Official GMD Photo/Social Thread

[The Heartbreak Kid]

I liked that one

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

No, we can't care when we are dead, but the idea that our offspring will prosper in the future pleases us while we are alive, whereas the idea that they will be "fucked" displeases us, hence, we strive to secure a successful future for them.

Yes, I agree with that, it's perfectly normal and fine to do that, in my opinion, but it's completely another thing to evangelically predict that the Earth is going to die because humans are so evil and bad. No matter what we do, our children will probably survive the cataclysm considering it simply won't happen for quite a while...

 

[Susperia]

Evangically?? Yeah, like it's not technology recording weather patterns and air pollution and water run-off that's coming to this conclusion.

 

[skeptik]

Evangically?? Yeah, like it's not technology recording weather patterns and air pollution and water run-off that's coming to this conclusion.

Show me one credible, non-retarded source saying that the world is ending.

 

[immo]

An american, a german, a jew and a black guy are walking through the jungle. A locust falls from a tree on the american. He takes the locust, and throws it on the german. The german throws it on the jew, the jew throws it on the black dude. The black dude eats the locust. After 2 mins, another locust falls on the american. Again, he throws it on the german, the german throws it on the jew and the jew says to the black guy: "wanna buy a locust?"

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

no, it's humans with a not necessarily great perception of how the planet and universe work that are INTERPRETING the technology readings and coming to a conclusion that may or may not be rooted in actual reality

Fantastic. Just like humans saying animals have no emotions or whatever. Hey, they may not, but jesus christ we are some arrogant faggots.

 

[Susperia]

Show me one credible, non-retarded source saying that the world is ending.

I'm not saying the world is ending. I'm saying it's far worse than it was 100 years ago.

edit: And most animals do have emotions.

 

[skeptik]

it's far worse than it was 100 years ago.

Okay then show me a credible source stating that.

 

[Mort Divine]

Okay then show me a credible source stating that.

Common fucking sense.

 

[skeptik]

If you knew anything you would know that not only is that common sense but that it's not a credible source.

 

[Mort Divine]

So you are saying that in the past 100 years, more wetlands have not been destroyed than before, the ozone hole hasn't grown to huge sizes, we've not destroyed large amounts of the rainforests, we've not caused global warming by our burning of fossil fuels, we've not causes entire areas of the earth to be generally uninhabitable due to our nuclear desires?

 

[Susperia]

We've tested even the most far reaching, uninhabited places on this planet (deepest oceans, most northern glaciers, remote forests) all of them are now polluted in some way by humans, even though no humans even livein these places! The water EVERYWHERE is now tainted.

We do not have ONE SOURCE of pure water left on this planet... and I will try to find the sources for these claims but right now I am getting ready to leave for the day.

 

[skeptik]

We're pretty well-controlled right now, we've cleaned up our methods of destruction to negligible levels in damaging areas and have preserved nature in other areas, and we're actually pretty well off for the most part. Also, changes to the overall condition of the planet =/= the planet being in a worse state.

 

[skeptik]

We do not have ONE SOURCE of pure water left on this planet... and I will try to find the sources for these claims but right now I am getting ready to leave for the day.

That's probably why we fucking filter water. We've been drinking bacteria filled water for thousands of years, and we still are.

 

[Mort Divine]

We're pretty well-controlled right now, we've cleaned up our methods of destruction to negligible levels in damaging areas and have preserved nature in other areas, and we're actually pretty well off for the most part. Also, changes to the overall condition of the planet =/= the planet being in a worse state.

Natural changes to the overall condition of the planet =/= the planet being in a worse state.

Human changes to the overall condition of the planet = the planet being in a worse state.

 

[Hubster]

So you are saying that in the past 100 years, more wetlands have not been destroyed than before, the ozone hole hasn't grown to huge sizes, we've not destroyed large amounts of the rainforests, we've not caused global warming by our burning of fossil fuels, we've not causes entire areas of the earth to be generally uninhabitable due to our nuclear desires?

Well, well, just look at what the Herald happened to post today:

Antarctic ozone hole nears record

September 24, 2006

The hole over Antarctica's ozone layer is bigger than last year and is nearing the record 29-million-square-kilometre hole seen in 2000, the World Meteorological Organisation said.

Geir Braathen, the United Nations weather agency's top ozone expert, said ozone depletion had a late onset in this year's southern hemisphere winter, when low temperatures normally trigger chemical reactions that break down the atmospheric layer that filters dangerous solar radiation.

"The ozone depletion started quite late, but when it started it came quite rapidly," Braathen told journalists in Geneva on Friday.

"It (the hole) has now risen to a level that has passed last year's, and is very close to, if not equal to, the ozone hole size of 2003, and also approaching the size of 2000," he said.

The Antarctic ozone hole was at its second-largest in 2003.

While use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has waned, Braathen said large amounts of chlorine and bromine remain in the atmosphere and would keep causing large reductions in the Antarctic ozone layer for many years to come.

"We will for the next couple of decades expect to see recurring ozone holes of the size that we see now," he said.

The WMO and the UN Environment Programme said in August that the protective layer would likely return to pre-1980 levels by 2049 over much of Europe, North America, Asia, Australasia, Latin America and Africa.

In Antarctica, the agencies said ozone layer recovery would likely be delayed until 2065.

Reuters

 

[skeptik]

No, that's actually a pretty stupid thing to say, because neither are inherently true or false. I think our replanting trees in areas where not only we've been responsible for damage but also from natural disasters such as hurricanes and forest fires is more on the positive side, for example.

 

[Mort Divine]

No, that's actually a pretty stupid thing to say, because neither are inherently true or false. I think our replanting trees in areas where not only we've been responsible for damage but also from natural disasters such as hurricanes and forest fires is more on the positive side, for example.

Well, yes. However humans have been responsible for more negative changes than positive ones.

 

[Killbot]

I say we destroy the planet now and leave it for future generations to sort out.

 

[skeptik]

And now that we're aware of what we've been doing we're getting better at controlling ourselves and doing things to preserve and restore the environment, which was my fucking point.