Desireless (Kebir Blue)

hey nix i agree with you mostly

There is probably some truth to those statistics. But look at what these so-called 'Green' people/organizations want to push. They want to do more than act in what their view is responsible for the environment, they have an agenda that allows them to profit off of what they try to claim as a noble act. One good example of this is Al Gore, one of the most dishonest of all politicians. So even though its true that taking care of the environment is a good thing, the great majority of those that push this agenda are scum that is attempting to profit from fear.

well like nix said.... its gonna take a changed view or perspective not programs initiated by politicians

Cause our the children in the future are gonna care, i'm only fifteen, most people on this game will have great grand kids before I have grand kids and my grand kids and your great grand kids wont care about whether we helped the planet or not. I know we need to protect the planet and that even though the sun won't kill us for a few more billion years we need still need it for that time. But what I am saying is no matter what we do, it is most likely too late, the ice caps are barley there, the ozone layer is destroyed we have less trees then we should have because of big corporations being built and stuff. No matter what we do Nix it's too late, and I understand that.

My point was mostly that it is fruitless to fill with angst about the destruction of the earth, as it is all going to end someday, anyway, no matter how much you wring your hands about it. I am not for mindlessly raping the entire planet just for rape's sake, but I do believe the ultra-"Green" movement is the new religion, and what has history shown us about rabid religions?

I think you fatalist out there are missing the main point. If we don't do something now, then when? And if not us then who? We have the ways and means to plant trees, buy sustainable products, use less gas, eat less meat, recycle. It doesn't harm us, pinch our freedoms, nothing. It's about being conscious that if we don't, bad things will happen. Those selling the cool aid don't want you to consume less because the will sell less. What happens down the line in 10-15 years when cycles of drought and floods wipes out our food supply? What about massive storms that take out our coastal homes and neighbors? Will our freedoms be impinged then? How about when it is too expensive to buy home insurance and the govt doesn't help? I'm not saying change drastically now because it is popular or religious. I'm saying the way things are going looks grim and it will only get worse.

Fun fact: only ONE ice cap is shrinking. The other is growing.

The way I see it is that the "solutions" posed are problematic. Especially if certain other things are true...

For example, if we will eventually run out of fossil fuels then the dwindling supply and increasing energy demands of a growing and developing world should make it so that other energy sources become more cost effective than fossil fuels... in effect, this is an example of something that will solve itself. Once solar/wind/whatever is cheaper to produce than coal/oil/whatever, then at that point, it will be entirely rational to go green.

Another issue is that it seems like it would be more beneficial for everyone if instead of pushing for people to (in)voluntarily decrease their consumption or alter their lifestyles radically, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that people live like they do? Meaning that rather than solutions that tell p

agreed scarlet but what if the technology to live sustainably isnt their to save our ass when fossil fuels run out... idk leaving it up to capitalism to save the world seems kind off foolish

Ok, here is the next liberal solution (I have heard this one several times, and they said it with a straight face): Cut the world population to around 100 million or so. That's over a 99% reduction, people, and even less viable than some other "radical" solutions. And don't get me started on the fallacy of the Malthusian doctrine.
BTW, I agree that once fossil fuels start running dry, people WILL suddenly be clamoring for nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, etc., whatever energy forms are being shunned by greenies right now. And keep this in mind: the military will have to stockpile years of fossil fuel if it comes to a crisis in supply, We might as well start making more progress in nuclear power right now.

You all make really good points as to possible solutions, however most of them require significant efforts by either the government (in the pocket of big oil) or other entities where it is not in their best interest to change. Recently an article was posted by the Electricity Association noting that their market was decreasing in power generation and they needed to address the possibility that solar posed to their business model. A good example of how the market will drive business to make changes. But most of the other "solutions" are not viable. Eliminating 5.9 billion people from the world is not going to work. Ethanol, biodiesel, gas, oil, oil sand, and coal are all fuels that have the same issue as what we are doing now albeit that at least ethanol and biodiesel remove some carbon when growing. I know a lot of people like the idea of nuclear power, but where is the waste going to be stored? How about in your town? The proble

Scarlet. It is down to the stronger winds in the Antarctic (due to climate change) pushing the ice out to sea. The Arctic is mainly influenced by the sea temperature, which is why its melting. Ok now there is 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Last time those levels were on Earth was 3 million years ago. The level required for life as we know it is 350ppm. Does it look like we have time to wait for fossil fuels to run out? Antonio bro.....I feared this would happen....from 'theres no problem' to 'its too late to do something about it' Sounds like all excuses to me. Keep the hope alive mate. Otherwise it will be to late. Hi Otto, well said. Helloa Scarlet. Dont let those who are rewarded for making the change stop you from making the changes you need to make ;)Yo Maclean how are ya? T_Mac Your spot on bro. Ten years ago these small changes shou

Sorry....Hi Alexander. Yea its like asking a thief to install a lock lol

i dont see how eliminating 6.9 billion people is "liberal" maclean..... The way i see it is this energy crisis is going to at worst cause anarchy and millions if not billions of death and destruction and at best going to make the average person unable to thrive in what we call the middle class..it will cause rampant unemployment greater stratefication of society basically a dark age.... we can ethier continue on our path and fight tooth and nail to be at the top (capitalism) in order to "enjoy" life or sit around and hope technology saves us or we can take steps to make sure there is enough for everyone and the world through various forms of population control...... Tmac it is not generally natural for people to not consume as much as they can.... our current society is very idealist.. meaning it will only be sustainable if people were more or less perfect if people all did the right things consume responsibly, go to school, dont

that wasnt the best written message abit incoherent i skipped around abit

after a few pints and such, and having such a nice night out im abit incoherent anyway, we did dance around our local town jumping, skipping and dancing like such pratts, and while we all was doing all this we never thought bout global warming tis BS ANYWAY!

Biodiesel is murder!

But no, seriously, it has got to be the worst possible alternative to fossil fuels.

I'm for nuclear energy.

why is biodiesel murder its just using plants as a factory for converting sunlight into chemical energy... same as if we used solar panels or nuke plants to make electricity to fuel my (shudder) prius .... see this is what I mean by standard of living ... I don't want to drive a prius

Don't get a prius to save the environment. The production process for all that hybrid equipment uses plenty of coal-based electricity... and the gas savings aren't great. Not to mention that battery production probably pollutes more any other vehicle component around (though that's probably mostly because the lithium comes from China). And the 5 year running cost + initial cost for you as a consumer is probably more expensive than any standard compact. You're paying more, polluting more, and driving an inferior vehicle. Getting any non-hybrid compact sedan or wagon is probably better... in every single way. If you want to pat yourself on the back and feel like you're making a difference, get a prius... it's not true and you'll look like an idiot, but you'll feel good about yourself.

And if you think plug-in eletrics are better, remember that most of that electricity is probably coming from coal-fired plan

Hi Scarlet. Do you desireless for material wealth and consumeless now you know how much damage desiring material wealth and consuming is doing to our future and environment? Hey Roving eye. I've seen ya. Anyways if we desireless, energy consumption will be reduced to levels that our scientists could work with. Remember.....most pollution is created through your desires to have what you want. If we lived for what we needed our future will have what they need to live. Profit creates a need to have more than you need. Profit takes away from those in need. Desire and profit are the Devils work. How many of you here can say you are not helping the Devil destroy Gods creation?

edit# I am agnostic for anyone who was wondering why I have brought the Devil and God into it. I'm using them as a metaphor (if thats the right word?)

I think if I were a god, I would like to be the god of desire.

If we desire nothing of life, why should we bother living? There's no innate value to life without things to give it value. And things only have value because we desire them.

If we're talking about sacrifice, why is it we who should sacrifice for the future and not the future that should sacrifice for us? There is no fundamental difference between taking one of these positions over the other... aside from the fact that we've got the jump on the future in terms of being able to force the issue.

On the other hand, the only reasonable solution is one that does not require sacrifice. If you sincerely believe no such solution exists, then by all means, we are better off taking as much as we can while we still can... because there's no fundamental difference other than who is making the sacrifice.

If you can't come up with a solution that doesn&

Scarlet- I think you have taken desire and owning and combined them. I can desire lots of things in this world, but it doesn't mean I will have them, not does it mean that I will be happier if I have them. Thoreau stated that we down own things, things own us. We end up working to support the things we desire. Similarly the buddists believe that desire equals suffering, because we want, we suffer. Your point regarding sacrifice is totalitarian. Right now we are taking from the future, just like our parents have taken from us with extreme wasteful consumption, ie no recycling, inefficient motors, etc. In the world there is a concept that we need to be conscious of how our actions affect 7 generations from now. Living simple so that others may simply live. The idea shares a line with "we belong to the earth, the earth does not belong to us.". Your desires that you speak about reflect consumer based happiness which is predicated on getting

well said Tmac.... Scarlet we are eventually going to run out of enough farmland for people look at our population growths... earths population doubles every 35 years we have 7 billion people and many experts think earth can support 10 billion people if limited by the amount of arable land (and we were all vegetarians)..... obviously any sort of elitism like we see today would cause massive poverty on lower ends of the spectrum (i wonder if thats what we are seeing today already) if we were to live on the edge like this..... and scientists are trying to figure out how to turn non food organic materials into biofuels.. stuff that can be grown in non arable places like certain grasses

well said Tmac.... Scarlet we are eventually going to run out of enough farmland for people look at our population growths... earths population doubles every 35 years we have 7 billion people and many experts think earth can support 10 billion people if limited by the amount of arable land (and we were all vegetarians)..... obviously any sort of elitism like we see today would cause massive poverty on lower ends of the spectrum (i wonder if thats what we are seeing today already) if we were to live on the edge like this..... and scientists are trying to figure out how to turn non food organic materials into biofuels.. stuff that can be grown in non arable places like certain grasses

Were gonna have Mars in the next 100 years so population is not that big of an issue anymore, and eventually we might have other planets once our dumb scientists realize they should be working on transforming and artificial habitats that block out (or grant) sunlight and supply's oxygen so we can colonize Venus and other terrestrial planets. After that hello new solar system.
Eventually people wont be influenced by their country but by their planets and what Earth country owns the planet.

well if population grows exponentially we will need more then our one solar system we will need to spread throughout the universe conquering expanding and consuming... the plot of several alien invasion movies... and this is not the natural way for people to live