A Hotter Future Is Certain, but How Hot Is Up to Us.

I believe that when we have the capability to destroy galaxies then we will be a threat to the natural order of things in the universe, I didn't actually say this was needed to affect earth in that post but the universe, you seem to be unable to grasp what was written. Worrying that our insignificant species with it's limited "technologies" is affecting/changing the natural balance of the planet is, as I said in my first post, arrogance.

Your assumptions betray your intellect.
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
I believe that when we have the capability to destroy galaxies then we will be a threat to the natural order of things in the universe, I didn't actually say this was needed to affect earth in that post but the universe, you seem to be unable to grasp what was written. Worrying that our insignificant species with it's limited "technologies" is affecting/changing the natural balance of the planet is, as I said in my first post, arrogance.

Your assumptions betray your intellect.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are trying to say. But do you also believe that the fact that a lot of humans will perish while nature restores the balance is alright and nothing should be done in that regard. If you've seen or read about Chernobyl, then how can you say that humans can't cause massive destruction to nature. I don't have to go even that far as I can see how unscientific cutting of hills leads to so many landslides in my state of Himachal. After becoming the dominant species on this planet, humans have forgotten how to live in harmony with nature and our sheer numbers have overloaded the resource supply. Yes, you may be correct that we may be insignificant in grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean that we can't strive to prolong the existence of our species.
 
Your post is more apt on the subject than others. Yes natural resources are being depleted. Yes climate change is occurring but nature will sort itself out. Yes minor events like nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants cause some "short term damage" on a level humans identify with personally, rather than absolutely. I also agree we are the dominant species on the planet and we do not live in harmony. For just a second I'd like people to ponder the idea that instead of going on about climate change, they might ponder why we are living unnatural lives. I really appreciate your last line, perfectly summed. Bravo. Yes we can try to curb short term climate change that will bring short term calamity to the human race, while the planet will not have a care in the "world" as it adjusts itself over millennia (eons?). In the end we are doomed, it is an inevitable fate and I see no reason to run from it like rats from a sinking ship. With that said I do not object to people struggling with their futile efforts to save humanity another day but the people who believe we will be the end of our planet are still, arrogant.

My tip of the hat to an intelligent post. Again bravo kind sir, bravo.
 
The primary issue is the explosion of human population which has resulted in its quadrupling over the past 100 years resulting in sudden explosion in medicine, communication, transportation, technology, deforestation, increased demand for food and water, so on and so forth.
Longevity has increased substantially adding to the dramatic increase in population.
The depletion of natural resources is a direct offshoot of population explosion resulting in demand.

If the human intellectual evolution has made dramatic progress in last 100/150 years, it has also brought in its cons leading to environmental degradation.
It needs collective wisdom and commitment to mitigate (overcome will have to be a very long drawn process).

At the current state of the direction of growth, our future generations are definitely not blessed, but we humans will always find temporary solution of adaptation at whatever cost as our DNA's are tunes for survival.

The difference between us and the depleting population of other sans human creatures is specifically that. Unlike us, they remain the servitude of nature and we tend to act as GODS.

Time to wake up I guess

Decadent_Spectre said:
With that said I do not object to people struggling with their futile efforts to save humanity another day but the people who believe we will be the end of our planet are still, arrogant.
Click to expand...
I do see your point. In all likelihood, we would possibly dig our own graves, but would have left the environment in possibly in its worst shape ever. Life they will always find a way either in human or some other form or our own cataclysmic demise may wake the better side of us to resurrect ourselves.

This thread is absolutely about that....positivity, self appraisal and accountability, before it is too long and late....
 
As I said in my post, whatever short term climate change is avoided, we are still doomed. Further to that the environment has always sorted itself out, people might want to read up on "extinction events", and of course the most famous (probably) being the asteroid "that killed the dinosaurs".

If the planet has gone through these events as scientists claim and after all this if people believe humanity would irreparably damage/destroy the planet in such a short time span then I have no words for these people other than arrogance. People may wish to visit (however brief) the climate changes and various events the earth has gone through in the past since it's formation before jumping on the popular trendy "save the planet" bandwagon.

"positivity, self appraisal and accountability" You'll have to excuse me if I have already made my peace with humanity's inevitable downfall.

Hope is the pillar on which the fearful stand.
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
Arrogance indeed. My weapon analogy was not sarcastic, I mean it. Nuclear weapons (of which a whole 2 were used in actual combat) are nothing special in the grand scheme of things. When humans are capable of literally destroying galaxies, I will then take humans to be a threat to the balance of the universe. Until then climate change advocates may continue being a child in feeding.

I do not know who George Carlin is. I could google it, but your words (and you) are irrelevant to me, regardless of if it was a jab or not.

My opinion is not on the chart. I will not waste my time reading climate change drivel, so pass on the article.
Click to expand...

And you go around calling others arrogant while posting this?? You will take humans seriously when they start destroying other galaxies??
Climate change whether real or not is something even I have yet to decide but making small changes towards a cleaner, more eco friendly planet is common sense whether the planet is destroyed or not.. And you don't even know who George Carlin is ..
 
chander said:
but if there is no demand, supply will die automatically
Click to expand...
Some of it is happening. Many people ask for "Glass bottle of Thumbs Up", sale of glass bottles in kitchen is phenomenally growing up, rejecting plastic bottles. Surely, a time will come when people abandon plastic.

rdst_1 said:
Can you elaborate why is it not a viable solution for the end result that we are aiming for?
Click to expand...
Ask those singles who are about to be married. Don't they want children? After all it's a big change of their life, an Utsav. So the population will grow. How can you restrict them to have only one child? Its cruel. These offsprings will marry later and it is a chain reaction we can't suppress.

A few years ago, some researchers criticized the upcoming 4G, 5G and other microwave transmitters, which somehow attract too many cyclones. Remember, 3-4 decades ago, there were hardly any. In my schooling I read about Van De Graff Generator, which helps spread either +ve or -ve ions, attracting clouds for rain. The same principle used to rain in UAE. I wonder, why no one pays attention to this spiralling growth of these transmitters? Because people want connectivity ... at whatever the cost!
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
As I said in my post, whatever short term climate change is avoided, we are still doomed. Further to that the environment has always sorted itself out, people might want to read up on "extinction events", and of course the most famous (probably) being the asteroid "that killed the dinosaurs".

If the planet has gone through these events as scientists claim and after all this if people believe humanity would irreparably damage/destroy the planet in such a short time span then I have no words for these people other than arrogance. People may wish to visit (however brief) the climate changes and various events the earth has gone through in the past since it's formation before jumping on the popular trendy "save the planet" bandwagon.

"positivity, self appraisal and accountability" You'll have to excuse me if I have already made my peace with humanity's inevitable downfall.

Hope is the pillar on which the fearful stand.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how the dinosaurs died out ? What caused that ? What did the Asteroid cause that led to their extinction ? That damage was perfectly repairable in a couple of hundred years.

Do we know why Venus is like the way it is ? Why the Surface temperature of Venus is 465 degree celcius ? Why Mars is like that ?

Now someone will claim that the Earth is getting colder coz we will basically enter the Ice Age ( which is true ), coz the Sun is going to die in the next 5 billion years.

The Difference between the technology a Civilization has for destroying entire galaxies or even Solar Sytems and that of destroying or harming the natural cycle on some particular planet is so so huge. I cant get how anyone can claim this, thats why a big lmao once again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is one thing to talk about extinction which none of us, george carlin or michio kaku , can foretell

What is very clear is the simple and obvious facrs like the Ozone layer depletion causing cancer, how we are clogging up water supply with plastic and filth and impacting the ecosystem , pollution levels being unlivable in so many cities etc etc..

Sustainable living is nothing more than commonsense and that something we can all do . And this should make sense to do as it is nothing more than the basic sense of propagation of the species which all living organisms are inbuilt with

Lets leave blasting out other stars.. leave aside galaxies, to the realm of science fiction. We do not matter in the universe or even the solar system, but we do matter to our species and hence to the ecology in our planet and thats all that counts,

Anybody thinking about the collective good and acting in the right direction can only do good. Intellectualization and not doing anything might just be a bigger cause of our extinction :)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
panditji said:
And you go around calling others arrogant while posting this?? You will take humans seriously when they start destroying other galaxies??
Climate change whether real or not is something even I have yet to decide but making small changes towards a cleaner, more eco friendly planet is common sense whether the planet is destroyed or not.. And you don't even know who George Carlin is ..
Click to expand...

I didn't say I will take humans seriously when they start destroying other galaxies, perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. Please feel free to make "small changes" if it makes you feel better about doing "good". No I do not know who he is, nor do I care to.

Tuhin Lavania said:
Do you have any idea how the dinosaurs died out ? What caused that ? What did the Asteroid cause that led to their extinction ? That damage was perfectly repairable in a couple of hundred years.

Do you know why Venus is like the way it is ? Why the Surface temperature of Venus is 465 degree celcius ? Why Mars is like that ?
Please talk some sense.

Now this dude will claim that the Earth is getting colder coz we will basically enter the Ice Age ( which is true ), coz the Sun is going to die in the next 5 billion years.

The Difference between the technology a Civilization has for destroying entire galaxies or even Solar Sytems and that of destroying or harming the natural cycle on some particular planet is so so huge. I cant get how anyone can claim this, thats why a big lmao once again.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your trying to say with your questions. The damage was repairable and was repaired. Just like anything humans can do will be repaired (if there is any damage at all).

It's interesting that you mention the sun, because it is true. Not that it matters as we will be long gone before then.

We do not have the technology to destroy our planet currently. I still maintain the arrogance of those who believe we do.

Weren't you quitting?
 
If in such a small group, we have such passionate disagreements on climate change, imagine countries coming together in agreement.

Country 1: Hey let's do this to help the climate

Country 2: No way we are doing that. It will affect our economy.

Country 1: Are you putting economy and money before saving earth, you idiot ?

Country 2: Yes, I am. What are you going to do about it ?

Country 1: I will nuke you.

They both do and that is the end of climate change.
 
Tuhin Lavania said:
Nope, im not Quitting. Decided to come back for the sake of some timepass coz gems like you dont come by often.
When i mentioned extinction of Dinosaurs due to the asteroid i meant the damage done was hardly enough to be permanent. You clearly dont know how the asteroid led to a massive extinction level event 65 MYA othwerwise you wouldnt bring this into the argument.
That extinction level event and now what's happening are completely opposite and different.
Click to expand...
You clearly misunderstood what he is trying to say. He says that the way humans are phrasing this - Save the planet, is not true at all. The planet doesn't care. What we should be saying is, save humanity from getting extinct due to it's own actions. That's what he meant when he said that humans don't have the technology to destroy planets/stars /galaxies. In other words, we are too insignificant, but we are audacious enough to consider that 'saving the humans' is equal to 'saving the planet' when all we have done is destroy nature and ecologies which have resulted in the extinction of so many species. Also, I too believe that humans aren't intelligent enough to stop being selfish. Yes few are, but most aren't. So it's highly probable that most people will continue with their actions that continue destroying nature and hence 'humanity is doomed' and there is no coming back from this. Yes, many people are trying, but the level of effort this requires is too much. We already saw how selfish and irresponsible people can be during this pandemic. Imagine, how they will be in a truly apocalyptic event.
 
Neeraj0272 said:
My two bits:
There are multiple facets to this whole debate , many of which have not been even touched upon here.
One is why should developing countries or the poorer people follow the agenda of developed countries or richer people?
Another is that earth is less than a dot in the entire universe and while eco-warriors may rightly be saving earth but what if in future some major natural event happens like they show in the Hollywood movies and destroys the earth? Or even some man made event like nuclear Holocaust!
Someone pointed out human population but the fact is that life grows and grows exponentially. So if not human population then some other species will grow!
Recently I saw a twitter post where Oprah Winfrey is talking about doing her bit to save the climate. Next to it was a photo of her private luxury jet!
Humans are sheep and can be led anyways. There are plenty of examples proving that and the latest being Covid. So I would say that before jumping upon any bandwagon one should deliberate carefully.
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing some fresh thought into this discussion.

This may help clarify some FAQ on the issue:
www.wwf.org.uk

Here are 10 myths about climate change

We've tried to clear up some of the most frequently heard myths about climate change.
www.wwf.org.uk www.wwf.org.uk

On the much debated issue of developing countries vs rich countries it is now clear that the poor are disproportionately affected by climate change linked events. They are less protected, more vulnerable. So while we may choose to not act based on such an argument the poor in our country and everywhere, suffer more. We now know no country is spared; no one is unaffected and the IPCC report highlights that the scale and severity of natural disasters has been increasing and is going to increase more in the years ahead. Waiting for rich countries to act first is not a wise option. They do not feel obliged to act on our behalf.

Ultimately it’s up to our government and us to act and reduce impact of severe events and try to reduce the impact of human lifestyle on the environment. The national disaster management authority was set up 10 years ago and we have the (currently rather opaque) PM relief funds etc which are meant to prepare for, reduce vulnerability and respond to disasters. Yesterday I read about a scheme to scrap old and polluting vehicles. All good moves and hopefully more will follow.

While we can and probably should shine the spotlight on the super rich in our societies do you think that is going to help much? I read a family of four people live in a 30 floor super luxury building overlooking the biggest slum in Mumbai. But then looking in the mirror I realise many things I take for granted and enjoy without much thought are also damaging to the environment. I agree we need to deliberate carefully and while many people may be “sheep like” followers, the main question is how many of us are part of the “sheep” herd? Or can some/many of us lead and set examples for others to follow.
 
Last edited:
Neeraj0272 said:
But does this article say how can poor or hungry be concerned about climate change?
Which is more important?
Climate change or a world where every human has the equal opportunity to live life as decent as an average American or Brit is living?
Or women having equal rights?
Or war or terror-stricken countries having peace?
Or installing democracies in totalitarian regimes?
Or removing the spectre of religion in our day to day lives where one can not marry into another religion?
Even if it may be real, Climate change agenda won't work without the cooperation of global population and all countries.
Just as Covid isolationist agenda didn't work because there were always some leaks somewhere.
Among the problems I listed above and several others like these surely you will agree that Climate change is rich man's agenda.
Problem with rich man is that he is always out there to save the world from some problem or another and he expects the poor to follow his lead because he thinks the poor to be ignorants!
Click to expand...
Brother, we can not justify failure to act based on other injustices. (That’s “whataboutery” and serves only to distract)
All I am saying is waiting for the rich countries to act on our behalf is not going to help us.
They are taking it seriously as should we. (Check out the initiatives in Europe)
They will do what is in their best interests and their priorities; we need to do the same.

let us not forget: for a majority of people in our country you and I are the “rich”

www.imperial.ac.uk

What are the world’s countries doing about climate change?

The world's countries signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. This is the most important pact for international cooperation to act on climate change. By signing the Agreement, nations have committed to limit the increase in global warming to 'well below 2°C', with a goal to keep it to 1.5°C.
www.imperial.ac.uk www.imperial.ac.uk

www.nationalgeographic.com

World climate change report card: These countries are meeting goals

In the lead-up to the UN's climate change conference on Monday, we take a look at which nations are on track to meet climate goals and which are tanking.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com

www.iberdrola.com

Countries most affected by Climate Change - Iberdrola

Durante la celebración de la COP25 en Madrid el instituto Germanwatch presentó los resultados del Índice de Riesgo Climático (IRC) Global 2020. Según este análisis, basado en los impactos de los eventos climáticos extremos y las pérdidas socioeconómicas que provocan, Japón, Filipinas y Alemania...
www.iberdrola.com www.iberdrola.com

Some good news?
“

India is ahead of the pack​

India catches flack in the mainstream press because its emissions have increased 300 percent in 20 years, but the Climate Action Tracker lists it as the only G20 nation whose actions are compatible with keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius. (Only two countries in the world are currently compliant with the 1.5-degree-climate commitment: Morocco and The Gambia)

That’s because, compared to nations like the U.S. and China, India’s legacy of emissions is low. The nation’s carbon pollution also remains limited relative to the size of its population, thanks to the Indian government’s efforts to transition people away from large modes of transportation to small electric-powered scooters and three-wheelers.

Girls ride an electric scooter in Ahmedabad, India, December 30, 2018. Photo by REUTERS/Amit Dave

Girls ride an electric scooter in Ahmedabad, India, Dec. 30, 2018. Photo by REUTERS/Amit Dave
India has also emerged as a leader in the energy transition, with solar and hydroelectric accounting for 34 percent of its power capacity. But the South Asian nation still relies on coal for more than half of its energy.

At this week’s U.N. climate summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his intentions to expand renewable energy, but his plans would fall short of hitting a 1.5-degree-climate commitment. That’s because it’s unclear if India will significantly scale back on coal going forward.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve
 
Here is an example of a bold/tough, necessary and possibly unpopular decision made to address heaviest-polluters and deadly effects on….everyone who has to breathe.

Green Court NGT Stands Firm On Deregistering 10-Year-Old Diesel Vehicles https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gre...gistering-10-year-old-diesel-vehicles-2510212

A few thoughts:
- strangely all political parties including those in power or in opposition tend to be silent on such decisions because they fear losing votes more than safeguarding lives and the environment. It is often left to courts to do this. The bravery and selfishness of our political class is remarkable.
- 10 year old vehicles are more likely to be owned and operated by poorer people who can not afford new vehicles and buy them second hand. Often loss of such vehicles means loss of livelihoods.
- Compensation should be adequate, immediate and realistic to such poor vehicle owners.
The issue of seasonal burning in farmlands after harvest is another such issue.

to repeat a saying: To every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, easy and wrong.

Quote: “…..a report of the pollution monitoring body has declared that one new diesel car is equivalent to 24 petrol and 84 new CNG cars on road. Referring to a report published by the Central Pollution Control Board, the green body said the use of diesel in vehicles was highly toxic carcinogenic and leads to an untimely fatality….”

Analogous said:
Here is an example of a bold/tough, necessary and possibly unpopular decision made to address heaviest-polluters and deadly effects on….everyone who has to breathe.

Green Court NGT Stands Firm On Deregistering 10-Year-Old Diesel Vehicles https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gre...gistering-10-year-old-diesel-vehicles-2510212

A few thoughts:
- strangely all political parties including those in power or in opposition tend to be silent on such decisions because they fear losing votes more than safeguarding lives and the environment. It is often left to courts to do this. The bravery and selfishness of our political class is remarkable.
- 10 year old vehicles are more likely to be owned and operated by poorer people who can not afford new vehicles and buy them second hand. Often loss of such vehicles means loss of livelihoods.
- Compensation should be adequate, immediate and realistic to such poor vehicle owners.
The issue of seasonal burning in farmlands after harvest is another such issue.

to repeat a saying: To every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, easy and wrong.

Quote: “…..a report of the pollution monitoring body has declared that one new diesel car is equivalent to 24 petrol and 84 new CNG cars on road. Referring to a report published by the Central Pollution Control Board, the green body said the use of diesel in vehicles was highly toxic carcinogenic and leads to an untimely fatality….”
Click to expand...
Another action: https://science.thewire.in/environm...items-to-be-prohibited-from-july-1-2022-govt/
So the Government has started acting, what about individual responsibilities and behaviours?
 
Special Offers on Stereo Package & Bundles
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
Back
Top