Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Climate Change, Chinese Hoax or Impending Apocolypse?

  1. #11


    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    212
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    737
    Thanked
    208/65
    DL/UL
    33/0
    Mentioned
    4 times
    Time Online
    6d 6h 59m
    Avg. Time Online
    2m
    Quote Originally Posted by ohboy View Post
    I understand climate change being a chinese hoax is a blatant crazy conspiracy theory to us, but people really don't think anything is happening.


    tl;dr Chinese hoax is a direct quote from our POTUS on the subject matter we are 'debating' in this topic hence why it was used in the title. Other than that I agree with you wholeheartedly. [COLOR="Silver"]
    Ah, I see. I just hate anyone repeating that man because it spreads his nonsense and people will believe a contrarian no matter how ridiculous it is.

    I'm with you -- it definitely can, and likely will without direct action IMMEDIATELY, hit a point where it's too late to return. We are already seeing drastic changes to environments -- rising sea levels affecting coastal areas, more vivid weather patterns and more strong storms... not to mention, once all the trash and air pollution is all out there, it's significantly harder to remove than to prevent.

    US policymakers already assume it's too late and refuse to do anything, but I think that ties more into not wanting to lose out on money and wanting to continue to exploit anybody and anything they can. They'll make up ridiculous things like a plastic straw ban and have everyone feeling good as if they did something. Big corps LOVE to make it seem like it's up to individuals to reduce emissions - "hey, good job for carpooling!" "be sure to separate your papers and your plastics!" "eat our product with less packaging!" while avoiding the fact that it's a very small handful of people that are fully responsible for the damages done to our planet.

  2. #12

    Versace's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    69
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    62/28
    Mentioned
    4 times
    Time Online
    5d 18h 58m
    Avg. Time Online
    2m
    Thank you for clearing up the �Chinese hoax� part. I also felt uncomfortable seeing it in the title until I saw your explanation!

    I think that the problem is that people still don�t care enough. They just think about their own lifestyle and whatever makes things easier for them... which is frustrating because they�re ruining it for everyone else.

    This is probably getting political and I�d like to first state that I�m from Canada, so I�m not super caught up to date with American politics. I�d say that I�m not strongly biased against the POTUS however I get the feeling that he doesn�t care because he�s not the one that will be affected by climate change consequences since the consequences are likely to not happen within his lifetime.

  3. #13
    earthanimal's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    50
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    30/15
    DL/UL
    5/0
    Mentioned
    1 time
    Time Online
    1d 1h 27m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Draikmoth View Post
    That is a a pretty bad and weak argument. Like, hundreds (not thousands, thousands is worse) years ago, people lived to their 40s with the same problems than today (if not worse, and IF they get to live past 2 or 10 years old), thats why all that "drugs" were created in the first place, there're no sickness not illneses that could "embed" in the ADN, and the illneses and plagues they lived hundreds years ago were horrifying and misstreated. Medical science is way different now than then...

    Now, about eating microplastics, etc, the thing is that there should be a more strict lineup of what we eat, and how industries process it, there's a need of better industry practices regarding contamination but, as jack35999 says, it has a lot to do with finances and how we assume our way of living. I mean, it's sad, but just by eating a little less meat in western countries and having less to zero children, environmental damage and famine would be better controlled...
    life expectancy is a big part of my argument. natural diseases used to kill people. now, that doesn't happen nearly as often, which is both good and bad. people are living a lot longer (a huge contributing factor to environmental and economic disaster), and they are very often on medication that is just causing different illness. plastic is a HUGE problem in many ecosystems now, but especially the ocean, where it breaks down into micro plastics that adsorb toxins throughout all the seawater in the world, get eaten by fish, and end up on our plates.
    not only that, but decades of industrialism and unnatural farming practices have stripped most soil of any nutrients. we are consuming way more calories than we used to, and way less nutrients. on top of that, most people are hard pressed to find foods that are not pre-packaged in styrofoam, plastic, glossed cardboard, or other materials that are hard to break down and release toxins into the environment. and then if the packaging wasn't bad enough, the food inside is full of strange, synthetic materials that are not readily digested by the human body.
    there is no balance anymore. we cannot have safety from deadly diseases like the plague, without having highly toxic drugs in our systems, materials in and surrounding our "food", or actual food that is highly nutritious, instead of bred to be full of sugar, and then covered with wax.
    i realize my original post was not the most sensical argument, i guess i was just exhausted when i wrote it.

    edit: also, perhaps humans are actually supposed to have a life expectancy of 40, naturally?

  4. #14


    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    460
    Userbars
    3
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    1,086/228
    DL/UL
    20/0
    Mentioned
    19 times
    Time Online
    40d 23h 36m
    Avg. Time Online
    19m
    If I see one more argument about how the every day, average citizen needs to do X thing to stop global warming, I'm gonna do a nose dive off the deep end and probably get an email from the Queen or some shit.

    There's 100 companies that are directly responsible for over 70% of the world's global carbon emissions. Which is to say the 100 CEOs and/or boards and/or governments of those companies are more to blame than the next seven and a half billion people combined. If every other person on the planet reduced their emissions to zero, we'd still be fucked, and we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of these people. We know who these companies are, and we know who runs them. We have the technology for making the switch to clean energy ready to go whenever the fuck some billionaire wants to get their head out of the corn-hole and fund it. We could even clean up the oceans at a profit if we really wanted to. But nobody is going to do any of that because old money has too much power and this isn't Revolutionary France.

    TL;DR: there are 100 companies we should dismantle. Overthrow the rich, save the planet, eat ass smoke grass go fast.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ehentalix For This Useful Post:

    earthanimal (11-03-2018),pinkpain (10-27-2018)

  6. #15
    pinkpain's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    117
    Userbars
    3
    Thanks
    525
    Thanked
    209/65
    DL/UL
    9/0
    Mentioned
    2 times
    Time Online
    12d 4h 51m
    Avg. Time Online
    8m
    Quote Originally Posted by Ehentalix View Post
    If I see one more argument about how the every day, average citizen needs to do X thing to stop global warming, I'm gonna do a nose dive off the deep end and probably get an email from the Queen or some shit.

    There's 100 companies that are directly responsible for over 70% of the world's global carbon emissions. Which is to say the 100 CEOs and/or boards and/or governments of those companies are more to blame than the next seven and a half billion people combined. If every other person on the planet reduced their emissions to zero, we'd still be fucked, and we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of these people. We know who these companies are, and we know who runs them. We have the technology for making the switch to clean energy ready to go whenever the fuck some billionaire wants to get their head out of the corn-hole and fund it. We could even clean up the oceans at a profit if we really wanted to. But nobody is going to do any of that because old money has too much power and this isn't Revolutionary France.

    TL;DR: there are 100 companies we should dismantle. Overthrow the rich, save the planet, eat ass smoke grass go fast.
    Your last comment reminds me about a recent article I read where it's curious how we as a society elevate millionaires and billionaires to a level of idolatry as if they deserve all the money they earned. And not to say they don't, but if you think about it logically, it's impossible to be that rich and still be a good person, because if you had a heart you'd donate all that shit to people and causes that actually need it. These insanely rich people are hoarding several countries' worth of resources while the rest of the world is being run into the ground because of overpopulation. If they shared even a smidgen of what they "own", the world wouldn't be as much of a shitty place in which to live. That being said, kudos to people like Bill Gates who actually do give a shit.

    On the subject of global warming, my country has had its first hurricane in over 100 years and people here still doesn't believe it doesn't exist. Fake news is everywhere and it blinds people to the evidence even when it slaps their faces, steals their money, and wrecks their houses and entire livelihoods. We're living in dystopian times

  7. #16


    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    460
    Userbars
    3
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    1,086/228
    DL/UL
    20/0
    Mentioned
    19 times
    Time Online
    40d 23h 36m
    Avg. Time Online
    19m
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkpain View Post
    Your last comment reminds me about a recent article I read where it's curious how we as a society elevate millionaires and billionaires to a level of idolatry as if they deserve all the money they earned. And not to say they don't, but if you think about it logically, it's impossible to be that rich and still be a good person, because if you had a heart you'd donate all that shit to people and causes that actually need it. These insanely rich people are hoarding several countries' worth of resources while the rest of the world is being run into the ground because of overpopulation. If they shared even a smidgen of what they "own", the world wouldn't be as much of a shitty place in which to live. That being said, kudos to people like Bill Gates who actually do give a shit.

    On the subject of global warming, my country has had its first hurricane in over 100 years and people here still doesn't believe it doesn't exist. Fake news is everywhere and it blinds people to the evidence even when it slaps their faces, steals their money, and wrecks their houses and entire livelihoods. We're living in dystopian times
    I'd like to take this time to point out something a lot of people don't know: most billionaires aren't billionaires. I'd actually go so far as to say maybe one or two of them are, if that. Because here's the thing: their so-called "resources" is actually their net worth. They haven't got that much money, they're worth that much money; which is to say they own "property" that's theoretically worth that much money.

    And what is the vast majority of this "property"? Shares. They own numbers in a (digital) ledger that say they own this much of a company, and those numbers are assigned a total value based on the market price of a single share. Can you imagine how fast those numbers would tank if suddenly all the shares they owned were up on the market? They'd go from hundreds to pennies in an instant, and that's assuming they were even able to do so (a lot of compensation shares have clauses that prevent this). The company pays dividends on shares, yes, but a person's net worth isn't reported on those dividends, it's reported on the assumed market value of the stocks themselves.

    Which is just a fancy way of saying that the money doesn't exist. They can donate the dividends at best, but a lot of what they have is entirely made up. You can't seize and redistribute their wealth because it's fake. And the world economy depends heavily on these individuals being allowed to own these fake resources and move all this fake money around between each other; if the government were to step in and try to take it, the other fake rich people would panic and pull all their money out of the market and try to turn it into physical wealth, and the entire system would just collapse. And unless you have a better system in place and ready to go, that would be very, very bad.

  8. #17
    earthanimal's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    50
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    30/15
    DL/UL
    5/0
    Mentioned
    1 time
    Time Online
    1d 1h 27m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Ehentalix View Post
    If I see one more argument about how the every day, average citizen needs to do X thing to stop global warming, I'm gonna do a nose dive off the deep end and probably get an email from the Queen or some shit.

    There's 100 companies that are directly responsible for over 70% of the world's global carbon emissions. Which is to say the 100 CEOs and/or boards and/or governments of those companies are more to blame than the next seven and a half billion people combined. If every other person on the planet reduced their emissions to zero, we'd still be fucked, and we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of these people. We know who these companies are, and we know who runs them. We have the technology for making the switch to clean energy ready to go whenever the fuck some billionaire wants to get their head out of the corn-hole and fund it. We could even clean up the oceans at a profit if we really wanted to. But nobody is going to do any of that because old money has too much power and this isn't Revolutionary France.

    TL;DR: there are 100 companies we should dismantle. Overthrow the rich, save the planet, eat ass smoke grass go fast.
    this is very true. BUT it is, in fact, up to us *everyday people* to put a stop to it, as we are the consumers of these shitty companies. people really need to do more research into where they spend their money. that's where the real power is, and how we can most effectively vote for what kind of world we want -- how we spend our money. they only way these assholes come to power is by profiting off the peasants (us). if we take that profit, we take that power.

  9. #18


    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    460
    Userbars
    3
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    1,086/228
    DL/UL
    20/0
    Mentioned
    19 times
    Time Online
    40d 23h 36m
    Avg. Time Online
    19m
    Quote Originally Posted by earthanimal View Post
    this is very true. BUT it is, in fact, up to us *everyday people* to put a stop to it, as we are the consumers of these shitty companies. people really need to do more research into where they spend their money. that's where the real power is, and how we can most effectively vote for what kind of world we want -- how we spend our money. they only way these assholes come to power is by profiting off the peasants (us). if we take that profit, we take that power.
    You say that, but the reality of the matter is that we're really not able to do so. With the companies I spoke of in particular, we the people are not the customers; they largely serve other industries. These are not consumer goods companies like Nestle or Berkshire Hathaway (though those are an issue in and of themselves); they are the companies that supply things like coal to power plants. These are companies where you cannot take a shit in your own home without supporting them in one way or another. It is impossible to vote against them with your dollar because it is not your dollar they're taking.

    Also, even on the consumer level "voting with your dollar" is a lie and a sham. There are companies out there who not only own the brand you're "voting" against, they also own the non-GMO, green only, organic, free-range brand that you're buying in "protest", as well as the next ten competitive brands, and probably the store that's selling them to boot. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because everything eventually goes back to someone shitty, no matter what.

    Don't "vote with your dollar", vote with your ballot. Getting the Republicans out of office in the USA is a huge step forward in fixing what's wrong, no matter how badly the Democrats suck, because blue will always be better. Cleaning up the world will not happen in our lifetimes. It probably won't happen in our children's lifetimes. But if we start now, our grandchildren will stand a chance, and that's worth something.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ehentalix For This Useful Post:

    funnybell (01-18-2019),pinkpain (11-03-2018)

  11. #19
    earthanimal's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    50
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    30/15
    DL/UL
    5/0
    Mentioned
    1 time
    Time Online
    1d 1h 27m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Ehentalix View Post
    You say that, but the reality of the matter is that we're really not able to do so. With the companies I spoke of in particular, we the people are not the customers; they largely serve other industries. These are not consumer goods companies like Nestle or Berkshire Hathaway (though those are an issue in and of themselves); they are the companies that supply things like coal to power plants. These are companies where you cannot take a shit in your own home without supporting them in one way or another. It is impossible to vote against them with your dollar because it is not your dollar they're taking.

    Also, even on the consumer level "voting with your dollar" is a lie and a sham. There are companies out there who not only own the brand you're "voting" against, they also own the non-GMO, green only, organic, free-range brand that you're buying in "protest", as well as the next ten competitive brands, and probably the store that's selling them to boot. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because everything eventually goes back to someone shitty, no matter what.

    Don't "vote with your dollar", vote with your ballot. Getting the Republicans out of office in the USA is a huge step forward in fixing what's wrong, no matter how badly the Democrats suck, because blue will always be better. Cleaning up the world will not happen in our lifetimes. It probably won't happen in our children's lifetimes. But if we start now, our grandchildren will stand a chance, and that's worth something.

    while it's partly true that everything is ruled by the so-called ~evil forces~, there are certainly ways to minimize their profit.
    for instance, purchasing your food from local farmers rather than walmart
    buying local goods and services, shopping for clothes at yard sales.
    interacting directly with your immediate community as much as possible, for things you need.
    big oil is a problem? drive less. take public transport, bike, walk, carpool.
    the defeatist attitude ("there is no point in trying to be better because we can't be perfect") is heavily holding people back from making huge change.
    money TALKS. there are definite ways to lessen your support of the big corps that are suffocating the economy and environment.

    i don't mean go shop at a smaller store like kmart rather than walmart.
    i mean buy from ted down the road who makes killer leatherworks
    support alejandro's small vegetable farm
    get things secondhand as much as possible

    as far as voting goes, that is more likely to be a sham, in my opinion. there is no possible way to know if your vote is actually counted. on top of that, our voting system is fucked and completely broken.

    now, do not get me wrong, i'm not saying don't vote.

    i am saying vote in as many ways as you can. don't vote for change and then refuse to facilitate it in your own life, y'know?

  12. #20


    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    460
    Userbars
    3
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    1,086/228
    DL/UL
    20/0
    Mentioned
    19 times
    Time Online
    40d 23h 36m
    Avg. Time Online
    19m
    Expecting that email from the Queen any minute now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •