We don't need the government to invest in alternative fuels.

[overgrowthegovt]

Of course I think politicians are greedy and don't give a fuck about us, JaggedEdge...I was just saying that they do have other interests besides money (few, but a handful).

There's nothing wrong with starting a company, of course not, but the idea of businessmen having more power than anybody else is a scary thought. "Idealistic" is a dirty word for a lot of people, but I believe people compromise their ideals too readily. Is it too much to ask for people to care about more than just money and power? Education needs to change...we're all taught that those are the highest things to aspire for. Sure, they give you the true-love rhetoric, but it seems all success is measured by how financially sound you are. Yes, of course I'm that idealistic...pragmatism compromises the soul. The world we live in is not okay and there are a large number of drastic changes that need to occur.

Of course I believe Darwin...survival of the fittest in NATURE. We basically transcended nature (for the worst) a long time ago, and our metal and sludge can't be considered a legitimate Darwinian obstacle for the world's species. People can only stick their fingers in their ears and hum for so long about global warming. And yes, species have been going extinct forever, but not on this SCALE since the dinosaurs. And yes, climate change is natural, but again, not on this SCALE.

[Dutch Pimp]

The Untied States of America..:s4:...won't switch from milk to orange juice...until, they're sure that cow is dry. IMO.

[jonquest]

JaggedEdge, I think virtually everything you've said was nullified by your assertion that the environment is fine. Letting the free market decide how much, if any, concern we should have for the earth, is just ridiculous. And believe me, I hate government intervention the vast majority of the time, but I think governments have a responsibility to keep the industries in line (including paying a decent wage no matter where the widgets are made. Products would cost more if this whole sweat-shop system was discarded, but so what? Do we really need so much shit?)

By saying the free market can't decide how much concern we should have for the environment, you are saying that people can't decided how much concern we should have for the environment.

You really believe an instutiton that cares about nothing but money should be allowed to do as it pleases without having to answer to the interests of the population in general? Damn you, Adam Smith. It seems a lot of people tend to support the totally-free market without considering the tremendous cons it offers along with the pros (which I admit exist). Companies can do business as they like, as far as I'm concerned, except that they must be held to ethical and environmental standards.

With profit from consumers being the main objective of a company, a company must answer to the interests of the population. As for environmental regulations, I have no problem with those. If a company is polluting the air or water, they are infringing on the rights of others to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
[/QUOTE]

[Stemis516]

see jaggededge, thats where you lose all credibility...whenever some1 says something that you disagree with you immediately claim that we are brainwashed or dont look at the facts....or worse, you turn into the grammar police

i have looked at the facts...im aware the earth heats up and cools down in cycles over time but the fact is, were heating this thing up faster than it ever has before...species are dying at a faster pace than ever before and its all because of us

sure, if everyone wanted a better environment than perhaps the free market would adjust itself, but i just dont see that happening for two reasons: 1.the general public is too fucking stupid to point the markets in the direction needed...most people just care about the lowest price and convenience without concern for the environment and 2. most large corporations dont give a fuck about the public anyways, they just care about profits and helping the environment doesnt help their short run profits...and if enough of them dont give a fuck we dont really have much of a choice because most of us believe that we have to buy certain things

[Stemis516]

By saying the free market can't decide how much concern we should have for the environment, you are saying that people can't decided how much concern we should have for the environment.

[/QUOTE]

i would have to agree, i do not think people in general know whats truly best for them....most would rather see lower prices and let the next generation figure this shit out

[McDanger]

man, i really enjoyed debating back and forth with you lately but since you basically claim that global warming is false i really cant take anything you say seriously anymore

and no, im not brainwashed by the government or whatever you think is the case...but its happening and humans are at fault



god i need to finish my degree and get the F out of this country

You have this statement exactly backwards, get the F out first, then see if you can convince some taxpayer in Cuba to pay for your degree.

Explain how humans are causing the warming of Mars.

[Stemis516]

and the warming of mars is relevant how? and who says im moving to cuba?

[JaggedEdge]

Of course I believe Darwin...survival of the fittest in NATURE. We basically transcended nature (for the worst) a long time ago, and our metal and sludge can't be considered a legitimate Darwinian obstacle for the world's species. People can only stick their fingers in their ears and hum for so long about global warming. And yes, species have been going extinct forever, but not on this SCALE since the dinosaurs. And yes, climate change is natural, but again, not on this SCALE.

Why is our intervention in the environment any different than that of other species. The beaver builds damns for it's own convinces, the diversion of water helps him and other species while harming others in his area.

I agree with certain environmental regulations, but things have gotten to a point where the regulations being proposed harm industries, jobs, and companies.

We have been influencing our environment for thousands of years. The Native Americans understood it was a good thing. They used to burn down forests in order to control the growth of large trees, all large trees did was kill the smaller and more useful ones. The trees we have today in many parts of the country aren't even native, because the Natives burned down the forests and new smaller ones grew in the place of the old big ones.

And their is absolutely no solid evidence to support the Global Warming theory.

Simply because the vast majority of the population believes in a theory doesn't make it accurate. A majority of people believed in Eugenics at one point, giving Hitler the political support to begin eradicating the Jews.

Even Planned Parenthood was developed due directly to the belief in Eugenics. The founder actually said she wanted to eliminate the dredges of American society through birth control. That isn't an exact quote, but it sums her position up well. They want to eradicate the part of the population they pretend to protect.

I'm actually more liberal than most liberals.

[JaggedEdge]

see jaggededge, thats where you lose all credibility...whenever some1 says something that you disagree with you immediately claim that we are brainwashed or dont look at the facts....or worse, you turn into the grammar police

i have looked at the facts...im aware the earth heats up and cools down in cycles over time but the fact is, were heating this thing up faster than it ever has before...species are dying at a faster pace than ever before and its all because of us

sure, if everyone wanted a better environment than perhaps the free market would adjust itself, but i just dont see that happening for two reasons: 1.the general public is too fucking stupid to point the markets in the direction needed...most people just care about the lowest price and convenience without concern for the environment and 2. most large corporations dont give a fuck about the public anyways, they just care about profits and helping the environment doesnt help their short run profits...and if enough of them dont give a fuck we dont really have much of a choice because most of us believe that we have to buy certain things

There are still an infinite number of species we haven't discovered, and we are discovering new ones everyday, so isn't it logical to assume that more species are going extinct because we know about more of them than we used to?

And no, I only result to those kinds of things when people say idiotic things and insult me first. Read his first response, he called me a dimwit.

[JaggedEdge]

Sorry, can't proof read, have to go to work.

JaggedEdge, I think virtually everything you've said was nullified by your assertion that the environment is fine.

I wanted to discuss this all by itself. How is my assertion the environment is virtually fine ruin my whole argument. I'm not saying their aren't certain environmental issues that could be beneficial, however, environmentalists undermine their entire operation by attempting to control every aspect of our lives.

The coast is eroding in Southern Louisiana is a legitimate concern. It hurts our economy, doesn't provide adequate protection from incoming hurricanes, etc.

Unfortunately, environmentalists can't seem to prioritize. Not to mention, a lot of environmental actions only harm the environment.

Smokey the Bear sounded positive when he was preaching, "You can prevent forest fires," unfortunately, the fires were an intricate part to our environment. For one, when fires do break out, they are even more difficult to get under control because they are so thick in places. Also, fire is an intricate part in new trees growing and reviving the land.

The DDT ban is another example of how environmental issues make our lives worse. There is no evidence DDT causes health risks, however, it's proven to control mosquito populations. A few supporters of DDT used to eat it daily on stage to prove it was harmless, they died of old age.

Now millions of people die in third world countries from malaria, something that DDT had prevented before it was banned. Not to mention we now spend tax dollars to buy them mosquito nets when all we would have to do is let them use DDT.

From Hoodwinked by Jack Cashill:

There, Edwards got the order to dust every soldier in his company with the DDT powder. For two weeks straight, he did just that, breathing the fog of white dust as he did so. Much to everyone's relief, the DDT worked, and the epidemic was checked (Typhus spread by lice). The surgeon general estimated that the DDT had saved the lives of five thousand soldiers.

If you would like to read more on the subject you can find it on pages 199-206.

Ultimately, it's a harmless insecticide that if allowed, would save millions of lives lost due to disease spread by insects.

The point is, yes, there are areas that could benefit from environmental controls. Unfortunately, environmental concerns often harm the environment.

The truth is, we don't know how to benefit the environment, so we shouldn't even try until we get it right. The environment is an intricate balancing act, but we have no clue how to balance it. When we save one animal, it often whips of major portions of another population, etc. Every living thing has it's purpose in our environment, yet we try and influence it without even fully understanding what our actions will do to our environment.

It hardly sounds environmentally friendly to me.