LOL Y'all kill me. I love y'all fools.
The use of our planet is no longer sustainable
- Thread starter MoldyFrogToe
- Start date
LOL Y'all kill me. I love y'all fools.
Why are you directing this crap at me? I never said anything about oil.
I don't have ANY food in my fridge, homie. And I pay considerably more than 10% of my income for the food I do get. But that's because I'm (by american standards) quite poor.
Nah. I wouldn't. I don't spend 1 hour a day growing herb. Why would I spend 7 days a week, 365 days a year growing food?
I dunno... how about lumping everyone who disagrees with you into an arbitrary group without bothering to find out if they belong in it? Seems pretty idiotic to me, not to mention self-serving.
i can imagine an efficient global economy, countries working closer to sustain. its just the leaders don't tell us the truth about many subjects. stop keeping us in the dark. there wont be a ww3 because of nukes so why wouldn't people work more efficient. people need jobs right now in the us.
its all using time efficiently
its all using time efficiently
I forget who posted up here a bullshit chart from the WWF a few pages back as proof that our world's forests are declining.
When I pointed out that the chart was selective and only showed forests within the WWF area, this poster argued with me even though on the chart itself it clearly stated that it only included forests within the WWF area.
As stupid as that poster was, I thought I would give him a few little more facts about the bullshit organization that is the WWF.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-blighted-the-rainforest-harvest-for-WWF.html
When I pointed out that the chart was selective and only showed forests within the WWF area, this poster argued with me even though on the chart itself it clearly stated that it only included forests within the WWF area.
As stupid as that poster was, I thought I would give him a few little more facts about the bullshit organization that is the WWF.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-blighted-the-rainforest-harvest-for-WWF.html
Here you go, posting yet more untrammeled bullshit to further your own self-centered, anthropocentric and gluttonous agenda.
A family of 5 can live very well on a garden plot of approx. 100'x75', with no mules or plow horses or tractors and such. One very good method for this type of gardening was written about by a lady named Ruth Stout, in a book called "The No Work Garden Book". She wrote it when she was 87......and was still taking care of her entire garden and feeding herself and others...by her self...no horses, mules or tractors.
And before you cry "BULLSHIT" please note that I know people who are fucking well doing this AS WE SPEAK....so bugger off with your condescension and self-important( yet empty and ignorance based) arrogance.
Just because you can't farm like that doesn't mean it cannot be done, grapeman...it just means you don't know how.
Please open your eyes to the fact that there may be just a bit more to the world than you happen to know about at this time, grapeman...because your arrogant, condescending and totally full of shit attitude kinda makes you look like a fool. An clueless, malignant, ignorant, well brainwashed and very very narrow minded fool.
Are you sure you actually smoke dope?
Do you truly believe that the world forests are in BETTER shape than they were 200 years ago?
Are you actually saying that there is no deforestation problem, and that there is no global forest cover loss?
Are you actually that fucking clueless???
Do you live with your head so far up the sphincter of Fox news and the Corpo-Nazi bullshit that you can make claims like that with nothing to back them up other than your own opinion?
I have seen with my own eyes the absolute fucking RAPE of the land that is clearcutting.
I have also walked thru the sterile, monoculture tree farms that were planted to replace the real, living, vibrant forests that existed before and were destroyed so you can wipe yer ass with something soft and poofy.
Have YOU done these things, grapeman? Have you gone and talked to people who take their livelihood from the bush, and heard what THEY have to say about how fucked things are getting......or are ya just gonna believe whoever throws some research in your face that justifies your parasitic philosophy?
If you really do believe there is nothing wrong going on, and everything is hotsy totsy, you live in a heavier fantasy land than I thought......
Is Elvis there too?
Post a pic of your self contained garden that feeds your family of 5 or shut the fuck up. Most people live on lots no bigger then 100' x 100', so what do you propose they do, live in a tent on the corner of their lot so they can grow their own food on the other 75% of the lot? Moron. Or rather do you think obama should give everyone land? Yeah - that's it, just like the old Soviet Union. Reading books isn't growing your own food. So I will say now that you are full of shit.
There are more trees today then 200 years ago. FACT. The WWF's chart was bullshit as it did not include all of the world's forests, only the ones that fit their arguments and they get paid to monitor. And they say so right on their own chart. READ IT and STFU. Argue some more. That's what I said and that is the truth. Health of old growth forests is another topic that I did not comment upon.
I don't smoke dope.
I am smarter then you.
Graduate from high school before you throw crap in the wind please.
I will get you some pics of such a garden next time I speak to my buddies who have one....but I really don't have to prove anything to someone who lives in a fantasy land like you....I might as well argue with a Roswell freak or a Jehovah's Witness.
Besides...if an 87 year old lady kin do it in 3-5 hours a day...I think I can figure it out.
Sorry if you can't.
As for the trees..... please provide the exact sourcing for your claim that there are more trees than 200 years ago globally, because frankly, I think yer full of it.
Go tell the people in Madagascar if there are more forests than 200 years ago. Or Northern Quebec. Or BC. Or Brazil. Or Nigeria. Or New Brunswick. Or most of fucking Europe...
Shall I go on?
Remember, grapeman...I am talking about forests...not pulp trees in mono-culture lots. I am talking about trees that have a real use for some species other than man.....
Sterile mono culture tree farms stocked with rapid-growth pulp producers do NOT count as living, natural forests...how many fucking times do people have to point that out to you?
They are about as representative of a diverse forest ecology as a wheat field full of domestic wheat is representative of a healthy prairie ecology.
But of course...that doesn't matter, right....all that matters is:
MORE TREES = NO PROBLEM!
You choose to ignore the fact that humans have and still continue to pillage, defile, rape and abuse the only place we and millions of other species call home...... all in the name of "human superiority".
We have eradicated thousands of species in the last 200 years alone, bees are on a serious decline, 30% of amphibians world wide are dead, large pelagic predatory fish are down 90%, sharks are taking an appalling beating, there are no more fucking cod, coral reefs are dying by the hundreds of square miles, the ocean floor is littered with everything from radioactive waste to thousands of tons of mustard gas......but there is no problem, is there grapeman.....
Everything is ok, and besides, even if it was true, all of the above is justified...because you want yer 60" TV, steak every day and Monday Night Football. It's yer RIGHT...ain't, grapeman??
You seem to think that humans are the greatest thing since sliced bread because we can build cellphones, SUV's, superhighways and tall buildings.....and that gives us license to behave in a manner that is guided by nothing but gluttony, greed, malignancy and narcissism. And you ignore reality so you can justify it to yourself.....cuz yer entitled to some of them goodies to, ain't cha?
Wow, what an advanced philosophy you have. Reminds me of a squalling infant who doesn't want to grow up and give up the titty.....only with a capacity for wanton destruction and none of the innocence.
Oh...and one last question, Mr Right-Wing Fantasy-Land Humans are The Best:
If you don't smoke dope....WTF are you doing trolling a site dedicated to growing, processing and smokin' it?
PS: When making pompous, infantile and arrogant declarations of intellectual superiority, try to spell things correctly...it makes you look like less of a donkeyhonker:
remember...spell check is free...works in vBulletin....easy to use...right click, laddie....right click.
Last edited:
Like I thought, your garden does not exist in your world, only in a fantasy world. Oh yeah, send me a pic. That'll prove you can grow your own food.
It gets tiresome reading this fantasy from guys who grow a few pot plants in the back room or back yard, then extrapolating this experience into dreaming about growing all their own food. And doing so while making a living, providing for their family of 5 and being a productive member of society all at the same time.
If you can't figure out how to google then why should I do it for you.
There are more trees today then 200 years ago.
And my TV (at least the one I mainly watch and not counting the other 6 in my home) is a 73" LCD, not that 60" shit.
Yes, I am for nuclear power, coal fired power plants, iPhones and SUV's if I want one. I have 2 wood burning fire places that I don't need, but use a couple of nights a year just for the ambiance.
And I got a news flash for you. It won't matter for shit in the end. Everything is here on this planet temporarily and everything is recycled in the end. And after every end is a new beginning. And you or I can't do a thing about that.
So I choose to live by paying for the things I want and need. I grow food better then you so that is what I do. You don't like it, then grow your own. LOL.
We don't live on Avatar, and man has been using his natural resources to better his live and since the dawn of time.
Grow up.
Blah blah blah blah....
Still can't quote a source......and yer proud of your gluttony, just like I knew you would be.
Mankind has to learn that "bettering his life" and being successful on this planet does not mean having 7 TVs, and SUV and a belly full of beef to gratify his infantile need for immediate gratification.
We are not here to make lots of money, or build the biggest house, or exploit our planet/neighbours/animals/children/resources.....we are here to be alive, breathe clean air, enjoy the wonders of this planet and continue the species....life is not a question or mystery to be answered, nor is it a collectors competion to be won...it is an experience to be lived.
Period.
Until that lesson is learned, we have about as much survivability on a species level as a 4 year old diabetic with a bucket of gasoline, a lighter, a crack pipe, a shotgun and no insulin.
I think it is pretty evident that you are the one who needs to grow up, Mr Infantile Immediate Gratification...... can't even face reality nor give up your bloated pleasures for the sake of your childrens future (if you have any, which I hope you don't, for their sakes). I guess you need all those toys and indulgences to feel alive.....kinda sad, in a certain way..
BTW...you still did not answer my quetion...if you don't smoke dope....why are you here?
Do you get yer jollies outta trolling the longhairs?
JacuzziSplot
Member
http://storyofstuff.org/ Idk if any of you have seen this. She says in 20 mins what took me years to figure out.
The more I think about it the more I feel most intelligent people know deep down it's all gonna come crashing down. Most people are just betting their own death will come first so they dont have to worry about giving up the range rover, surf and turf, ect... because their kids and grandchildren arent worth giving all that stuff up for. Because the alternative would mean evolution has completely failed humans and we are now too stupid to survive.
The more I think about it the more I feel most intelligent people know deep down it's all gonna come crashing down. Most people are just betting their own death will come first so they dont have to worry about giving up the range rover, surf and turf, ect... because their kids and grandchildren arent worth giving all that stuff up for. Because the alternative would mean evolution has completely failed humans and we are now too stupid to survive.
well, that certainly explains a lot.
Probably explains why I don't post here crying "that the sky is falling, the trees are crying, the water is revolting and I'm going to start growing all my own food because I read it in a book somewhere and it looks so easy anyone can do it".
yep, that about sums it up.
JacuzziSplot
Member
There is nothing wrong with not smoking pot of coarse but its not fair to say smoking it make you dumb. can you show me any evidence it does? The world is not ending this has all happened before about 1500 years ago with the fall of Rome.
"Why did Rome Fall?
There are adherents to single factors, but more people think a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, Pollution, monetary trouble, and military problems caused the Fall of Rome. Governmental incompetence and chance could be added to the list. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as a reason for Rome's fall."Alfred P. Dorjahn and Lester K. Born. The Classical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Dec., 1934), pp. 148-158. Sounds just like today huh?
We can try to restore balance or let another 1000 years of darkness fall upon the world. The laws of physics are unbend-able.
MoldyFrogToe
Member
Jeez, grape is still goin at it huh.
It must be easy when you have ignorance & corporate power on your side, which is the majority of our global culture.
Dismissal as environuts, marxism, blah blah blah, it's all just grab phrases to get the attention of the many.
Notice how Grape hasn't posted anything scientific, no references, no sources, nothing.
He just conveniently sits back, spits the venom, and then books it without giving anything solid aside from flufftalk.
Grape, you can't attack anything scientifically, it's all hearsay with you. What the fizzle? That's rhetorical btw, lol.
Anyways, this seems like it should go here..
Nature loss dwarfs bank crisis
The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests
than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study.
It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform,
such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.
Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund nature protection rather than allowing
the decline in ecosystems and species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened Species, to continue.
Capital losses
Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress,
study leader Pavan Sukhdev emphasised that the cost of
natural decline dwarfs losses on the financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening
every year, year after year," he told BBC News.
"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost,
within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate
we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."
The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb),
was initiated by Germany under its recent EU presidency,
with the European Commission providing funding.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding
that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP.
The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.
Stern message
Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline,
nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead,
perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide,
or farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
The Teeb calculations show that the cost falls disproportionately on the poor,
because a greater part of their livelihood depends directly on the forest, especially in tropical regions.
The greatest cost to western nations would initially come through losing a natural absorber of the most important greenhouse gas.
Just as the Stern Review brought the economics of climate change into the political arena and helped politicians see the consequences
of their policy choices, many in the conservation community believe the Teeb review will lay open the economic consequences of halting
or not halting the slide in biodiversity.
"The numbers in the Stern Review enabled politicians to wake up to reality," said Andrew Mitchell,
director of the Global Canopy Programme, an organisation concerned with directing financial resources into forest preservation.
"Teeb will do the same for the value of nature, and show the risks we run by not valuing it adequately."
A number of nations, businesses and global organisations are beginning to direct funds into forest conservation,
and there are signs of a trade in natural ecosystems developing, analogous to the carbon trade, although it is clearly very early days.
Some have ethical concerns over the valuing of nature purely in terms of the services it provides humanity;
but the counter-argument is that decades of trying to halt biodiversity decline by arguing for the intrinsic worth
of nature have not worked, so something different must be tried.
Whether Mr Sukhdev's arguments will find political traction in an era of financial constraint is an open question,
even though many of the governments that would presumably be called on to fund forest protection are the ones
directly or indirectly paying for the review.
But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.
"Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.
"Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this,
how can we monetise it, what can we do about it, why don't you speak with so and so politician or such and such business."
The aim is to complete the Teeb review by the middle of 2010,
the date by which governments are committed under the Convention of Biological Diversity
to have begun slowing the rate of biodiversity loss.
It must be easy when you have ignorance & corporate power on your side, which is the majority of our global culture.
Dismissal as environuts, marxism, blah blah blah, it's all just grab phrases to get the attention of the many.
Notice how Grape hasn't posted anything scientific, no references, no sources, nothing.
He just conveniently sits back, spits the venom, and then books it without giving anything solid aside from flufftalk.
Grape, you can't attack anything scientifically, it's all hearsay with you. What the fizzle? That's rhetorical btw, lol.
Anyways, this seems like it should go here..
Nature loss dwarfs bank crisis
The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests
than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study.
It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform,
such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.
Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund nature protection rather than allowing
the decline in ecosystems and species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened Species, to continue.
Capital losses
Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress,
study leader Pavan Sukhdev emphasised that the cost of
natural decline dwarfs losses on the financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening
every year, year after year," he told BBC News.
"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost,
within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate
we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."
The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb),
was initiated by Germany under its recent EU presidency,
with the European Commission providing funding.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding
that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP.
The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.
Stern message
Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline,
nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead,
perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide,
or farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
The Teeb calculations show that the cost falls disproportionately on the poor,
because a greater part of their livelihood depends directly on the forest, especially in tropical regions.
The greatest cost to western nations would initially come through losing a natural absorber of the most important greenhouse gas.
Just as the Stern Review brought the economics of climate change into the political arena and helped politicians see the consequences
of their policy choices, many in the conservation community believe the Teeb review will lay open the economic consequences of halting
or not halting the slide in biodiversity.
"The numbers in the Stern Review enabled politicians to wake up to reality," said Andrew Mitchell,
director of the Global Canopy Programme, an organisation concerned with directing financial resources into forest preservation.
"Teeb will do the same for the value of nature, and show the risks we run by not valuing it adequately."
A number of nations, businesses and global organisations are beginning to direct funds into forest conservation,
and there are signs of a trade in natural ecosystems developing, analogous to the carbon trade, although it is clearly very early days.
Some have ethical concerns over the valuing of nature purely in terms of the services it provides humanity;
but the counter-argument is that decades of trying to halt biodiversity decline by arguing for the intrinsic worth
of nature have not worked, so something different must be tried.
Whether Mr Sukhdev's arguments will find political traction in an era of financial constraint is an open question,
even though many of the governments that would presumably be called on to fund forest protection are the ones
directly or indirectly paying for the review.
But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.
"Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.
"Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this,
how can we monetise it, what can we do about it, why don't you speak with so and so politician or such and such business."
The aim is to complete the Teeb review by the middle of 2010,
the date by which governments are committed under the Convention of Biological Diversity
to have begun slowing the rate of biodiversity loss.
Read E.O. Wilson's "The Future Of Life." Very compelling.
MoldyFrogToe
Member
Thanks hippie, will have to check it out, not sure if this quote came from it but I've always thought it was pretty moving
E.O. Wilson
Biologist and author, Harvard University
“….the worst thing that will probably happen – in fact is already well
underway – is not energy depletion, economic collapse, conventional
war, or even the expansion of totalitarian governments. As terrible as
these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few
generations.
The process now ongoing that will take millions of years to correct is
the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural
habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
E.O. Wilson
Biologist and author, Harvard University
“….the worst thing that will probably happen – in fact is already well
underway – is not energy depletion, economic collapse, conventional
war, or even the expansion of totalitarian governments. As terrible as
these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few
generations.
The process now ongoing that will take millions of years to correct is
the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural
habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
Sure no problem. If you want any more reading I have a list from the class I'm taking.
And yep, that's him.
And yep, that's him.
I still don't see you backing up any of your fantasy claims, grapeman.....
All I see is a whiny little boy pointing fingers, calling names and spewing bullshit....all for the purpose of justifying your greed, gluttony and total disregard for anyone but yourself.
Do you have kids, grapeman?
Do you tell them you love them?
Well, if you do they are pretty hollow fucking words, because you are ransoming their future so you can be a parasitic sucker of earth with 7 TVs and whatever else your infantile desires dictate.
Show me some REAL fucking documentation to back up your claim there are more trees and forests than 200 years ago...please.
I'd LOVE to read it.
MoldyFrogToe
Member
http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/2000/report/en/
FAO's latest Global Forest Resources Assessment, completed in 2000
Next one comes out in 2011
FAO's latest Global Forest Resources Assessment, completed in 2000
Next one comes out in 2011
