NOOO!!!! : (

[Chrissi]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Cows are basically our primary source of meat (And a good part of my state's history). Trust me, you don't want them gone.

You seem to forget/not know that I'm a vegetarian.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

You seem to forget/not know that I'm a vegetarian.

Even so, our economy is in a cycle. I'm thinking that it'll put a dent in our imports and exports if we get rid of cows or other bovine creatures that we slaughter for meat.

Edit: It would also put an end to our dairy market.

[Chrissi]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Duh. Personally I wouldn't mourn any of that.

Sure, dairy is yummy, but if it was gone, they'd have more motivation to make yummy non-dairy, which only exists when there is interest. And I'd rather yummy non-dairy than yummy dairy.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Duh. Personally I wouldn't mourn any of that.

Sure, dairy is yummy, but if it was gone, they'd have more motivation to make yummy non-dairy, which only exists when there is interest. And I'd rather yummy non-dairy than yummy dairy.

I'm not saying that I'm mourning any of that (Especially since I'm lactose intolerant, although I can control it), but no beef would put a dent in the entire economy. That's some serious inbalance right there.

Also, as far as I know, dairy is one of our primary sources of needed nutrients and what you might call a "natural diet supplement".

On a more humorous note, cow feces does make for good fertilizer = 3.

[Chrissi]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

I'm not saying that I'm mourning any of that (Especially since I'm lactose intolerant, although I can control it), but no beef would put a dent in the entire economy. That's some serious inbalance right there.

Also, as far as I know, dairy is one of our primary sources of needed nutrients and what you might call a "natural diet supplement".

On a more humorous note, cow feces does make for good fertilizer = 3.

Yeah it supplements our diet, but it's not the only thing that can do that. We can get our calcium and etc elsewhere. It's a bit harder but I think it would be healthier in many ways.

I don't care about it crashing the economy, besides, they could grow hemp on the land where they had the cattle and make back the money they lost tenfold and have a higher economy but nooooooo marijuana plants come from Hell (also known as Mexico) and the followers of Satan (also known as Mexicans).

[purebloodtexan]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Depends on what you're growing the weed for, really.

[The_Q]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Ok, guys. I hate to step in here but it seems like we've been without an economics lesson for a very long time.

Every decision we make is based on cost-benefit thinking. What do I get for how much I have to give. I get to save one tiny itsy bitsy fraction of one tree if I wash my Dixie cup out and reuse it like teacher said, but I have to rinse out my Dixie cup and then keep track of it.

The human race has come to such a decision and the choice is obvious. We must save the Earth and preserve our longevity as a species. It's the only rational decision to make. To preserve the species we must preserve the Earth.

Unfortunately, we run into a logical problem.Allow me to illustrate: for a moment, imagine an 18th century army lined up on the battlefield. The opposing cavalry begins its charge and every man in the line has a choice: stay and fight or break rank and desert. As a unit, the best choice for survival is to form up and fight; however, it's better for the individual to flee and leave the fighting to his comrades. They'll be more likely to die, but at least he'd be alive.

What is rational for the group and what is rational for the individual are two entirely different, and often conflicting, things. For the species as a whole, Earth must live on. For me, as a student and consumer, a hybrid car costs too much and recycling is a pain in the ass for seeing no benefit from it in my lifetime.

Oh, and the army did manage to survive. See, they had bright red uniforms with really shiny buttons and ridiculously large hats so that any deserters were easy to find and implimented this nasty little personal twinge called honor to keep the troops neatly regimented and waiting to die for their glorious country.

It's all a matter of incentives.

Q

[purebloodtexan]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Ok, guys. I hate to step in here but it seems like we've been without an economics lesson for a very long time.

Every decision we make is based on cost-benefit thinking. What do I get for how much I have to give. I get to save one tiny itsy bitsy fraction of one tree if I wash my Dixie cup out and reuse it like teacher said, but I have to rinse out my Dixie cup and then keep track of it.

The human race has come to such a decision and the choice is obvious. We must save the Earth and preserve our longevity as a species. It's the only rational decision to make. To preserve the species we must preserve the Earth.

Unfortunately, we run into a logical problem.Allow me to illustrate: for a moment, imagine an 18th century army lined up on the battlefield. The opposing cavalry begins its charge and every man in the line has a choice: stay and fight or break rank and desert. As a unit, the best choice for survival is to form up and fight; however, it's better for the individual to flee and leave the fighting to his comrades. They'll be more likely to die, but at least he'd be alive.

What is rational for the group and what is rational for the individual are two entirely different, and often conflicting, things. For the species as a whole, Earth must live on. For me, as a student and consumer, a hybrid car costs too much and recycling is a pain in the ass for seeing no benefit from it in my lifetime.

Oh, and the army did manage to survive. See, they had bright red uniforms with really shiny buttons and ridiculously large hats so that any deserters were easy to find and implimented this nasty little personal twinge called honor to keep the troops neatly regimented and waiting to die for their glorious country.

It's all a matter of incentives.

Q

Well, as for the whole hybrid car thing, it's proven that when a decent number of people follow a certain trend, many will follow behind them. That's what some are thinking about more conservative and "green" trends today.

Unfortunately, these assumptions are a tad farfetched, as I've said before. They'll be environment friendly if it doesn't get in their way, but they're not gonna be treehuggers. I find that most people like this are (in my eyes) socially crippled.

[The_Q]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

trends

Trends are a fantastic social incentive. When you can brag about how efficient your new car is or how much you're recycled then you're more likely to do it, thus following the rational decision for both the individual and the whole. (Note: I made distinction between benefitting both the individual and the whole and following the rational choices of the individual and the whole. Any choice that benefits the individual and is chosen freely benefits the whole.)

You're right insofar as that trends only do so much. People will only fulfill their utility up to the point where marginal value is equal to the price. Surely, you don't expect people to go out and behave irrationally in their altruism, would you? I wouldn't say that they're socially crippled, just that they know what they want and do what they can to get it.

Q

[OrganisM]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Wow...

Is it me, or are we regugitating tired arguments in between flames? This thread should be locked.

[stretchypanda]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Is it just me or did you bump this thread to not contribute anything.

[OrganisM]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

There wasn't really anything to contribute.

And your post contributed less than mine did.

The fact that you're a super moderator does not make you a superior being.

I was offering an honest opinion. Leave me alone.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

There wasn't really anything to contribute.

And your post contributed less than mine did.

The fact that you're a super moderator does not make you a superior being.

I was offering an honest opinion. Leave me alone.

She was chastising you about unecessary bumping, in which your opinion about flaming (Which I see little if none) doesn't contribute to anything.

And in the world of FFR, you're basically Stretchy's bitch.

[tsugomaru]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

I don't believe Man-made global warming is true. Here is a good video to watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831.

It's 1 hour and 13 minutes, it may seem very long, but once you start, it's hard to stop. The first 30 minutes is really all you need to watch.

What the video is saying that the rise in CO2 is not the cause of global warming but it is the sun. In fact, the increase of heat is increasing the amount of CO2.

CO2 makes up very little of green house gases and of these green house gases, humans make very little, in fact, animals and other living things make more CO2 than humans ever could. Even then, all living things aren't the largest contributer to CO2, instead, it's the ocean. CO2 is mixed into the ocean and as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water goes down and CO2 is released from in. So the warmer it is, the more CO2. Even if CO2 can effect the climate, CO2 is a very small portion of the green house gases.

The sun however, has a very accurate correlation with climate. The more sun activity, the higher the temperature and the less active, the lower the temperature. Using astrological records dating back several thousands of years and ice core samples, we can determine sun activity and global temperatures and the correclation is as said, very accurate. Studies show that temperatures of other planets in OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, are also going up. Human-produced CO2 can't possibly be the reason for their rise of temperature as well.

~Tsugomaru

[Reach]

Re: NOOO!!!! : (

Too bad your argument falls flat on its face when we look closer.

Carbon content has increased in the land biosphere and in the ocean. If there was any contribution from the ocean, it would hold less carbon. You would also see an atmospheric increase in O2, so this is out of the question.

It's also convenient that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were relatively stable for thousands of years and then suddenly shot up exponentially come the industrial revolution. Amazing, isn't it? ^^ That sun just decided it was going to get HOT instantaneously, for the first time in as far as we can see, exactly when we start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

About a million years worth of data counter everything you just said. There is no evidence to suggest this exponential rise is natural, because there is absolutely no evidence of any mechanism in history to have caused it before. Actually, I would say 100% of the increase in CO2 levels we have seen is man made. This is just udder nonsense that pumping out 2.7x 10^10 tons of CO2 a year artifically will not effect our world.