Desireless (Kebir Blue)

It's survival of the most fit, not survival of the fittest. The strongest isn't always the best adapted. And it applies to the species as a whole, not individuals. So that particular point is moot, Zdeněk Pavlovský. All of the issues you bring up are matters for individual societies to address. As for asthma and allergies, they are a direct result of the overly-hygenic "western" way of life, because our immune systems simply don't learn to deal with these things as we develop.

As for you, Nix. All I can say is that you appear to be a very confused person. At the moment, the earth is in a relatively cold period. It has been much hotter in the past than it is now. Look at the early Triasic period, for example. As I said, the world - and life - have survived through greater extremes than those which we face.

When environmentalists such as yourself say things along the lines of "Save the earth from global warming!" what you really mean to say is "Save humanity from the current 'insert political-point-scoring issue here'!"

Climate change is real, yes. Life is all about change. Naturally occuring.

Oh wow would you look at that little coincidence...

I burned down my Christmas tree.

look Miles, as i say personally i could care less if the world would cease to exist tomorrow. personally i do not have ambitions to make anyone to do anything nor to change anyone nor to preach to anyone.

my point, in the context of your post, was that using the argument .. its the survival of the fittest and thats why its fine or just or good is .. moot.

even Dawkins, the most influential evolutionary biologist of our time, whom we could expect to defend the point you were making, admits such approach is not hmmm wise.

Putting it another way, I'm a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics - Richard Dawkins

im not going to argue how people understand "survival of the fittest" because we could probably find many mis/interpretations and mis/understandings nor im going to argue if global warming is caused by us or naturally occurring, because that is irrelevant to the point i was making.

the point was, if i chose to disregard everyone else and everything around me, it might happen i will be sorry.

Jason. I have no reason to put you on the list.
The last time I spoke to you about the subject you had'nt made your mind up.
I'm looking for the people who don't think man needs to change his behaviour. For it is they who will continue to destroy the natural world. Leaving nothing for our future generations.

Miles. Why do you think it's alright for man to kill Gaia and destroy my nieces and nephews environment?

You're misquoting Darwin in order to prove a point that I never made. And then using that to impose a moral framework upon what I say via the context into which you erroneously place it as a result. Frankly, it is most amusing.

I did not once say that 'survival of the most fit' made anything covered by this discussion right, just or good.

What I did imply - if not outright say - was that life has endured far more drastic changes in the environment and that the current situation is not as dire as some political animals would make it out to be.

Where you're getting the impression that I'm saying to hell with all consequences because the fittest will endure is beyond me.

But it does make for good reading. Keep it up.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Miles. Why do you think it's alright for man to kill Gaia and destroy my nieces and nephews environment?<!-/Quote-!>

Gaia. You impose a single unity upon the life processes of the world where none exists. Species appear and dissapear all the time. It is the very nature of life. To change and adapt to the environs in which it finds itself, or die out.

Life has survived far more extreme conditions on this world, as I have pointed out several times.

As for killing your relatives, that is extremely far-fetched and unrealistic. The eradication of the entire human race due to global warming is nigh on impossible.

This unusual idea of the earth's environment as a single static entity is a flawed and dangerous view, championed by envoronmentalists who wish to impart social guilt upon their respective societies. In trying to prevent what is essentially a fluid system from evolving and changing as nature intended you end up doing more harm than good, to both human civilisation and the environment at large.

in that case i misunderstood the point you were making.

/me shrugs

yes, i stated the same thing, that life will endure, myself in another thread not long ago, however, i would assume that humans care about their own life in the first place not life in general, and since nix was trying to say that destroying our environment we destroy ourselves the bandwagon he was accused jumping at is rational to me.

Miles. Do you think the activities of man is destroying the environment?

Doesn't Mother Natures Wrath take part in destroying the Environment too?
Lighting hits a forest which causes a Forest Fire,
Tornado Destroys Tree, Soil, Infrastructure and Etc,
Types of Gas that kills plants, flowers, and trees spread on by Wind.

Considering the 5 mass extinctions this planet has had I would put anything man is capable of as a minor problem at best. Barring a total nuclear exchange.

The largest extinction event involved some 80 percent of all classifications of biological life...plants,vertebrates,and insects.


Some 360 million years ago...

It lasted for as long as 20 million years before it finished.


My point?

This planet was here long before us...It will be here long after we are fossils ourselves.

mmmmm total nuclear exchange sounds like fun to me. nukes on the way!

Revival. I have no beef with Mother Nature killing my family. I do have beef with men and women who risk the survival of my family for their own desires.

I understand what you are saying Sam, but who are you to say what man is capable of?
Was it not man who knew of the concequences of pouring acid into a pond, yet still went ahead and did it?

Edited during Rev posting:
These people know they are doing wrong. There are millions of them out there still trying to get away with making some easy money. They will never get it as long as there are people out there making the arguement that it does'nt really matter.

I hope you are not blaming the human race for every destruction on Nature, Some people try to keep a clean environment.

No. Just the ones who did'nt/don't care about the destruction of Nature.

99.999% of life does everything it can to survive. Yet some of you dont seem to be bothered about survival.
Has life become that easy for you that you have forgotten the whole point of life?

I have a problem with you threatening others because they don't share the same crackpot beliefs as you.



You need to check yourself Nix.

"And if any of you are still prepared to argue that man has nothing to do with the changes of global temperature, which in turn is killing Gaia. I will make you pay in Gold coins."

Are you suppose to be some Tree Guardian?

Read the beginning Sam.
I made it quite clear that if you choose to argue with me you will have to back it up with gold coins.
I have no idea why you lot are posting on here anyway.
As I said. The time for talk has passed. This is a thread for anyone out there to challenge me with more than words.
Whats wrong with that?
You want to fight you post.
I know that Crafty might not have understood what was going on due to you lot having to get your say in (I've sent him a in game message just to let him know what the threads about) and as you know, I also discourage attacking someone due to their views on the forum.
This is why I started this thread.
I thought that only my enemies would post on it.
Maybe I could have made it clearer.

UNLESS YOU WANT TO FIGHT ME BECAUSE YOU TOTALY DISAGREE WITH MY OPENING STATEMENT I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO DISCUSS YOUR VEIWS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE THREAD CALLED ENVIRONMENTALISUM AND NOT ON THIS ONE.

Rev. Are'nt we all supposed to be?

Only for my Christmas tree, Which makes me different.

Perhaps driving you from the civilized worlds back to FB is in order...

Your asshattery has only grown over time instead of mellowing.

It would be a pleasure in battling someone who makes statments like: 'This planet was here long before us...It will be here long after we are fossils ourselves.' When talking about our effects on our futures environment.
Mars is also a planet which has been here long before us. And you point is what?

I am talking about the here and now. You talk about 'Some 360 million years ago...'

I talk about trying to stop a catastrophe and you talk about 'The largest extinction event involved some 80 percent of all classifications of biological life...plants,vertebrates,and insects.' What has that got to do with man killing the Eco system?

Hello?........is it you I'm looking for?
I can see it in your posts, I can see it in your words.
You really don't care whats going on.
You really don't care whats true.
Maybe nows the time to show you, that you really don't have a clue.
I'll take your countries from you, like I nearly did to Boo.
I look forward to our battle.
For I know now what to do.
And now all I have to say is
.....................I hate you.

dec now fool! no one pwns sam!!!!!!!!!

He will declare on me when he's ready.

Many have tried and many have failed Nix.


114~!

No this is your thread. You can declare at will.

I will not make you into a SC martyr.

The 20th/21st century is certainly not the first time humans have squandered their resources and then faced starvation disease and cannibalism. Not only did ancients over harvest the big game in Africa they chased the last mammoth down all the way across Eurasia and North America and then over harvested the giant sloths too. Easter Island is the classic example. From the hill you could see the entire Island. The wing nut that chopped the last tree to roll his/her ceremonial stonehead must have known it was the last palm tree.

More recently, 19th century environmentalists did succeed in generating awareness that the sperm whale stock was severely depleted. Rather than inspiring a reduction in sperm-brain-candle use it inspired the invention of coal-gas, kerosene, oil drilling, and eventually light bulbs.

There is no need to worry about solving the carbon footprint. We have advanced to a level of technology where we can dispose of carbon. Now we can cover the earth with silica fume, radioactive waste, and/or megatons of battery acid. If you don't like the silica fumes we can replace doped silicon with a mixture of gallium and arsenic. Or lightweight thin films of exotic mixtures.

With over 10B people on earth there is no reason to worry about starving. Just keep your ammunition dry.

i think all the discussion here is fun and interesting. However, it is NOT advisable to attack someone who disagrees with you. Nix, I think it is foolish to pollute the planet with gun powders and radiation while you are trying to argue for the green.

the first time .. global .. population if faced with problems caused by ourselves i said.

while the "world" is spending billions on the so called war on terror, 8 mil people die every year because they dont have access to drinkable water.

to me humans are idiots.