those arguements can't be discussed here.

It sucks, but that's political correctness for you.

Edit: Kroy, someone did post that on page 3, but it's a good vid so we'll tolerate it.

[Lamech]

You're still nuking the Gulf of Mexico.
Hmm... so this has probably been forgotten for about 6 pages but... I WANNA NUKE THE GULF!!!

Underwater nuclear detonation is the only legal international way to test a nuclear or thermonuclear device.
And as an added benifit we could test new weapons.

P.S. I have no idea how bad the fallout would be, or if it would even work, I just like making stuff go BOOM!

[Emperor Ing]

Hmm... so this has probably been forgotten for about 6 pages but... I WANNA NUKE THE GULF!!!

And as an added benifit we could test new weapons.

P.S. I have no idea how bad the fallout would be, or if it would even work, I just like making stuff go BOOM!

Well, Russia could "test" this bomb (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1155952320070912) here...

[Flickerdart]

Well, Russia could "test" this bomb (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1155952320070912) here...
I don't think it'd work underwater, it needs to ignite the cloud somehow.

[SurlySeraph]

Not to mention that the cloud can't really disperse what with the water pressure.

[Zevox]

I agree that we (as in, people, not us forumites) should be able to, but many people practice a religion that sets out moral guidelines about what is right and wrong, and if two people are arguing about something that these guildlines would affect, they would not agree and would not be able to fully present their arguments, as the arguments require both sides to agree on some things that they can't make people agree on over these forums because the reasons behind those arguements can't be discussed here.
I follow you until the bolded part. Last I checked, arguments didn't require people to agree on some things - quite the contrary, they tend to be born of disagreement.

From where I'm sitting, it seems that the only thing forum rules do to impede discussion of any morality is that those whose opinions are grounded in religion can't to fully explain the source of their opinions here.


It sucks, but that's political correctness for you.
Er, what does political correctness have to do with anything we were talking about? :smallconfused:

Zevox

[Flickerdart]

Not to mention that the cloud can't really disperse what with the water pressure.
I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to make a delayed blast bomb that lets the substance disperse for a bit first. All it has to do is be heavier than water.

[thorgrim29]

Well that was a long read, went from informative to funny to depressing to funny again. Beat that prime time tv.

As to my opinions:

1: The oil spill happened because a few people got greedy (save the company money, profit goes up and so do your shares, plus you might get promoted). However, to say that a whole company down to it's last shareholder and the nice lady who works at payroll is EVIL (hyperboling for effect a bit here) is more then rash, it shows hasty judgment, knee-jerk anti-capitalism and a lack of understanding of how a business works. That said, the people responsible should be held accountable, no questions here, and I hope they get this fixed as soon as possible. And if they find a way to do that and still get oil out of the deal, more power to them.

2: Nuking the Gulf, while awesome, will sadly not happen

3: Evolution and humanity vs nature. I don't think people realize how many new species humanity created/helped survive. Plus, I was hiking the other day and saw a trio of clumped cedars, the biggest one at least two feet across, that had fallen down. When I went to sit on one I noticed that they were infested with ants, and not that big a nest, it had started near the roots and spread in the trunks a bit before felling the tree. It got me thinking, if a few thousand ants can completely destroy an organism that was several tens of thousands of times their size and had lived for at the very least 10 times as long as any individual ant, probably a lot more, thus releasing the stored carbon dioxide and modifying the surrounding environment a lot, how does humanity measure up?

4: Misanthropy. I always found misanthropes funny because, if you think about it, the very fact that humanity as a species can afford itself the luxury of self hatred is the greatest proof of it's superiority I can think of. Also, if you have killing urges 9 out of 10 times you see someone you should probably see a shrink.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

I follow you until the bolded part. Last I checked, arguments didn't require people to agree on some things - quite the contrary, they tend to be born of disagreement.

From where I'm sitting, it seems that the only thing forum rules do to impede discussion of any morality is that those whose opinions are grounded in religion can't to fully explain the source of their opinions here.


Er, what does political correctness have to do with anything we were talking about? :smallconfused:

Zevox

People will disagree on the issue, but they need to use the same terminology to discuss them. Like how at the start of legal documents, there is a list of terms and how they are intended. In moral discussions, right and wrong mean different things to different people and if the terms are attempted to be defined, many of the reasons behind people's personal moral beliefs are rooted in religion. This can be alienating to those who have views that differ from the majority but can't discuss them because the arguement will involve religion.

[Zevox]

People will disagree on the issue, but they need to use the same terminology to discuss them. Like how at the start of legal documents, there is a list of terms and how they are intended. In moral discussions, right and wrong mean different things to different people and if the terms are attempted to be defined, many of the reasons behind people's personal moral beliefs are rooted in religion. This can be alienating to those who have views that differ from the majority but can discuss them because the arguement will invove religion.
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just a more complex way of saying what I said about people with moral views rooted in religion not being able to fully explain the source of their views here?

Zevox

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just a more complex way of saying what I said about people with moral views rooted in religion not being able to fully explain the source of their views here?

Zevox

More that if people try to agree on why something is "right" or "wrong", someone will bring up religion. And we can't talk about whether something is moral without deciding what moral is.

[Maximum Zersk]

4: Misanthropy. I always found misanthropes funny because, if you think about it, the very fact that humanity as a species can afford itself the luxury of self hatred is the greatest proof of it's superiority I can think of. Also, if you have killing urges 9 out of 10 times you see someone you should probably see a shrink.

That's why I take the middle road: Humans can be jerks, and sometimes downright messed up. But at the same time, for every soulless jerk, there's someone caring.

Also, I find it odd that people say that we are ruining the environment 'cause we're human, even though there are a lot of people intent on saving it. Or is that because I'm Canadian?

[Zevox]

More that if people try to agree on why something is "right" or "wrong", someone will bring up religion. And we can't talk about whether something is moral without deciding what moral is.
Yeah, there's where I don't have a problem but others may I suppose, since I don't expect people to agree on if/why something is right/wrong or what "moral" is. Morality being subjective and all. The way I figure it, all you can ultimately do in those sorts of conversations is state your opinion and endeavor to explain why you hold it, so that the other person can understand it even if they disagree with it.

Zevox

[Lamech]

3: Evolution and humanity vs nature.
Adversity is great for evolution, in so much as it makes it go faster. Stable conditions lead to stable gene pools. In fact, stable conditions are the best for creatures that just clone themselves.

[Coidzor]

In the extremely radical view, they have participated in our vast consumerist culture. So they're at least accomplices, even if unwitting ones.

Yeah, see, by that logic, the people making that decision, indeed the people capable of making that decision are deciding to kill people for a "crime" which they themselves are guilty. And it's even a "crime" of which they are assuredly guilty which those who they are killing are not necessarily guilty of committing.

Or they've been raised and abused and trained by those who are guilty without ever having seen it for themselves, which seems farfetched.

So, yeah, tricky.

[dehro]

Also, if you have killing urges 9 out of 10 times you see someone you should probably see a shrink.

in the hope he'd become the first target?:smallbiggrin:



You're supposed to put those on first. :smallwink:

are you saying I've been doing it wrong?:smalleek:

I'm surprised that Zevox hasn't just suggested the easy way out..

hire Toph to do the job:smallwink:

[Zevox]

I'm surprised that Zevox hasn't just suggested the easy way out..

hire Toph to do the job:smallwink:
Eh, try more Toph and Katara. You'd need a waterbender to get Toph down to the sea floor to do her earth (or metal, as the case may be) bending.

Zevox

[Wardog]

More that if people try to agree on why something is "right" or "wrong", someone will bring up religion. And we can't talk about whether something is moral without deciding what moral is.

I suppose the trick would be to only use arguments that don't involve religion.

For example, if I followed a religion that prohibited wearing blue clothes (due to the Supreme Being prefering red), there would be no reason for anyone not of my religion to agree with me, so I couldn't argue for that position without dragging religion into it, and couldn't convert anyone to my view without also converting them to my religion.

Whereas the view that "murder is wrong" (or the opposite) can be derived without invoking any particular deity, but by discussing the effect it has on people and society.

(Which, thinking about it, is possibly why Alignment debates can get so vicious, because they are essentially derived from "scripture" (i.e. what the various D&D manuals say "good" and "evil" are) and their interpretation, rather than from a purely objective discussion about the effect of actions on people).

[The Succubus]

I'm going to inject the golf balls and tires of humour into this gloom spilling thread because I know it will work in cheering you all up.

First, we must examine the situation, yes? What we have is a large amount of gunk pouring out of a pipe. Would it not be sensible to draft in experts in this? I'm sure that Durex would only be too happy to manufacture a 5 mile long..item..to contain the gunk.

Although it warms my icicle cold heart to see BP's share price haemorrhaging *almost* as fast as the oil.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

I suppose the trick would be to only use arguments that don't involve religion.

For example, if I followed a religion that prohibited wearing blue clothes (due to the Supreme Being prefering red), there would be no reason for anyone not of my religion to agree with me, so I couldn't argue for that position without dragging religion into it, and couldn't convert anyone to my view without also converting them to my religion.

Whereas the view that "murder is wrong" (or the opposite) can be derived without invoking any particular deity, but by discussing the effect it has on people and society.



But society is affected by religion, and alot of social values are in part caused by religion, so the negative effect something has on society can bring about the discussion of soceital flaws and problems with why a soceity looks down on something, which can bring religion into it.

I find that in morality discussions, it helps to talk about how all the main moral opinions influence your side of the arguement, and not get into wrong or right, but rather how with someone's interpretation of wrong and right an action may seem to be wrong or right. That way they can make their own conclusions and the thread doesn't get locked.

[skywalker]

First, we must examine the situation, yes? What we have is a large amount of gunk pouring out of a pipe. Would it not be sensible to draft in experts in this? I'm sure that Durex would only be too happy to manufacture a 5 mile long..item..to contain the gunk.

This has already been mentioned... In less surreptitious terms, no less.


Although it warms my icicle cold heart to see BP's share price haemorrhaging *almost* as fast as the oil.

So you're telling me it's a great time to buy BP? Yes, I believe it is as well.

[Keld Denar]

Relevant comic is relevant
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/worst_case_scenario.png

The world needs more rolling aligator-filled walls of flame!

[raitalin]

So you're telling me it's a great time to buy BP? Yes, I believe it is as well.

I'd wait for more details of the criminal investigation. I doubt they've hit the floor yet.

[Ranna]

Ooh speaking of share prices, don't forget almost every pension and bank has bought shares in BP in the past and thus are also loosing loads of money... our money

oh yea and aren't they already just getting past a major screw up if my memory serves right


this couldn't have come at a better time really.

just flaming super.

[Coidzor]

^: Apparently the big boys somehow caught wind of something a few months before this all started and sold their BP stock quietly. At least, that's what I heard shouted down from my friend's dad while he was loling over the latest gulf news this evening after dinner.

BP stock: Plus they might just die. But, yeah, for betting men, it's either here soon or here sooner to buy.

[Ranna]

Now that IS a silver lining!

Wonder how they guessed it was time to sell the shares did they know BP were cutting corners on their equipment, and they didn't do anything about it?

Oooo angry at bankers/stockers - sorry if anyone is one!