Global Warming

[Dark Sage]

Frankly the idea of global warming is a very very complicated subject. To measure it's full effects, you'd have to predict technology, the rate of fossil fuels being burned, and that's not even getting into telling which graphs are true and which graphs are false.

It's sort of the political aspects of Global Warming that are cause for concern though. Consider: Global warming causes less rain to fall and more intense heat and droughts in Third World Countries would make it extremely difficult to grow food, forcing them to take arms and try to settle in other countries to have more supplies available. Thing is, the droughts would hit other areas too, so starvation arises even in developed countries. Food would be too expensive for people to buy because the demand outweighs the supply, so death rates and starvation rates would increase. Wars would start then and there wouldn't be many ways to fix the ecological balance.

So yeah. Late at night, so excuse the scattered thoughts.

[Kanami]

It's sort of the political aspects of Global Warming that are cause for concern though. Consider: Global warming causes less rain to fall and more intense heat and droughts in Third World Countries would make it extremely difficult to grow food, forcing them to take arms and try to settle in other countries to have more supplies available. Thing is, the droughts would hit other areas too, so starvation arises even in developed countries. Food would be too expensive for people to buy because the demand outweighs the supply, so death rates and starvation rates would increase. Wars would start then and there wouldn't be many ways to fix the ecological balance.

In other words it's Gods way of telling us we've over-flourished and we need to cut down on our numbers, what better way to do it then natural disasters and a global war on resources. :P

[whase]

Can't global warming be good for the world?

If an animal dies, it can be tragic, I understand that. but the species that die because of global warming could make place for other species to evolve.

the human kind is done with evolving, getting smarter, stronger or faster won't give you any extra chance to survive anymore. so wouldn't it be selfish of us to try and stay alive and that way stopping other species from taking our territories? species that may one day evolve to be better species than human kind?

change brings pain, that's just how things roll, don't they?

[Parrhesia]

so wouldn't it be selfish of us to try and stay alive

Yeah, we're such douchebags trying not to die and everything.

Tell the average person that if you shoot them in the face someone better might come along and get their job, but most likely it'll just get caught up in paperwork and never materialise...I don't think anyone will take your kind offer.

This isn't even touching the other problems in your post, which are ... myriad. But I'm too tired to respond to them without making a post that is similarly problematic.

[Phoenix Wright]

Can't global warming be good for the world?

For the physical Earth, I'd say it doesn't matter at all. For the life that inhabits it, over time (and don't think "thousands" of years on this one) it'll become a huge problem.

If an animal dies, it can be tragic, I understand that. but the species that die because of global warming could make place for other species to evolve.

Species will most likely evolve regardless of the amount of animals here. Are you confusing evolution with speciation? Even still you'd be wrong. A new species is still able to come about, I think.

the human kind is done with evolving,

Um, no we're not.

getting smarter, stronger or faster won't give you any extra chance to survive anymore.

How did you get this idea? It will help us a great deal. Especially the "smarter" part.

so wouldn't it be selfish of us to try and stay alive and that way stopping other species from taking our territories?

Right, because we should all die to make way for new species.

species that may one day evolve to be better species than human kind?

Well, why don't we just keep evolving instead? Wouldn't that be better than killing all of us and then waiting possibly hundreds of millions of years for more humans to come?

change brings pain, that's just how things roll, don't they?

I wouldn't argue that.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[whase]

For the physical Earth, I'd say it doesn't matter at all. For the life that inhabits it, over time (and don't think "thousands" of years on this one) it'll become a huge problem.

there is enough diversity on the world to keep life on this planet. there are already organisms living in lakes that are near 100 degrees Celsius. so yes, some species will die, but others will always take their places soon.

Species will most likely evolve regardless of the amount of animals here. Are you confusing evolution with speciation? Even still you'd be wrong. A new species is still able to come about, I think.

hmm, I guess I could be mixing something up there yes...

How did you get this idea? It will help us a great deal. Especially the "smarter" part.

isn't evolution mostly based on the smarter/stronger/faster one surviving and that way giving its better DNA to its children? I've read that people of lower intellect mostly get more children than people with higher intelligence. wouldn't we be evolving backwards then?

[Phoenix Wright]

there is enough diversity on the world to keep life on this planet. there are already organisms living in lakes that are near 100 degrees Celsius. so yes, some species will die, but others will always take their places soon.

Diversity doesn't matter if the conditions become too poor to support life.

And what would those organisms be? What lakes are over 200 degrees Fahrenheit? Organisms don't evolve as quickly as you're implying. Temperature isn't the only thing that rises due to global warming. Temperature isn't the only factor attributing to the death of animals. You're oversimplifying this.

isn't evolution mostly based on the smarter/stronger/faster one surviving and that way giving its better DNA to its children? I've read that people of lower intellect mostly get more children than people with higher intelligence. wouldn't we be evolving backwards then?

What research? What do you mean by intellect?

No. It's not that simple either. It's how well an organism survives in its environment. A certain species isn't evolving, all species are.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

isn't evolution mostly based on the smarter/stronger/faster one surviving and that way giving its better DNA to its children? I've read that people of lower intellect mostly get more children than people with higher intelligence. wouldn't we be evolving backwards then?

No. Pressures have changed, but natural selection still takes place in humans.

And evolution isn't a positive process as you are thinking. Intelligence isn't, like, at the end of a line leading to the "best" evolved organism. It's just another trait brought about over time.