|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 12, 2009 11:11 PM |
|
|
Pollution is an aspect that inhibits growth and well-being, despite it sometimes being a product of that. That's why the cost has to be built in.
If pollution had no effect on human life, then of course I wouldn't care about it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Pollution is an aspect that inhibits growth and well-being, despite it sometimes being a product of that. That's why the cost has to be built in.
What about actually doing someting about the pollution instead of someting half-assed that does not have any garanti to actually have an effect?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
|
What I don't see is why you don't think it wouldn't have an effect. If you make something cost more, people will buy/produce less of it (unless it's a Giffen good, but I doubt pollution is a Giffen good).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What about actually doing someting about the pollution instead of someting half-assed that does not have any garanti to actually have an effect?
There appear to be three choices on the matter: nothing, something half-assed and radical measures.
Something half-assed is still better than nothing, and radical measures always pull even more radical risks, so I think it's safest to try something half-assed first and see whether it works.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If pollution had no effect on human life, then of course I wouldn't care about it.
And that's the problem.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:56 AM |
|
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 01:00 AM |
|
|
@ death: what affects other life forms, may indirectly affect humans as well...
Think about 'the great leap forward' by Mao Zedung. It showed that China needs birds... BADLY.
But, of course, that's an extreme example...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 01:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What about actually doing someting about the pollution instead of someting half-assed that does not have any garanti to actually have an effect?
There appear to be three choices on the matter: nothing, something half-assed and radical measures.
Something half-assed is still better than nothing, and radical measures always pull even more radical risks, so I think it's safest to try something half-assed first and see whether it works.
*praises baklava*, why? [honest]He have me a VERY reasonable anwser in contrast to mvass clinging to thee wall.[/honest]
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't see it as a problem.
But what if its actually a problem then?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@ death: what affects other life forms, may indirectly affect humans as well...
Think about 'the great leap forward' by Mao Zedung. It showed that China needs birds... BADLY.
But, of course, that's an extreme example...
Doesn't matter. The REASON is what I was talking about.
But then again, at least now I know how to talk with the human tyrants this way: "Don't do it man! I mean, it might affect the human race you know!" cause I know at least they'll be listening for this reason 
Ok since I'm the one who doesn't make sense, let me spell it a different way, just to make sure there is less of a chance of misunderstanding (again). Some dude helping someone else by thinking "I'll need a favor from this guy so that's why I help him" is still selfish. Sorry, even though it may appear that he is helpful, then again it's what Ted Bundy appeared to be like on the outside as well.
In other words, if the favor is a side-effect, or is not THE REASON for his helping (even though it is welcome!) it's not selfishness. For example a guy getting a huge reward by doing something but the reward not being THE REASON (i.e he would have done it without it as well) is a totally different scenario. Rewards aren't "evil" at all because so many people misinterpret this. It is the REASON that matters.
And no mvass, emotional benefits don't cut it, don't tempt me to make a "Non-emotional selfishness club" alright? (that's seriously only because no one on any other forum says that tbh).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 01:58 AM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
He have me a VERY reasonable anwser in contrast to mvass clinging to thee wall.
You do realize, though, don't you, that he just advocated the same thing that I'm advocating?
Quote:
But what if its actually a problem then?
If pollution has no effects on human life, then it's not a problem. How can it be a problem if it wouldn't be a problem? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 02:02 AM |
|
|
Man, you guys never make an effort to understand eachother, now, do ya? 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What about actually doing someting about the pollution instead of someting half-assed that does not have any garanti to actually have an effect?
There appear to be three choices on the matter: nothing, something half-assed and radical measures.
Something half-assed is still better than nothing, and radical measures always pull even more radical risks, so I think it's safest to try something half-assed first and see whether it works.
No something half-assed ist worse than nothing, because it will make it SEEM as if something was done. Making everything that has an effect simnply more expensive, is no solution since the bottom line is that is simply cost more WHILE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. It's like with the cost of electricity - it gets more expensive all the time, but there is no alternative except to not WASTE too much.
The same is true for a carbon tax - things get more expensive, so people stop WASTING gas, which has no effect, though, since no one drives less - on the contrary, cars are always becoming more plentiful.
Remember the cat converter? That was simply ORDERED. Filter systems for the industry are ORDERED as well, generally. Laws, that regulate of what to do with the mercury that is taken out of people's teeth at the dentists (in the US the dentists can still wash it down the drain, so the water has a high percentage of mercury) are in effect as well. Basically EVERYTHING on the field of pollution is ruled by law - and for very good reasons. So what's wrong with ruling CO2 production as well?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
no one drives less
On the contrary. People do drive less, and start using more public transportation. They also start living closer to their workplaces.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 02:56 PM |
|
|
No, they don't. They CAN'T. On the contrary - high mobility of the individual is one of the cornerstones of the modern society.
Sometimes I doubt that you have any idea of the changes modern society has undergone. Just go to a mall or supermarket and take a look at the parking lot there.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 03:01 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
|
|
Are you kidding? Did you actually READ that quote?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 19:52, 13 Apr 2009.
|
@Doom. It is correct that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Greenhouse effect is vital for our planet, otherwise we would all be dead. We can't change the amount of water vapor in atmosphere, the entire climate of the planet relies on it. The increase that CO2 emissions make to the temperature also increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which in turn again enhance the greenhouse effect. So no, the CO2 is not the only one to blame. But it is the only one we can change in the equation.
The fact that there are non-human sources of CO2 is irrelevant. Bort already replied to this part well right before your post. And btw you use the word propaganda too lightly imho.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
no one drives less
On the contrary. People do drive less, and start using more public transportation. They also start living closer to their workplaces.
People only use public transportation if:
*Its somewhat flexibel for them
*Its not limited or a big mess
*Its not overprised
*The means of transportation is not a crap
*Its fast
The more further you go onto the countryside the bigger the mess, the worse the offer of it. In most cases you MUST have a car to even have a chance to get around.
And people only live close to their workplace if they aquired work before they moved or they are moving yet again and its in the same "area".
And again why not use electric cars instead?
Quote:
You do realize, though, don't you, that he just advocated the same thing that I'm advocating?
But he gave me a reasonable anwser in contrast to you. He gave me a more than logical reason why i WAS wrong in contrast to your wall-clinging responses.
2 writens may write about the exact same thing with the exact same idea, why are the texts differnt then? Because likely 1 of them got the meanings and the underlieing plot to be in the text, while the other writes it far to thin to be enjoyable to read.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Yes, I read it. And that's not the whole article; I have the whole article, and it supports the idea.
del_diablo:
So then fewer people will live in the countryside, unless they either decide to put up with the more expensive gas or buy a more fuel-efficient car.
Quote:
And again why not use electric cars instead?
I think that's what we'll end up doing anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So then fewer people will live in the countryside, unless they either decide to put up with the more expensive gas or buy a more fuel-efficient car.
There are already fewer and fewer people living in the countryside.
So why would farmers need to suffer further because of the waste that we the great people from the cities create?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
