Can you beat the system?

This is a discussion on Can you beat the system? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by ethic Or maybe you should try the Jared Diamond books, notably Collapse . Hehe. Propaganda much. Exactly ...

  1. #31
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Or maybe you should try the Jared Diamond books,
    notably Collapse.
    Hehe. Propaganda much. Exactly the type of books doomentalists like to quote. But no quote? You should quote. Doomentalists love quotes.

    There's plenty of sources regarding overfishing and
    soil erosion.
    Yeah. And I throw back at you the "regional" argument. just because some fool decides to make a mess of their resources, doesn't mean everyone is or, for that matter, the world resources are shrinking.

    But not that it matters; because you probably won't
    accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints
    as valid. You see a pile of fish at your local grocery
    store and assume all is well. Your "eyes are open" eh?
    It's one way to put it. Another way is that -- catch this, it's profound -- you probably won't accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints as valid.

    You see that's the problem with fundamentalists. Their arguments come back in a full circle to bite them in the face.

    But more to the point of your argument. No. Piles of fish tell me little. But thtis is what tells me more:

    - Fishing quotas in most industrialized countries with scientific backing that is responsible for government regulated fishing and the protection of species and their numbers.

    - Dairy farmers going bankrupt all over Europe because there's a surplus of milk.

    - World market prices for farming products being determined by floods, hurricanes, droughts, bad or good seasons and not by scarcity of arable soil.

    - etc.

    You know, we have a saying around here: The dogs always bark when the caravan is passing.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #32
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    I got 6.09
    *Note to self: Conquer Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and Mercury*
    *P.S. conquer them before they are denounced from planets*

    I don't see why we have to group every single thing. Some resources are decreasing other are increasing. Oil for example is decreasing, if you consider that it is not created as fast as we consume it.
    Will humans decrease all the resources? I am not a foreteller. It depends on a lot of things. I always think that sudden deaths are more likely than slow deaths. Slowly decreasing our resources until we die is something I don't think we will do. Humans adapt. And they adapt well. And when they adapt they adapt some more. If water is reduced in critical levels we won't keep taking a bath everyday... We will also strongly focus on using the ocean water, gathering more rain water etc etc. The same that we suppose to do when we run out of oil. There are ways. And lets not forget that technology focuses more and more on low-resources. They could care less about the environment, but recourses cost.

    What are my feeling about fanatic environmentalists? I might laugh at them because I am a bad person, but I find them doing far more good than bad. The ideal is to have non-fanatic people that are as "passionate" as necessary. Because that is simply impossible, you should have fanatics in both sides to achieve a balance. The one-sided thing is what causes major problems. And the scale is towards high-consuming today and not caring about that much about the environment. Even if people cannot actually do any harm to it, which I doubt, the truth is that they simply don't really care that much.

    I don't say don't drive your car because of pollution, but if we had a way to create a more efficient non-high polluting car, I would support it. The idea that we should protect the environment is obvious.

  3. #33
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,738
    Well I personally don't think humans can run out of resources, simply because everything on Earth is an available resource, even the waste, if you can find a use for it. To completely deplete any resources means to tear the planet asunder. Although, we can certainly decrease all resources -- that's what using them means.

  4. #34
    The larch
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,573
    Just blow away the cookie file for that site if you want to play again.
    The lowest I've managed is 1.36

    If a score <1 is in fact impossible on that site, then it's a scam.
    I managed 1.35 (of course not all answers are true). I guess a big assumption is that the person lives in a house in the first place. I wonder what would be the footprint of a homeless guy whose entire livelyhood comes from recycling the wastes of others?...

    Some of the questions seem somewhat poor: e.g "do you regularly turn off lights and not leave appliances on standby?" - so if I do the former but not the latter?
    I might be wrong.

    Thank you, anon. You sure know how to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away.
    Quoted more than 1000 times (I hope).

  5. #35
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Funny...
    It claims that I'm living like we have 2.35 planets to support us, and that is utterly ridiculous.
    I'm below poverty level right now in terms of how much money I have, and don't use up that much of energy. A ridiculous calculation, and I gave it truthful answers too...
    I'm an alien from another world. Planet Earth is only my vacation home, and I'm not liking it.

  6. #36
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Programmer_P View Post
    Funny...
    It claims that I'm living like we have 2.35 planets to support us, and that is utterly ridiculous.
    I'm below poverty level right now in terms of how much money I have, and don't use up that much of energy. A ridiculous calculation, and I gave it truthful answers too...
    I would think it's more a reflection on world population
    than it is on one's specific lifestyle. There are so many
    people that even if you were to live just with the essentials,
    there still wouldn't be enough to go around to support
    everybody equally.

    Thankfully, however, 82% of the world's population live
    in less-developed countries and the other 18% have
    more than their fair share.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Hehe. Propaganda much. Exactly the type of books doomentalists like to quote. But no quote? You should quote. Doomentalists love quotes.
    Yes. It's exactly the type of books we like to quote.
    Science books written by scientists who have done
    research.

    And yet, it's still more literature than what you can come
    up with. Instead you cherry pick fragments of information
    you personally observe (or misinterpret; or just make up
    on the spot) and assume that it's indicative of healthy,
    responsible resource usage.

    I would hardly call Jared Diamond's books propaganda.
    They're well-sourced history books and have received
    numerous positive reviews and awards from both literary
    and scientific organizations. Jared Diamond is an actual
    scientist and a well respected professor of Geography at
    one of the highest-ranked Universities on the planet.

    Do you consider Richard Dawkins books propaganda?
    Because you should. Simply for the sake of staying
    consistent.

    How about you offer me some literature so I can have
    a chance to call that propaganda. Actually, I won't even
    call it propaganda. Depending on the source, I would
    probably read it myself and weigh it against other things
    I've read instead of just dismissing it simply because it's
    in opposition to my current viewpoint. You know, like you
    have done. I would actually love to be proven wrong.

    And I throw back at you the "regional" argument. just because some fool decides to make a mess of their resources, doesn't mean everyone is or, for that matter, the world resources are shrinking.
    When it happens at multiple regions all across the world,
    I would consider that global resource exhaustion.

    70% of all the fisheries on the planet are operating above
    sustainable levels.

    The North China Plains Aquifer, the Saudi Aquifer, and the
    Ogallala Aquifer (United States) are all being over pumped.
    Absolutely this will have a huge effect on global grain
    production.

    - Dairy farmers going bankrupt all over Europe because there's a surplus of milk.
    First of all, Milk isn't a natural resource. In fact, the
    consumption of it is completely unnatural. But even ignoring
    that little bit of biology...

    lol. Milk surplus. phew. For a minute I was worried!

    - World market prices for farming products being determined by floods, hurricanes, droughts, bad or good seasons and not by scarcity of arable soil.
    The scarcity of arable land is what's causing wealthy
    countries to procure land in poor countries in order to
    grow food for their own population. That's absolutely
    true.

    But, hey, here's a quote for you. I love quotes. I never
    expected you to actually read that book I gave to you.
    So I'll just highlight a passage from the first chapter. I
    love quoting. Quoting is fun.

    From mid-2006 to mid-2008, world prices of wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans roughly tripled, reaching historic highs. It was not until the global economic crisis beginning in 2008 that grain prices receded somewhat. But even then they were still well above the historical level.3

    The world has experienced several grain price surges over the last half-century, but none like this. These earlier trends were event-driven—a monsoon failure in India, a severe drought in the Soviet Union, or a crop-shrinking heat wave in the U.S. Midwest. The price surges were temporary, caused by weather-related events that were usually remedied by the next harvest. The record 2006–08 surge in grain prices is different. It is trend-driven. This means that working our way out of this tightening food situation depends on reversing the trends that are causing it, such as soil erosion, falling water tables, and rising carbon emissions.
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 06-20-2010 at 11:45 PM. Reason: Geography. Not Geology. My bad.
    Staying away from General.

  7. #37
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    You're living as if we had 2.84 planets to support us but we only have one.
    Wow... maybe I should not have bought a new TV after 10 years? Or maybe I should spend 10 hours a week in a crowded bus instead of 3 hours in my car? Or maybe I should live at "comfortable" 14° room temperature? Or maybe I shouldn't answer surveys from people that make a living based on the fact that I'm supposed to feel guilty?
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  8. #38
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    First of all, Milk isn't a natural resource. In fact, the
    consumption of it is completely unnatural.
    Today I heard it all.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #39
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Today I heard it all.
    Lactose intolerance is part of mammalian evolution. Among
    all mammals, lactase (enzymes that break down lactose)
    production is reduced after weaning; and among humans
    in non-dairy societies, the vast majority of the populations
    are lactose intolerant. People that can consume milk can
    do so because of a mutation on the chromosome which
    controls lactase production.

    Interspecies milk consumption is absolutely unnatural because
    it doesn't happen anywhere else except among humans.
    Milk exists for one purpose only: to feed the young of the
    same species.
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 06-21-2010 at 02:53 PM.
    Staying away from General.

  10. #40
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    If there is something worst that an know-it-all, is a know-it-all that distorts the truth in order to produce an argument. And there's too many of those little gremlins around. You just being yet another one of them. I disagree with Bubba. It's not fun to argue with you -- making statements that are technically correct but omit important details, is at the core of intellectual dishonesty. Something that will invariably remove you from any serious debate if you keep doing it.

    You not only bring lactose tolerance which have nothing to do with milk being or not being a natural product, but also completely ignore genetic mutation, which is a natural phenomena, to construe a case that milk is not a natural product to human beings.

    Milk is a natural product. It comes from nature. It's not man-made. It's natural. End of story!

    As for your lactose intolerance rubbish argument, three things:

    - By the same account, most farming products today would not be natural because thousands of years of domestication and inter and inbreeding of plants and animals have changed both their genes and our own. No doubt our wheat today would poison a paleolithic man. And their wheat then would probably poison us today.

    - Lactose intolerance is not dominant across the globe, if we exclude China.

    - Lactose intolerance on these countries only affects unprocessed milk. Milk derived products are consumed (and have been consumed by humans for longer than milk itself) without concern, even on these countries or regions. Sicily, for instance, has some of the most famous sheep cheese of Italy. People that are intolerant to cheese or chocolate suffer from pathological lactose intolerance and not the recessive genetic form. And Pathological Lactose Intolerance, as the name suggests, has absolutely nothing to do with human adaptation to milk. It's a condition.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #41
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    If there is something worst that an know-it-all
    I'm not a know-it-all. I know nothing about programming (anymore) or technology or linux or any of that stuff. I don't offer (many) opinions on politics & such either. But I do formally study Biology (Ecology) and am deeply interested in it. When the opportunity arises, I chime in on topics that relate to it. I mean, the entire reason why I decided to go to college was so I could argue with people on the internet. I'm not going to let my education go to waste.

    making statements that are technically correct but omit important details, is at the core of intellectual dishonesty. Something that will invariably remove you from any serious debate if you keep doing it.
    I'm not being dishonest at all. I speak what I know. I'm not purposely omitting details. If there are other details, I may not know what they are. Feel free to enlighten me. Seriously. I want to know more stuff. I'm completely fine acknowledging I don't have all the facts about everything.

    The problem is, however, is that a lot of the stuff others, such as your self, have said can't even be considered "technically correct." A lot of it is illogical, anecdotal, ill-supported assertions and generalizations. Most of my replies have been in response to these. You even called me a "Doomentalist!" That itself shows your bias against people of the opposing viewpoint. Argue however you wish; but don't think for a second that your methods lend themselves well to "serious debate."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post

    You not only bring lactose tolerance which have nothing to do with milk being or not being a natural product, but also completely ignore genetic mutation, which is a natural phenomena, to construe a case that milk is not a natural product to human beings.
    I never said milk itself was unnatural. I said interspecies consumption of it is; as well as its continued consumption long after one has been weened. The purpose of milk is to provide nourishment for one's own offspring during the period in which they're unable to procure food for themselves. That's why it exists. It doesn't matter that some humans are capable of consuming it; the milk isn't intended or required for them. Lactose tolerance was a region-specific adaptation which offered a slight advantage over the norm. The fact that people outside of those regions (such as urbanites) continue to consume it is absolutely unnecessary and unnatural. What I did say was that milk wasn't a natural resource. However, I will admit I was wrong and say that it is indeed a natural resource. Even though it isn't essential and could easily be disregarded by most of humanity. It doesn't need to be a resource.

    - Lactose intolerance is not dominant across the globe, if we exclude China.
    So we're gong to exclude groups of people simply to satisfy your argument. I don't know what you have against the Chinese people, man; but they're humans, too! They should be included in any global statistic!

    Talk about "distorting" truths.

    "Hey guys! If we choose to not count 1/6 of the global population, the numbers will lend themselves better to my argument!"

    I don't care about milk anymore. It's stupid. You can have the milk argument! Congratulations. Score one for you. Still doesn't change the fact that resources are being depleted rapidly and people are living far above the carrying capacity of the planet.
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 06-22-2010 at 02:57 PM.
    Staying away from General.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    99
    I'm at 4.42 planets, and they didn't even ask me about the extra beer fridge, or the boats and jetski. Thing is, I'm not changing a darned thing.

    I don't even recycle anymore since they eliminated the "Comingled" bin. The hell if I'm going to keep 10 different cans in my house to sort that crap.

  13. #43
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Milk exists for one purpose only:
    To wet my cornflakes in the morning.
    Sent from my iPad®

  14. #44
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    To wet my cornflakes in the morning.
    Oh man don't even get me started on corn production.
    Staying away from General.

  15. #45
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Oh man don't even get me started on corn production.
    Good...don't get me started on it either since I've worked on both sides of that industry....on the farm that grows it and at the processing plant that converts it to be used in..um...just about everything you touch.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. File System Implementation
    By dodgeviper in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 12:04 PM
  2. Using system icons
    By @nthony in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 06:56 PM
  3. Functions
    By aznballerlee in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-24-2006, 04:20 PM
  4. Linux database system needed
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-11-2006, 03:56 PM
  5. BIOS system and memory allocation problem
    By beely in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 06:12 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21