The future - problems, breakthroughs, major events,...

[Jerry LeRow]

The debate forum was unused for two days, so I though I come up with something new, broad.

 

So: what do you think about the future? What challenges will humanity face? Where will we succeed? Where will we fail? Who will succeed/fail? ... 

 

Go ahead. I'm not gonna give some input, rather willing to comment on some of your ideas.

[Drew Pickles]

 

I think our greatest problem is entropy

[Aquinas]

Two main problems...

 

1.) The growing authoritarian apparatus around the world, particularly in "free nations." 

 

2.) Investing in better technology to keep up with food demand.

[WISD0MTREE]

Two main problems...

 

1.) The growing authoritarian apparatus around the world, particularly in "free nations." 

 

2.) Investing in better technology to keep up with food demand.

1. No, Dr. Conspiracy Theorists! Those $2,000,000,000 of hollow point rounds and 2,717 armored trucks aren't here to oppress us! And the NSA is stalking us to keep us safe. Drones reading our newspapers are just so we can be safe. And nobody should have guns, because our government wouldn't ever do anything bad that would call for an uprising. 

/Sarcasm

 

2. Israel is doing this very nicely. If we send their technology to other places, they can also become major water exporters with enough food. The technology is pretty cheap. Drip farming can be done almost anywhere. 

----------------------------------

What I think:

1. (Same as the 1 above)

2. February 27 (or before) Obama will do something stupid

RT: 

The reality, however, is that the problems gripping the US government and its profligate spending is no fairy tale: The US government will have exhausted its emergency funds by the end of February unless Congress can once again conjure up the political will and public patience to pass a new budget deal. 

 

 

 

3. Africa Aid, etc. 

4. The Polar Vortex (opposite of Global Warming)

5. Obama mentioning this 1961 document: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

6. Obama saying that all of these Olympic people look very fit for some reason (true fact)

[Lambdadelta]

4. The Polar Vortex (opposite of Global Warming)

LOL!

 

 

That is all.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

4. The Polar Vortex (opposite of Global Warming)

LOL!

 

pic

That is all.

 

>implying that is what i meant

[Lambdadelta]

 

 

4. The Polar Vortex (opposite of Global Warming)

LOL!

 

pic

That is all.

 

>implying that is what i meant

 

Everything about your statement was wrong. The polar vortex stuff you've been experiencing in the US is actually quite linked to global warming, as global warming creates more extreme weather events at both ends of the temperature scale.

[Jerry LeRow]

Everything about your statement was wrong. The polar vortex stuff you've been experiencing in the US is actually quite linked to global warming, as global warming creates more extreme weather events at both ends of the temperature scale.

Global warming... I have no problem agreeing that man-made emissions have some external effects, but I have a problem with "scientists" making 100 years + forecasts when they even can't predict tomorrows weather right. The climate is one of the most complex things in this universe, it's almost unpredictable... why do you think the world's strongest computers are all used for climate models?

 

http://americanlivewire.com/2014-01-13-even-scientists-doubting-global-warming-354688/

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NOAA_NASA_2013_Global_Temperatures_Joint_Briefing.pdf

 

Those were the best non-german news I could find that fast, look through them. In my eyes, as I said, those emissions have some effect, but surely not that they can change the entire world. The world is far too complex to be that heavily influenced by a few gases. 

 

And yes, I'm one of those who wanna buy an SUV although they don't need them [because I'm a rationalist and I know that with the right numbers used for statistics and the right measurements, measurers and circumstances everything can be proven, that's why there are so many persons like you.... but I like you guys too, all such great disicussions would be boring without opponents ]

[Obongo the Paultifex]

The only thing I'm terrified of is resource shortages, which we will soon face with water (in several parts of the world).

[Lambdadelta]

In my eyes, as I said, those emissions have some effect, but surely not that they can change the entire world. The world is far too complex to be that heavily influenced by a few gases.

You're a moron and people like you are the reason we're in the !@#$ in the first place and will continue to be so.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it's not real.

[Ikol]

(OOC) Humanity will limp from crisis to crisis, both our cultural, political and economic systems are not suited to dealing with these long term issues like globalization, global warming, climate change, terrorism and mass insurgency. As history teaches us, humans have the ability to dramatically change our institutions if we need to adapt and recent technological and cultural advances show that it could be this very same system that caused these problems to save us. TLDR: I have no idea.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

In my eyes, as I said, those emissions have some effect, but surely not that they can change the entire world. The world is far too complex to be that heavily influenced by a few gases.

You're a moron and people like you are the reason we're in the !@#$ in the first place and will continue to be so.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it's not real.

 

Please prove that Global Warming exists. 

 

Evidence, not "it doz gyus suk it real."

 

EDIT: Also this is a problem

[Jerry LeRow]

 

In my eyes, as I said, those emissions have some effect, but surely not that they can change the entire world. The world is far too complex to be that heavily influenced by a few gases.

You're a moron and people like you are the reason we're in the !@#$ in the first place and will continue to be so.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it's not real.

1) don't be so agressive

2) well, I think I do understand it... e.g. I wrote a thesis for my a-levels about alternative energies, did lots of research, and dealt with the topic for a long period

 

and if you people are the majority, go ahead, run for office and change the world... Schwarzenegger did a good job on the issue, although I have to agree with his opponents who say he only chose that theme because it's damn popular and easy and far nicer to handle than e.g. economy...

[Lambdadelta]

Please prove that Global Warming exists.

It's been done to death in the scientific literature so many times I don't even need to point to specific studies any more. The scientific consensus is in. You can choose to disagree with it, but that makes you wrong (and an accessory to attempted genocide).

[Jerry LeRow]

 

Please prove that Global Warming exists.

It's been done to death in the scientific literature so many times I don't even need to point to specific studies any more. The scientific consensus is in. You can choose to disagree with it, but that makes you wrong.

 

Prove it doesn't exist.

 

Speaking for me, I don't deny that greenhouse gases have external effects, I just don't believe in the scale and size of those effects.

[Lambdadelta]

 

 

Please prove that Global Warming exists.

It's been done to death in the scientific literature so many times I don't even need to point to specific studies any more. The scientific consensus is in. You can choose to disagree with it, but that makes you wrong.

 

Prove it doesn't exist.

 

Speaking for me, I don't deny that greenhouse gases have external effects, I just don't believe in the scale and size of those effects.

 

And on what rational basis do you say so? Where is your scientific evidence for this belief? Again, the scientific consensus is clear. If you do not have such evidence for your belief, your position is akin to shoving your head in the sand - the very attitude that dooms us to self-destruction.

[Jerry LeRow]

 

 

It's been done to death in the scientific literature so many times I don't even need to point to specific studies any more. The scientific consensus is in. You can choose to disagree with it, but that makes you wrong.

 

Prove it doesn't exist.

 

Speaking for me, I don't deny that greenhouse gases have external effects, I just don't believe in the scale and size of those effects.

 

And on what rational basis do you say so? Where is your scientific evidence for this belief? Again, the scientific consensus is clear. If you do not have such evidence for your belief, your position is akin to shoving your head in the sand - the very attitude that dooms us to self-destruction.

 

I ignore such obviously totally biased sites like the one you cite so much, you can't even measure my level of ignorance.

http://climatechange.procon.org/#arguments --> what about this one? Rational, unbiased, check it out.

And I have to say I don't count whenever I read about this topic, but I read about if from different sources, different countries, different types of media... so I can't cite everything I say ;P

[Lambdadelta]

I ignore such obviously totally biased sites like the one you cite so much, sites that disagree with my opinion

Fixed that for you. Let me state this very clearly: the scientific consensus is made and if you don't agree with it, you aren't abiding by the scientific principle any more and deserve to be consigned to the intellectual scrap-heap along with those who believe in sorcery and fairies.

 

End of story.

[Grillick]

That link doesn't actually address the point you were making, Jerry.

 

You said that you don't believe in the scale and the size of the external effects of greenhouse gases. Your link addresses the question whether human activity is a major contributor to global warming. 

 

(Edited to add:)

 

 

 

I ignore such obviously totally biased sites like the one you cite so much, sites that disagree with my opinion

Fixed that for you. Let me state this very clearly: the scientific consensus is made and if you don't agree with it, you aren't abiding by the scientific principle any more and deserve to be consigned to the intellectual scrap-heap along with those who believe in sorcery and fairies.

End of story.

 

Lambdadelta, that attitude is actually contrary to the scientific method itself. Scientific theories thrive upon being tested, and testing them is best when it comes from a side of skepticism and doubt. Academic science engages in a dangerous amount of recklessness with theories, as individual scientists are given more recognition for advances in their field than they are for challenging and confirming (or refuting) the findings of others.

 

While it is true that the field of climate science has largely avoided this fate as a result of its highly politicized nature, it is nonetheless true that those who value science would do well to check themselves before degrading dissenting opinions merely because they are dissenting. Accusing dissenters of being accessories of attempted genocide is absolutely unacceptable in the context of a debate.

[Ikol]

Lambdadelta, that attitude is actually contrary to the scientific method itself. Scientific theories thrive upon being tested, and testing them is best when it comes from a side of skepticism and doubt. Academic science engages in a dangerous amount of recklessness with theories, as individual scientists are given more recognition for advances in their field than they are for challenging and confirming (or refuting) the findings of others.

Indeed, after analyzing many pieces of peer reviewed literature on the issue I see little to no evidence of man's involvement in creating global warming. As a Pol Scientist I have determined that certain political interests have circulated leftist propaganda claiming that there is no scientific debate on the issue, this misinformation must be ended as the theories of the left are not immune from the proper scrutiny of the scientific process.

[Moloko]

The greatest problems of the future? 

 

1) Autism

 

2)SHTF

 

There's a solution that'll save everyone if we're smart. 

 

 

That's 20 Nuggets, straps, and bayonets for just over $1000. For $1000 you could arm 20 people to fight big gov, zombies, Chinese, or Chinese zombie government autists. 

 

But if you get some buddies and pool together about six or seven thousand dollars you could easily attain enough rifles and ammunition to supply a hundred men. 

 

Not to mention how in some places in this country you can buy an NBC resistant bunker for the same price as a house, probably with a few acres of farmland too, where you can grow your beets and park your BMP-2. 

 

Did I even mention that you can buy a BMP in running order for about $40,000-$50,000. There's people in Bulgaria selling T-72's as well. Maybe if you had a workshop and a mechanic, you could get the cannon working. 

[WISD0MTREE]

 

I ignore such obviously totally biased sites like the one you cite so much, sites that disagree with my opinion

Fixed that for you. Let me state this very clearly: the scientific consensus is made and if you don't agree with it, you aren't abiding by the scientific principle any more and deserve to be consigned to the intellectual scrap-heap along with those who believe in sorcery and fairies.

 

End of story.

 

I'm sorry, but work is part of life. 

Look at the URL. You don't believe it, do you? If my mom or I said that I was the greatest person on Earth, you wouldn't believe. 

[Lambdadelta]

Accusing dissenters of being accessories of attempted genocide is absolutely unacceptable in the context of a debate.

Disagree strongly. If we do not get a handle on climate change, we are all going to die. End of story. In the face of the decisive scientific consensus on the matter, those who continue to cling to unfounded "beliefs" that we are not one of the primary causes of this catastrophe-in-progress are most definitely accessories to the attempted murder of the entire human race (genocide).

 

And it's all just to make a few dollars more... what a waste. You can't eat money and there is no planet B.

[Jerry LeRow]

Ok for some reason I can't quote !?!

 

I'm refering to Lambdadelta's post #18: there's no conscensus if there are multiple opinions and explanation (as conscensus means one opinion they can all agree on)

 

And behave if you want to discuss with me, otherwise I'll report you. It's funny to argue with you, but we can do that with normal language too.

 

Now I'm referring to Grillick, post #19: I know this site doesn't actually match 100%, it was more an example of unbiased sites, as it contains solid pros & cons and was the best I could find that fast.

 

Now Lambdadelta again, post #23:

Believe it or not: we are going to die all. Because a human can't live forever, I assume most of us will die at ~90-100 years ;P

And actually there are planet Bs, NASA finds some adequate exoplanets several times , although I have to say they're really far away. So, yes, as long as we can't reach them, there are no planet Bs, right.

[Moloko]

The true genocide you people need to concern yourself with is the white genocide. 

 

There's only one way to keep it from happening too. 

 

Buy those Nuggets up.