489 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Russalka wrote...

This was nice.

Word, ... though I still prefer not dying out ... though if I am dead and no more capable to give a f*ck anyway, I can say now that I wouldn't mind humanity to go extinct if they carry on like that. I just hope that the least things apart from humanity have to suffer.


That's like suicide. If you don't want to continue living, that is your decision, but IF you are going for it, then do it alone and not jump in front some train or the likes, giving complete innocents the shock of their lifetime and potentially ruining their lives too. That is essentially what humanity is all up to now.

Well, that sounds great and all that.. but..

I would like to sacrifice you for my personal well-being instead. I don't want to bring mankind down, I want to bring you down through various means of exploitation that bolsters my quality of life.

[Merci357]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
If we are talking about importance, we need weight those few trees against humanity. What would happen if all of humanity died? ... Now what would happen if all trees were gone? Right, the whole ecology of this planet would change. And if the humans were gone, nothing, zip, nada. A few rotting cities that nature would claim in a few hundred years.

Not that I disagree with you in general, but... neither are important.
Maybe the trees are important to us (to preserve our habitat like it is now), be neither we or the trees are important to life itself. This planet has survived cosmic natural disasters with changed ecology as a result, it will survive a man made one as well. We, and most species, might not survive, but life itself will. This offers me, at least, some solace.

[Stardusk78]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

@ Stardusk:
Hmm, not sure I understand, please clarify. Thank you.


@Volus Warlord:
I am not illusioned enough to not see my mind works the same way. I prefer someone else's misery over my own, but my point is that humanity as a whole aswell as indivudual has the capacity to make its life better without ruining something else in process.

Damit meinte ich lediglich, dass du eine Redewendung richtig verwendet hast, die die wenigsten Non-natives kennen oder gar benutzen, kurzum Hut ab!

[Volus Warlord]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
@Volus Warlord:
I am not illusioned enough to not see my mind works the same way. I prefer someone else's misery over my own, but my point is that humanity as a whole aswell as indivudual has the capacity to make its life better without ruining something else in process.

And I am not naive enough to believe such nonsense.

To accomplish anything of any value, you need resources. Money, materials, personnel.

You getting the money means someone else doesn't get it, or doesn't save it for their future.

You getting the materials is a tremendous feat. First you gotta find em. Next, you gotta obtain them.. and those tigers gotta die if they cause problems with this. Also, you may have issues with natives of the area, and you either gotta get them on board or get them the hell out of the way. Either way works, but the former is more mutually beneficially-although some turn it down out of a misguided sense of honor or duty, or even just plain ignorance of the bigger picture.

You getting the personnel again means someone else isn't getting them. It also means they are sacrificing their freedom essentially to do whatever chores you assign them to. Although many of them will be obnoxius ingrates about any sort of accomplishment on your part that indirectly insures their well being. Likes environmentalists for instance. They are so.. backwards. The ones that have some idea what they are talking about know that concrete and steel production are the biggest polluters in the world. Do you know where we'd be without concrete and steel?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

We could all live in welfare if the world population was around 3-4 billions. Now because of overpopulation nothing will remain the same as before (like 20 years ago). We might have a World War for Energy, Water and natural resources at the middle of 21th century.

[Milana_Saros]

*sigh*

My general reaction? /care

You can "fight back" all you want. Save little kittens from behind trash bins (which I did once) but there's still millions of kittens being smashed into bloody pulp with baseball bats. Same goes for everything. You might become a veggie but there's still millions of people out there who eat every animal they come across. You might stop using deodorant to slow down ozone layer consumption but there are still millions of women covering themselves with 5 different scents when going out. Etc.

Majority of people out there are ignorant, stupid and selfish. It is awesome that there are people out there who try to help our planet and live in a less selfish way. Truth is, however, that most likely it isn't helping all that much.

The best I can do, personally, is to try and give space to people around me. Be cautious and responsible in traffic. Not keep my car running empty at every ****ing moment (neighbour, i'm looking at you and your goddamn exhaust fumes). Try and consume groceries in a rational way. Not overuse aerosols. Try and shut down lights and TV and computers when I'm not using them.

If I had the money I would probably donate to a local animal shelter and favor organic vegetables...but I don't have the money so *shrug*

The first thing that SHOULD go is the type of "entertainment" we have these days. Glorification of boozing and having a day contest in Finnish BB that includes the housemates strapping dildos on their head and dancing with a blow doll.

Seriously...has the general age of "adulthood" been decreased to 6 years old?

[Last Darkness]

I for one welcome our new machine overlords and inform them I can be useful to convert others.

[Volus Warlord]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...
[...]  Do you know where we'd be without concrete and steel?

Somewhere else. But who says somewhere else would be bad? Now that is a giant can of "What If's" and inconsequential to think on besides having a bit fun with it, but I see your point.

What I meant was more in the way of minimizing one's impact in accordance to effect and result equations. Building a hotel for a few and consuming an enormous sum of ressources is unnecessary. Building a hospital in a region that needs one is not.

Also I don't know if one shouldn't start some kind of birth control. I abhourne the thought, but a population going over 7 billion people is already far too much to achieve a feasable balance with an environment. Though I am quite certain humanity will dent itself out a bit in the not so far future (war/diseases). However, unless we find a way to solve overpopulation and the problem of feeding these numbers without making the entire planet a giant farm, I see no way of preventing this planet in its current form surviving into the 25th century.

Life Lesson #1: There is no effective way to help people that are not willing to be helped.

I'm sure if I wanted to I could build a nice modern hospital in third world country X.

However, in more than a few scernarios, I would leave, come back in a few months, and find my "hospital" had been converted into a base for the military regime and the doctors either held for ransom or ravaged and killed.  They don't want your help. They're too....arrogant-for lack of a better term. It's a waste. It's stupid. Put your efforts into endeavors that might be successful.

Life Lesson #2: Our mere presence destroys nature.

Cmon. It's what we've done from the beginning of recorded history, and possibly much before that. Do you think that is going to change? Heck, as quality of life for people improve in an area, nature degrades.  Slash and burn baby!

Life Lesson #3: About that mandatory birth control..

First off, if there was any sort of compulsory birth control, I would not exist. No, really.  A wide varity of the world's best and brightest would never have existed. It's shooting yourself in the foot.

Next, first world countries really don't need it. As they people grow in wealth, they tend to have less children, as they become a liability more than an asset. I mean, heck, the ones having all the babies in the US are all those darn Mexicans.

Next, there can only be so many nations loading up the international adoption market-not to point anyone out in particular..

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Life Lesson #1: There is no effective way to help people that are not willing to be helped.

Arbitrary help and financial punishments make others accept the help

[Volus Warlord]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Life Lesson #1: There is no effective way to help people that are not willing to be helped.

financial punishments make others accept the help

Those are called sanctions.

[KenKenpachi]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Life Lesson #1: There is no effective way to help people that are not willing to be helped.

financial punishments make others accept the help

Those are called sanctions.

Which have been known to backfire.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 05 septembre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Seagloom]

I will not get into the minutia of politics or relate my specific beliefs. I am extremely left leaning. At least left as it is understood in the United States. However, my interest in wishing to see change effected is primarily in matters of social equality, or the frequent lack thereof.

When it comes to broader issues of the environment and government, I believe we as a species are doomed by trying to "go back" and change our approach to consumption of material resources. Like Milana_Saros, I feel it is futile unless a majority of people went out of their way to change their lifestyles. Not only is that highly unlikely to occur, but also impractical when other matters such as widespread poverty indirectly impact it.

Humans have defined themselves through their creation and implementation of tools to rise as the preeminent species on Earth. I believe that is where our ultimate future lies. Refining our tools and pushing science forward to overcome our flaws and improve the way we consume resources, so that our modern lives can continue, or improve in quality, with as little negative impact as possible.

We have to make technological leaps as vast as those that were made in the last century, if not further, and do so before our society collapses around us. If we continue on the track we are on now with minimal changes, we will eventually bleed everything dry. I am not an altogether optimistic person, however, and believe our chances of ultimate survival are bleak at best. We are possessed of a sentience that allows us to grasp and on occasion, reach for high-minded principles; while remaining just reptilian enough in our myriad flaws to fall short of true greatness.

[Ulous]

Seagloom wrote...

I will not get into the minutia of politics or relate my specific beliefs. I am extremely left leaning. At least left as it is understood in the United States. However, my interest in wishing to see change effected is primarily in matters of social equality, or the frequent lack thereof.

When it comes to broader issues of the environment and government, I believe we as a species are doomed by trying to "go back" and change our approach to consumption of material resources. Like Milana_Saros, I feel it is futile unless a majority of people went out of their way to change their lifestyles. Not only is that highly unlikely to occur, but also impractical when other matters such as widespread poverty indirectly impact it.

Humans have defined themselves through their creation and implementation of tools to rise as the preeminent species on Earth. I believe that is where our ultimate future lies. Refining our tools and pushing science forward to overcome our flaws and improve the way we consume resources, so that our modern lives can continue, or improve in quality, with as little negative impact as possible.

We have to make technological leaps as vast as those that were made in the last century, if not further, and do so before our society collapses around us. If we continue on the track we are on now with minimal changes, we will eventually bleed everything dry. I am not an altogether optimistic person, however, and believe our chances of ultimate survival are bleak at best. We are possessed of a sentience that allows us to grasp and on occasion, reach for high-minded principles; while remaining just reptilian enough in our myriad flaws to fall short of true greatness.

Well said, nice to see someone who realises that technology will/could play a major part in our salvation.

[KenKenpachi]

Eastern Civilization would tend to dissagree heavily, plus the whol thing with Putin calling the US and west a "parasite" on the world. A great many people around the world when they hear of Europe and the US think that. So I don't see them jumping on the tech wagon, or in living like us. The Western World is not dominate as of today as it "lives better." or has a "better government" But as in the past it was better at waging war. We forget this others don't. And that advantage is quickly shifting to the other side of the equation. It will be neat to see how the future goes. Needless to say I doubt we will see a utopia. As Frankly even on a town to town, or a national bases we don't see eye to eye. When you throw in other cultures, views etc. The only way you could affect such change is via force, and thankfully thats rarely on the side of progressives.

[Seagloom]

You will note I remarked at the end, perhaps too floridly, that technological progress on that scale is unlikely due to our inability to get over our baser foibles. That so many humans default to a might makes right approach to problem solving is exactly why our species is likely ultimately doomed. It does not matter who wages war and wins the day. When all is said and done, we will *all* lose.

Modifié par Seagloom, 05 septembre 2011 - 07:06 .

[Wereparrot]

KenKenpachi wrote...

But as in the past it was better at waging war. We forget this others don't. And that advantage is quickly shifting to the other side of the equation. It will be neat to see how the future goes.

It's not in the West's interest to allow the East to acheive military superiority. With the exception of Russia (which has always been strong and so we can't consider them as an emerging power) the advances made by other nations is worrying, especially when compared to continuing Western complacency in this vital area.

[Ulous]

Wereparrot wrote...

It's not in the West's interest to allow the East to acheive military superiority. With the exception of Russia (which has always been strong and so we can't consider them as an emerging power) the advances made by other nations is worrying, especially when compared to continuing Western complacency in this vital area.

It doesn't really matter, as Sea Gloom pointed out if it does kick off then we are all ****ed. With that said the west have hardly been complacent, especially having just taken it's third resource rich country, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation has proven quite efficient in it's latest escapade.

[Wereparrot]

Ulous wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

It's not in the West's interest to allow the East to acheive military superiority. With the exception of Russia (which has always been strong and so we can't consider them as an emerging power) the advances made by other nations is worrying, especially when compared to continuing Western complacency in this vital area.

It doesn't really matter, as Sea Gloom pointed out if it does kick off then we are all ****ed. With that said the west have hardly been complacent, especially having just taken it's third resource rich country, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation has proven quite efficient in it's latest escapade.

Western defence cuts aren't complacent in the face of growing Eastern strength? We need to rise to meet the potential threat posed by Eastern nations. And the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament-in the UK, at least) is counter-productive and if successful would weaken us even more. NATO is an organisation destined to implode if it does kick off, along with the UN and the EU, so the strength of national forces is more important. Security lies in strength. 

[Fallstar]

Wereparrot wrote...

Ulous wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

It's not in the West's interest to allow the East to acheive military superiority. With the exception of Russia (which has always been strong and so we can't consider them as an emerging power) the advances made by other nations is worrying, especially when compared to continuing Western complacency in this vital area.

It doesn't really matter, as Sea Gloom pointed out if it does kick off then we are all ****ed. With that said the west have hardly been complacent, especially having just taken it's third resource rich country, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation has proven quite efficient in it's latest escapade.

Western defence cuts aren't complacent in the face of growing Eastern strength? We need to rise to meet the potential threat posed by Eastern nations. And the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament-in the UK, at least) is counter-productive and if successful would weaken us even more. NATO is an organisation destined to implode if it does kick off, along with the UN and the EU, so the strength of national forces is more important. Security lies in strength. 

CND won't ever fully succeed. So long as the UK keeps at least one induced fusion device, the principle of MAD remains, and the coalition, despite being a weak form of government, will realise that at least.

I personally think we should worry more about countries in the Middle East gaining nuclear capabilites, seeing how unstable things are over there at the moment. An extremist religous group with a nuclear weapon is about as bad as it could get. At least China has something to lose, so wouldn't start a nuclear war.

[ObserverStatus]

I don't know about the whole world, but here is my opinion on the future of the United States. The gap between the rich and the poor and been steadily increasing since the days of Reagan, but has not yet reached the tipping point of a proletariat uprising such as the one described by Karl Marx. I do not believe that this tipping point will be reached until the advent of designer babies, allowing the rich to create stronger, smarter, and more beautiful children that unaltered humans will be unable to compete with for the best jobs. Than, the bourgeois will no longer be able to convince the proletariat that they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or that it will "trickle down." I do not claim to know who will win the coming class war, but I'm leaning towards the bourgeois, under the presumption that military technology will be even more hardcore by the time these events unfold.

[OmegaXI]

The human race needs a common enemy, that way we can have an outlet to divert our agression on. The human race has always been agressive since the time our ancestors in the days long before prehistory. For our sake I hope any other life form we meet in the universe is at the same technological level as us or less. And for the Alien life, I hope for their sake they are the same level as us.

But I have faith in the human race just look how far we have come in the past 100 years, yes there has been blood shed on an insane scale, but the human race is slowly getting better. Will it be perfect? no not at all, no culture on this planet we call home is perfect and every culture as its skeletons in there closet, but we are getting better.