The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For anyone who doesn't know, ecologists say that due to the whole global warming thing, 25% of the world’s mammal life will have become extinct in...yes, 30 years. Assuming we don't all get nuked in the next 6 weeks? Is it too late to reverse the mess we've made of the world? Is anyone actually interested in reversing the mess (not just politicians, I'm talking globally)? And following a recent addition of newsnight, can the massive amounts of cash needed to prevent this be spending elsewhere (i.e. water for the third world)? And is Jeremy Paxman a complete nonce?
This world is full of varied and beautiful wildlife and I do not want to see it go just because some suits were more worried about their paycheck than this. Plus, on a more lighthearted note, David Attenborough would be out of a job. On one point, a worry about the mass extinction which human activities in changing the environment may be responsible, and then a comment on how money could be spent providing water for the third world, which would of course be another example of human actions changing the environment and inevitably lead to the extinction of a large variety of creatures. You may be comforted to hear that BMW have produced a hydrogen-powered car and will be in mass production by 2005. I think that they already have engines that run on water but the oil and gas companies are too powerful, too big and too influential to be reckoned with. Thank you globalization and corporate government for keeping us prisoner. I also heard the US Military have developed 100-year long batteries, but they'd never release them because obviously we'd only need to buy a battery per appliance for the rest of our lives.
Given that the only long-term aim of humanity, so far, has been survival at any cost, the extinction of 98% of all life on Earth would be fine, so long as there were sufficient species to produce a viable ecosystem that could support human life. It doesn’t matter, utterly objectively (except for divorcing one from our humanity), if we destroy the planet as long as we survive. And preferably survive comfortably - the less likely our extinction, the better. Not to mention, an aggressive and sudden removal of ecosystems and a serious interruption to many others might produce an evolutionary drive - a Gould-esque punctuated equilibrium might start looking far more likely with humans involved. That would produce some interesting species. I’m also somewhat doubtful of the 'life as a source of medicine' argument regarding the problems of species extinction. Give medicine 25 years and it will be able to use supercomputers to do modeling so good it will remove the need for excess serendipity. That big gun they are building in the US will be able to model proteins pretty well.
The world’s largest supercomputer was unveiled a few weeks ago in Japan to model the climate. It is 25 times more powerful than the largest American one, and it is expected it will take America at least 5 years to catch up. We're probably all shafted but the adaptability of the human race never fails to surprise me. In the event of a nuclear winter I'd put money on the only things left being the roaches and us. Go read the plot of Starcraft from the protoss side and then figure…
Mass Extinction – What Do You Think?
Thanks for reading,
LF
This world is full of varied and beautiful wildlife and I do not want to see it go just because some suits were more worried about their paycheck than this. Plus, on a more lighthearted note, David Attenborough would be out of a job. On one point, a worry about the mass extinction which human activities in changing the environment may be responsible, and then a comment on how money could be spent providing water for the third world, which would of course be another example of human actions changing the environment and inevitably lead to the extinction of a large variety of creatures. You may be comforted to hear that BMW have produced a hydrogen-powered car and will be in mass production by 2005. I think that they already have engines that run on water but the oil and gas companies are too powerful, too big and too influential to be reckoned with. Thank you globalization and corporate government for keeping us prisoner. I also heard the US Military have developed 100-year long batteries, but they'd never release them because obviously we'd only need to buy a battery per appliance for the rest of our lives.
Given that the only long-term aim of humanity, so far, has been survival at any cost, the extinction of 98% of all life on Earth would be fine, so long as there were sufficient species to produce a viable ecosystem that could support human life. It doesn’t matter, utterly objectively (except for divorcing one from our humanity), if we destroy the planet as long as we survive. And preferably survive comfortably - the less likely our extinction, the better. Not to mention, an aggressive and sudden removal of ecosystems and a serious interruption to many others might produce an evolutionary drive - a Gould-esque punctuated equilibrium might start looking far more likely with humans involved. That would produce some interesting species. I’m also somewhat doubtful of the 'life as a source of medicine' argument regarding the problems of species extinction. Give medicine 25 years and it will be able to use supercomputers to do modeling so good it will remove the need for excess serendipity. That big gun they are building in the US will be able to model proteins pretty well.
The world’s largest supercomputer was unveiled a few weeks ago in Japan to model the climate. It is 25 times more powerful than the largest American one, and it is expected it will take America at least 5 years to catch up. We're probably all shafted but the adaptability of the human race never fails to surprise me. In the event of a nuclear winter I'd put money on the only things left being the roaches and us. Go read the plot of Starcraft from the protoss side and then figure…
Mass Extinction – What Do You Think?
Thanks for reading,
LF
1,000,000 species on a world that has a few million times that number of species is proportionally small. But yes, we are destructive by nature, and have destroyed to make way for ourselves. Change has to happen, but how, what, and by whom?
As a species, we need more room, more food, more, more, more. This trend we cannot stop, and must work around, but we cannot do so forever.
As a species, we need more room, more food, more, more, more. This trend we cannot stop, and must work around, but we cannot do so forever.
Of course you could already say a mass extinction has occured, by the year 2000 humans have aided the extinction of 1,000,000 (yes 1 million) species. Makes you think.
The fact that it is not making an immediate impact is the reason why it is making an impact - people feel that it 'will never happen to them'
Unfortuantely, I do, but I also try to do little things to help.
Anyhoo, where theres Life theres Hope, or rather more appropriately in this case, wheres theres Hope there is Life - what else hopes?
Unfortuantely, I do, but I also try to do little things to help.
Anyhoo, where theres Life theres Hope, or rather more appropriately in this case, wheres theres Hope there is Life - what else hopes?
Nice post, but based on flawed, or rather, on exaggerated opinions.
Sure, global warming is a problem, but climate change - however accelerated by human interference - still takes hundreds of years to occur. Yes it is a problem, yes we do have to do something about it, but we aren't in any immediate danger.
And if we do somehow manage to create a climate change in 30 years significant enough to cause global extinction level event. What would have caused that? Beyond some folly ridden nuclear holocaust, we simply don't have the capacity to do that amount of damage without doing it blatantly on purpose. We would have to go in and force-burn down the rainforests, pour hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cyanide solution into the seas and oceans, and release every man-made virus known available to cause that amount of destruction, and even then, it would probably take more than 30 years to wipe everything out.
And certainly, nuclear holocaust can be ruled out. However much India and Pakistan hate eachother, neither is stupid enough to use nukes. Think about it. Pakistan nukes India, and the fallout will drift straight back at them on its route back across europe. India Nuke Pakistan, and again the backwash moves towards europe, who won't sit on their laurels about it. Every conventional weapon in the western world will drop down on India, or Pakistan, whichever was the stupid one, and leave very little to be scooped up afterwards. They know this, so any aggression by either side will be conventional warfare, and nothing for the world at large to be concerned with, in a global preservation sense.
As for irrigating third world countries, new sources of water are more likely to encourage life, than to wipe it out. The prevalent species may not be the same, but life will definitely increase.
The problem with the ecosystem dying is not one that we will ever see come to fruition, however, it is one that our generation needs to address, to ensure that no other generation does see it come to fruition. The road back to a healthy planet is a long one, and it is us that must take the first steps.
IB
Sure, global warming is a problem, but climate change - however accelerated by human interference - still takes hundreds of years to occur. Yes it is a problem, yes we do have to do something about it, but we aren't in any immediate danger.
And if we do somehow manage to create a climate change in 30 years significant enough to cause global extinction level event. What would have caused that? Beyond some folly ridden nuclear holocaust, we simply don't have the capacity to do that amount of damage without doing it blatantly on purpose. We would have to go in and force-burn down the rainforests, pour hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cyanide solution into the seas and oceans, and release every man-made virus known available to cause that amount of destruction, and even then, it would probably take more than 30 years to wipe everything out.
And certainly, nuclear holocaust can be ruled out. However much India and Pakistan hate eachother, neither is stupid enough to use nukes. Think about it. Pakistan nukes India, and the fallout will drift straight back at them on its route back across europe. India Nuke Pakistan, and again the backwash moves towards europe, who won't sit on their laurels about it. Every conventional weapon in the western world will drop down on India, or Pakistan, whichever was the stupid one, and leave very little to be scooped up afterwards. They know this, so any aggression by either side will be conventional warfare, and nothing for the world at large to be concerned with, in a global preservation sense.
As for irrigating third world countries, new sources of water are more likely to encourage life, than to wipe it out. The prevalent species may not be the same, but life will definitely increase.
The problem with the ecosystem dying is not one that we will ever see come to fruition, however, it is one that our generation needs to address, to ensure that no other generation does see it come to fruition. The road back to a healthy planet is a long one, and it is us that must take the first steps.
IB
For anyone who doesn't know, ecologists say that due to the whole global warming thing, 25% of the world’s mammal life will have become extinct in...yes, 30 years. Assuming we don't all get nuked in the next 6 weeks? Is it too late to reverse the mess we've made of the world? Is anyone actually interested in reversing the mess (not just politicians, I'm talking globally)? And following a recent addition of newsnight, can the massive amounts of cash needed to prevent this be spending elsewhere (i.e. water for the third world)? And is Jeremy Paxman a complete nonce?
This world is full of varied and beautiful wildlife and I do not want to see it go just because some suits were more worried about their paycheck than this. Plus, on a more lighthearted note, David Attenborough would be out of a job. On one point, a worry about the mass extinction which human activities in changing the environment may be responsible, and then a comment on how money could be spent providing water for the third world, which would of course be another example of human actions changing the environment and inevitably lead to the extinction of a large variety of creatures. You may be comforted to hear that BMW have produced a hydrogen-powered car and will be in mass production by 2005. I think that they already have engines that run on water but the oil and gas companies are too powerful, too big and too influential to be reckoned with. Thank you globalization and corporate government for keeping us prisoner. I also heard the US Military have developed 100-year long batteries, but they'd never release them because obviously we'd only need to buy a battery per appliance for the rest of our lives.
Given that the only long-term aim of humanity, so far, has been survival at any cost, the extinction of 98% of all life on Earth would be fine, so long as there were sufficient species to produce a viable ecosystem that could support human life. It doesn’t matter, utterly objectively (except for divorcing one from our humanity), if we destroy the planet as long as we survive. And preferably survive comfortably - the less likely our extinction, the better. Not to mention, an aggressive and sudden removal of ecosystems and a serious interruption to many others might produce an evolutionary drive - a Gould-esque punctuated equilibrium might start looking far more likely with humans involved. That would produce some interesting species. I’m also somewhat doubtful of the 'life as a source of medicine' argument regarding the problems of species extinction. Give medicine 25 years and it will be able to use supercomputers to do modeling so good it will remove the need for excess serendipity. That big gun they are building in the US will be able to model proteins pretty well.
The world’s largest supercomputer was unveiled a few weeks ago in Japan to model the climate. It is 25 times more powerful than the largest American one, and it is expected it will take America at least 5 years to catch up. We're probably all shafted but the adaptability of the human race never fails to surprise me. In the event of a nuclear winter I'd put money on the only things left being the roaches and us. Go read the plot of Starcraft from the protoss side and then figure…
Mass Extinction – What Do You Think?
Thanks for reading,
LF
This world is full of varied and beautiful wildlife and I do not want to see it go just because some suits were more worried about their paycheck than this. Plus, on a more lighthearted note, David Attenborough would be out of a job. On one point, a worry about the mass extinction which human activities in changing the environment may be responsible, and then a comment on how money could be spent providing water for the third world, which would of course be another example of human actions changing the environment and inevitably lead to the extinction of a large variety of creatures. You may be comforted to hear that BMW have produced a hydrogen-powered car and will be in mass production by 2005. I think that they already have engines that run on water but the oil and gas companies are too powerful, too big and too influential to be reckoned with. Thank you globalization and corporate government for keeping us prisoner. I also heard the US Military have developed 100-year long batteries, but they'd never release them because obviously we'd only need to buy a battery per appliance for the rest of our lives.
Given that the only long-term aim of humanity, so far, has been survival at any cost, the extinction of 98% of all life on Earth would be fine, so long as there were sufficient species to produce a viable ecosystem that could support human life. It doesn’t matter, utterly objectively (except for divorcing one from our humanity), if we destroy the planet as long as we survive. And preferably survive comfortably - the less likely our extinction, the better. Not to mention, an aggressive and sudden removal of ecosystems and a serious interruption to many others might produce an evolutionary drive - a Gould-esque punctuated equilibrium might start looking far more likely with humans involved. That would produce some interesting species. I’m also somewhat doubtful of the 'life as a source of medicine' argument regarding the problems of species extinction. Give medicine 25 years and it will be able to use supercomputers to do modeling so good it will remove the need for excess serendipity. That big gun they are building in the US will be able to model proteins pretty well.
The world’s largest supercomputer was unveiled a few weeks ago in Japan to model the climate. It is 25 times more powerful than the largest American one, and it is expected it will take America at least 5 years to catch up. We're probably all shafted but the adaptability of the human race never fails to surprise me. In the event of a nuclear winter I'd put money on the only things left being the roaches and us. Go read the plot of Starcraft from the protoss side and then figure…
Mass Extinction – What Do You Think?
Thanks for reading,
LF