CO2 MYTH BUSTED

[foomar]

The 80 year gap depends on what you class as a major global conflict , most are confined to a region and leave no massive changes in their wake , these are considered to be the really big ones that did but your view depends where you live.

Hundred years war England and France between 1337 and 1453

303 years

French & Indian/Seven Years' War 1756 to 1763

29 years

French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars 1792 to 1815

89 years

World War I 1914 to 1918

21 years

World War II 1939 to 1945

5 years

Korean war 1950-1953

61 years

Present day 2014

From the Russian perspective they have already lost influence in the middle east and will probably lose Syria as well , dreadfull losses in WW 1 and even worse in The great patriotic war (ww 2 to us ) not forgetting Napoleans invasion and Afghanistan and losing face in Cuba.

Their people have a desire to regain superpower status that goes far beyond Putins electioneering sabre rattling and genuinely feel they are entitled to at least the Ukraine back as well as some other cold war satellites , I don't think Europe will do very much and the US has shifted to facing down China.

NATO cannot do very much , nukes are not an option for either side and Europe,s energy supply has become tied to Russia , sanctions are ineffective and will harm us as much as them if not more.

I've never seen a person IRL, who has been disfigured by hereditary Syphillis

Saw some back in India last year , quite shocking as its a very advanced country in many ways and could have been cured for less than a pound.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I was speaking to more of generational theory. While the American Civil war was a regional conflict it had broad transnational implications on sovereignty and democracy throughout the world. There are loads of scholastic essays which assert as much.

Yes, relativity according to geographical context can be argued, but that's what historiography is all about.

I find conceptualizing global change and conflict in the context of generational archetypes to be a compelling explanation of why history repeats itself.



The over arching theme being it's been about 80 years since the last great conflict and a brief look around the world hints to things going awry once again.

 

[Mate Dave]

All you non organic growers contribute to the shit environment we live in. Fuck you you twats!

 

[GreeeeN GRassss]

All you non organic growers contribute to the shit environment we live in. Fuck you you twats!

lol. im sure your carbon foot print is the same as everyone

 

[Harry Gypsna]

All you non organic growers contribute to the shit environment we live in. Fuck you you twats!

Because HPS lamps and the mining of copper for ballast windings are sooo Green aren't they

Rock Phosphorous mining is hugely destructive, as is the collection of bat and seabird guano and the cutting of peat.

Nobody who is growing in any way other than exclusively in the earth, under the big growlight in the sky has clean hands in this mate. If this is the case with you, then I take my hat off to you.

 

[SativaBreather]

All you non organic growers contribute to the shit environment we live in. Fuck you you twats!

and you're a drain on our oxygen

 

[foomar]

All you non organic growers contribute to the shit environment we live in. Fuck you you twats

What about the problems in India with the commercialisation of Neem , poor farmers being driven off the land for plantations to satisfy western organic growers demands ?

Bastards !

 

[HempKat]

The shit environment we live in is due to the fact that nobody really cares about the environment. Sure we have environmental protection agencies, we have "tree huggers" fighting deforestation, we have PETA and Greenspeace protecting animals from extinction but even people within these organizations do things, utilize technologies, etc. that contribute to the overall problems of the world. Sure there may be an insignificantly small number of people that live in a totally environmentally friendly way but it's not enough to make a difference and the lifestyle is so hard that it will never be adopted by a large enough segment of the population. The real problem is that when it comes right down to it virtually every human on the planet thinks of themselves first and everything is secondary to that. The only likely way that will change is if we get to a point where things are going so wrong that people become willing to make the sacrifices necessary to live in a truly environmentally friendly way in the hopes of avoiding complete annihilation of mankind. The problem though is by the time we get to that point it will already be too late. The only other way is if the movers and shakers decide to start building ways for us to live in environmentally friendly ways without having to make too many sacrifices to the comfortable way of life many enjoy or aspire to. The problem there though is it would be too expensive to reach and once there it would be very hard to make the kind of money they make now. Like with solar energy. It could potentially solve a lot of our problems if everyone lived off of solar energy but it's to expensive and too problematic to build enough resources that a company can control and meet the demands of the consumers plus once there how do you raise rates to make more money when the source of that energy is free? Or if instead of solar farms being built, if everyone that owned a home or a parcel of land had their own solar arrays, beyond the money to be made selling it too them to have an array how do you make money off them once it's operational and meeting their needs?

There are all kinds of solutions known for improving ways to acquire the energy we need to do the things we want, to live the lives we live now but all of them need infrastructure built to make them practical and nobody wants to pony up the cost for that. For example Hydrogen fuel cell cars which can provide the long range ability to transport ourselves at the speeds we're accustom to and whose only emissions is water vapor. We have the knowledge now to make vehicles powered by this clean energy source but what we don't have is a network of stations where people can refuel that energy source to make it practical and as such there is not enough demand and so the manufacturers can't make them affordable enough for the general public, so it's dead in the water. Electric is a little better especially since people can plug them into outlets at their homes with the nifty side bonus of it acting as a UPS in the event of a power failure but again right now it's too expensive for the average person and there are still many problems, mostly to do with range of use and time to recharge that need to be fixed to really make them desirable to enough people where the price points can come down.

Really most of the worlds problems could be solved but the problem is that if it's an effective solution the people providing it want to charge such a high premium for it being better whether it actually costs more to make or not. For example there is an obesity problem and other health issue associated with the diet most people in civilized countries enjoy. So there is a need to fix that problem and so companies have begun making "healthier" foods, with things like Fat Free or Sugar Free or portions measured out to amounts where people can keep from overdoing it more. Yet invariably when compared to their less healthy, non fat free, non sugar free, non controlled portion counter parts they are noticeably more expensive. Organic foods is another example, many feel organics is healthier and so there is a fairly strong demand for it. The providers of non organic foods though are the big players in the food industry and as such they have used their power to lobby government into making organic foods so regulated that it forces organic food providers to have to charge a much higher price.

Even within the current way we live there have been many solutions developed over the years that would make our use of energy less harmful, less damaging but manufacturers get the rights to these technologies and then shelve them and the public never knows about them or forgets them. Like with cars, right now fuel economy is stuck somewhere in the mid 40 Mpg range as being the best. Yet in the 90's I remember there being cars boasting highway Mpg's as high as 60. So why now several decades later are we stuck with lower rates being the best? Because it would cost the manufactures a lot of money to properly retool factories and we would be less dependent on gas providers.

So until mankind can cure itself of the human condition of greed and self gratification as being their primary driving force we will continue to find ourselves plagued with the problems we now face.