Biggest Global Threat

[canas is back]

I think the biggest threat to the world is religion. We all know religion starts everything.

most "religous" wars weren't actually for religon itself but more for gains in political, economical, and social status, they are also a good way to unite the masses against something you don't like.

[Der Kommissar]

Saying that "religion is a tool used to rally the masses into heinous actions for ulterior motives" isn't paying religion a compliment.

[uguu]

The biggest global threat is video games. They are corrupting our children! EVERY CHILD SHALL BE A SERIAL KILLER EXCEPT THE AMISH, BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THEM ANYWAYS?

[Florete]

The biggest global threat is video games. They are corrupting our children! EVERY CHILD SHALL BE A SERIAL KILLER EXCEPT THE AMISH, BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THEM ANYWAYS?

Try to be serious and stop spamming.

[Celice]

, they are also a good way to unite the masses against something you don't like.

Tyranny FTW~

[Herr Wozzeck]

Hmm, I believe it's a natural cycle, like the Ice Age comes and goes.

This. Sure, global warming is a problem, but the truth is that most environmentalists put the problem out of proportion. We're not the only constituents of global warming; volcanoes on average put out much more CO2 than a city that uses a lot of cars. So really, the globe warming up is nothing new.

With that said, we are constituting a slight problem here, as none of our contributions are really natural. So with all that said, I still think it's a good idea to try to come up with stuff that emits less carbon. However, it's still a mistake to assume that we're the only contributors to global warming.

[Destiny Emo]

I fear nothing. Actually I kind of wish it would end sooner *creepy evil laughter* And yes, I do know I'm one hell of a twisted son of a bitch

[California Mountain Snake]

This. Sure, global warming is a problem, but the truth is that most environmentalists put the problem out of proportion. We're not the only constituents of global warming; volcanoes on average put out much more CO2 than a city that uses a lot of cars. So really, the globe warming up is nothing new.

Ecosystem fail.

Volcanic activity changes over the course of thousands of years. Point being - it doesn't matter how much CO₂ volcanoes spew into the atmosphere; relative to the scope of human lifetimes the environment has reached perfect equilibrium. Every year the amount of CO₂ generated by volcanoes is perfectly offset by that removed through natural processes.

It wouldn't matter if human CO₂ contributions were only 1/1000th of that emitted by volcanoes (in reality it is much higher), the point is that in the past 30 years alone CO₂ concentrations have gone up 11%, which is colossal when you consider the fact that such changes usually require thousands of years.

The danger isn't in "how much" we disrupt the environment, it's how quickly we're throwing delicate natural cycles out of equilibrium, and as much as everyone likes to talk about cycles, which do change over time in natural and periodic ways, they forget that these cycles reciprocate over the course of several thousand years, never over the course of one century.

Despite this, climate change doesn't really concern me as much as how lavishly we waste our resources. Basic metals like aluminum, copper, tin are all reaching the points of diminishing returns in mining, with economical mining of copper, perhaps the most important metal in the manufacture of all electronic goods, expected to end within decades. If the global rate of consumption continues along this path, climate change will be a small worry.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Black Knight

[Der Kommissar]

I do believe I've fallen in man-love with Black Knight.

[Celice]

Global warming in summary: death and taxes are assured, but don't pull the fucking trigger like a doofus.

[Herr Wozzeck]

Ecosystem fail.

Volcanic activity changes over the course of thousands of years. Point being - it doesn't matter how much CO₂ volcanoes spew into the atmosphere; relative to the scope of human lifetimes the environment has reached perfect equilibrium. Every year the amount of CO₂ generated by volcanoes is perfectly offset by that removed through natural processes.

It wouldn't matter if human CO₂ contributions were only 1/1000th of that emitted by volcanoes (in reality it is much higher), the point is that in the past 30 years alone CO₂ concentrations have gone up 11%, which is colossal when you consider the fact that such changes usually require thousands of years.

The danger isn't in "how much" we disrupt the environment, it's how quickly we're throwing delicate natural cycles out of equilibrium, and as much as everyone likes to talk about cycles, which do change over time in natural and periodic ways, they forget that these cycles reciprocate over the course of several thousand years, never over the course of one century.

And this is why I must needs keep quiet whenever I take a stance on something. Damn me for being a naïve bastard...

This is true. I wonder though; with all of this happening there's no way that the CO2 concentrations could go up on their own like that. Maybe the rise in CO2 has a little something to do with all our chopping down of trees that happens in the Americas...? (I say this mainly because CO2 does have its place in the chemical reaction that plants use to create glucose. I forget the exact equation, but I do remember oxygen being part of the solution...) It probably has little to do with the original point, but still, a little something to throw out there.

But that doesn't really change the fact that you're still right, anyways, now that I think about it a little harder...

[California Mountain Snake]

I wonder though; with all of this happening there's no way that the CO2 concentrations could go up on their own like that. Maybe the rise in CO2 has a little something to do with all our chopping down of trees that happens in the Americas...?

That's exactly right, although North America has little to do with that (forestation in Western countries is largely on the increase)

"Land use change" (a euphemism for the forest burning and deforestation that occurs mostly due to squatter farmers expanding farm land) has been attributed with half of the increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere.

This also invalidates most underdeveloped countries' excuses for why they shouldn't have to reduce their pollution levels. Many countries like India or Brazil claim that since all of the extra CO₂ in the atmosphere came from Western industrialization activities, it should be their job to clean up their mess and reduce CO₂ emissions, rather to expect these underdeveloped countries to sacrifice their own future development and industrialization in order to save the environment, a problem that they see as not being their fault.

However, analysis shows that about 50% of the world's CO₂ increases comes from areas like Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Africa where significant tropical deforestation has occurred, making this issue very much their problem.

One of the leading suggestions to combat rising greenhouse gas levels is to reverse this process, and "reforest" previously decimated lands. Only problem is it has a several generation implementation schedule, and the rate of deforestation in these countries isn't really slowing down any.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Black Knight

[Bohemund]

If I recall the U.S. has more forestry than Africa combined. Random? Yes. True? I don't know.