[QUOTE=Zeke129;30134037]Your logic is wrong
Gas is taxed yet people burn gas
Smokes are taxed yet people buy smokes[/QUOTE]
His logic does not resemble Earth logic.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30134037]Your logic is wrong
Gas is taxed yet people burn gas
Smokes are taxed yet people buy smokes[/QUOTE]
Gasoline is taxed, but the subsidies can go towards environmentally friendly/co2 sequestering whatever (lol more like lines pockets!).
Smokes pay for the health care of those who end up smoking for years and get cancer/ emphysema (and line pockets!)
[QUOTE=Contag;30134132]Gasoline is taxed, but the subsidies can go towards environmentally friendly/co2 sequestering whatever (lol more like lines pockets!).
Smokes pay for the health care of those who end up smoking for years and get cancer/ emphysema (and line pockets!)[/QUOTE]
Replace the pockets with machinery.
We need Steel, Iron, Lumber, Cement, Coal. Not organic food, windmills and all this environmentalism crap and saving the animals/whales bullshit.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30134799]Replace the pockets with machinery.
We need Steel, Iron, Lumber, Cement, Coal. Not organic food, windmills and all this environmentalism crap and saving the animals/whales bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Because corrupt businessmen are all eco-fanatics?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;30135509]Because corrupt businessmen are all eco-fanatics?[/QUOTE]
I hate both.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30134799]
We need Steel, Iron, Lumber, Cement, Coal. Not organic food, windmills and all this environmentalism crap and saving the animals/whales bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Yes replace the organic fruit farms with iron mines that's definitely possible
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30134799]Replace the pockets with machinery.
We need Steel, Iron, Lumber, Cement, Coal. Not organic food, windmills and all this environmentalism crap and saving the animals/whales bullshit.[/QUOTE]
being environmental is being economical
see, conservation of resources means less go to waste
less going to waste means less pollution, and less dangers to the other trillion or so other life forms that live on the Earth too
Here, lets give an example.
Fishers complain about how they have strict limits on the amount of fish they catch. However, if they are to overfish, then the population is not replenished as quickly, meaning that you have issues much bigger than the amount of extra fish caught.
Being environmental is also healthier. Less factories means less waste. Less waste means less potential for food/water poisoning.
Cleaner alternative fuels means less air pollution, which means lower rates of respiratory problems, anywhere from allergies to lung cancer.
When we fuck the environment, we fuck ourselves too. We were evolved to live in natural lands with rough landscape, scarce food, and no fucking factories either.
For example, busy city streets are more subject to light and noise pollution, which can cause a wide variety of health problems to those who are around them on a daily basis.
[QUOTE=joes33431;30138692]being environmental is being economical
see, conservation of resources means less go to waste
less going to waste means less pollution, and less dangers to the other trillion or so other life forms that live on the Earth too
Here, lets give an example.
Fishers complain about how they have strict limits on the amount of fish they catch. However, if they are to overfish, then the population is not replenished as quickly, meaning that you have issues much bigger than the amount of extra fish caught.
Being environmental is also healthier. Less factories means less waste. Less waste means less potential for food/water poisoning.
Cleaner alternative fuels means less air pollution, which means lower rates of respiratory problems, anywhere from allergies to lung cancer.
When we fuck the environment, we fuck ourselves too. We were evolved to live in natural lands with rough landscape, scarce food, and no fucking factories either.
For example, busy city streets are more subject to light and noise pollution, which can cause a wide variety of health problems to those who are around them on a daily basis.[/QUOTE]
You can be economical without being environmental.
Need more fish? Research into genetically modifying them, breeding them in sections of the sea closed off with walls and using massive industrial machinery to catch, gut and clean them.
Less waste? Why not make factories more efficient. Standardize them, put in underground railways and build them up and down. Make massive sewage networks designed to be efficient as possible. Put in lithium, fluoride and the such.
Build nuclear reactors and research into fusion. Build geothermal stations. Build tide based and hydroelectric dams instead of other sources of energy.
Fuck the environment, we can create our own one designed for our needs.
Build massive factories full of genetically modified battery hens. Genetically modify trees to grow fast, cut them down and then process into goods. Flatten hills and mountains. Drain the earth of oil. Mine it for iron. Build armies of robots to terraform the earth to the maximum efficiency. Seize the land of aristocrats, organic and free range farmers and turn them into efficient industrial farms.
If we can think it, we can invent. If we can invent we can build. A strong centralised force must be used to make these changes worldwide, to put aside petty nations, defined by nothing more than a few lines on a map and some worthless scraps of paper. We need one nation for all of humanity, industrialised, modern and ready to colonise space.
Or something.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30144388]You can be economical without being environmental.
Need more fish? Research into genetically modifying them, breeding them in sections of the sea closed off with walls and using massive industrial machinery to catch, gut and clean them.
Less waste? Why not make factories more efficient. Standardize them, put in underground railways and build them up and down. Make massive sewage networks designed to be efficient as possible. Put in lithium, fluoride and the such.
Build nuclear reactors and research into fusion. Build geothermal stations. Build tide based and hydroelectric dams instead of other sources of energy.
Fuck the environment, we can create our own one designed for our needs.
Build massive factories full of genetically modified battery hens. Genetically modify trees to grow fast, cut them down and then process into goods. Flatten hills and mountains. Drain the earth of oil. Mine it for iron. Build armies of robots to terraform the earth to the maximum efficiency. Seize the land of aristocrats, organic and free range farmers and turn them into efficient industrial farms.
If we can think it, we can invent. If we can invent we can build. A strong centralised force must be used to make these changes worldwide, to put aside petty nations, defined by nothing more than a few lines on a map and some worthless scraps of paper. We need one nation for all of humanity, industrialised, modern and ready to colonise space.
Or something.[/QUOTE]
I love it when people are so stupid they actually think they're intelligent.
Sobotnik is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30149278]Sobotnik is hilarious.[/QUOTE]
Part of the job.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30149344]Part of the job.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're actually a well-designed troll.
[QUOTE=Van-man;30149418]Oh shit, they're getting better.[/QUOTE]
It's true.
At this point, I can do absolutely nothing but stare at my screen, and kind of laugh hopelessly.
What the fuck happened here
Its not like Lithium is pure poison
I would say its a good idea, since the natural amount of lithium and other metals in Americas water is kinda low
Just enough of some metals (like iron and lithium) is healthy
This kind of reminds me of [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_%28film%29#Plot[/url]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;30149442]It's true.
At this point, I can do absolutely nothing but stare at my screen, and kind of laugh hopelessly.[/QUOTE]
That's right.
Keep laughing.
snip
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30150031]That's right.
Keep laughing.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you warrant another response. It's not like you're actually intelligent enough to take control of the UK, or anything.
I don't know how I feel about drinking battery water..
Wow this seems wrong no matter how it's put. It's CHANGING people. Whether it's for the better or worse it shouldn't happen.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;30151758]Wow this seems wrong no matter how it's put. It's CHANGING people. Whether it's for the better or worse it shouldn't happen.[/QUOTE]
Because we were better when we lived in caves and died in 30 years.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;30152149]Because we were better when we lived in caves and died in 30 years.[/QUOTE]
I thought our life expectancy was around 20? Assuming you weren't killed by other means. Hence why women are able to bear children around 12+
[QUOTE=EastBayWilly;30153052]I thought our life expectancy was around 20? Assuming you weren't killed by other means. Hence why women are able to bear children around 12+[/QUOTE]
When people say 'average' life expectancy they LITERALLY mean 'average'. Not median, not mode, but the mean life expectancy. That is to say, they add together all of the ages people died at, and divide that number by the total people they used as the sample.
What this means is, back in the good ol' days in which we lived in shitty conditions children were more likely to die than they are nowadays before they had the chance to grow up. When you calculate the average life expectancy for humans thousands of years ago the high proportion of people that died at a young age skew the number towards a smaller one. However people that DID make it past childhood would subsequently live for roughly as long as a healthy person nowadays.
So, no, we didn't all die young, but more people in life did die at a young age than they do now.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30154446]When people say 'average' life expectancy they LITERALLY mean 'average'. Not median, not mode, but the mean life expectancy. That is to say, they add together all of the ages people died at, and divide that number by the total people they used as the sample.
What this means is, back in the good ol' days in which we lived in shitty conditions children were more likely to die than they are nowadays before they had the chance to grow up. When you calculate the average life expectancy for humans thousands of years ago the high proportion of people that died at a young age skew the number towards a smaller one. However people that DID make it past childhood would subsequently live for roughly as long as a healthy person nowadays.
So, no, we didn't all die young, but more people in life did die at a young age than they do now.[/QUOTE]
No, people back then died pretty early in comparison with today. I don't recall that many people before the industrial revolution lived into their 70s.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;30150119]I don't think you warrant another response. It's not like you're actually intelligent enough to take control of the UK, or anything.[/QUOTE]
Hitler wasn't intelligent.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30154524]
Hitler wasn't intelligent.[/QUOTE]
...
[editline]31st May 2011[/editline]
Epic comparison, bro.
[QUOTE=Contag;30154555]...
[editline]31st May 2011[/editline]
Epic comparison, bro.[/QUOTE]
Just drink the water already.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30154446]When people say 'average' life expectancy they LITERALLY mean 'average'. Not median, not mode, but the mean life expectancy. That is to say, they add together all of the ages people died at, and divide that number by the total people they used as the sample.
What this means is, back in the good ol' days in which we lived in shitty conditions children were more likely to die than they are nowadays before they had the chance to grow up. When you calculate the average life expectancy for humans thousands of years ago the high proportion of people that died at a young age skew the number towards a smaller one. However people that DID make it past childhood would subsequently live for roughly as long as a healthy person nowadays.
So, no, we didn't all die young, but more people in life did die at a young age than they do now.[/QUOTE]
Yes I understand how average mode and mean works. I did graduate High School, you know. However I was under the impression that the average expectancy was 20, not 30.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30154524]
Hitler wasn't intelligent.[/QUOTE]
i call godwin on that
his entire argument is invalid now
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30144388]You can be economical without being environmental.
Need more fish? Research into genetically modifying them, breeding them in sections of the sea closed off with walls and using massive industrial machinery to catch, gut and clean them.
Less waste? Why not make factories more efficient. Standardize them, put in underground railways and build them up and down. Make massive sewage networks designed to be efficient as possible. Put in lithium, fluoride and the such.
Build nuclear reactors and research into fusion. Build geothermal stations. Build tide based and hydroelectric dams instead of other sources of energy.
Fuck the environment, we can create our own one designed for our needs.
Build massive factories full of genetically modified battery hens. Genetically modify trees to grow fast, cut them down and then process into goods. Flatten hills and mountains. Drain the earth of oil. Mine it for iron. Build armies of robots to terraform the earth to the maximum efficiency. Seize the land of aristocrats, organic and free range farmers and turn them into efficient industrial farms.
If we can think it, we can invent. If we can invent we can build. A strong centralised force must be used to make these changes worldwide, to put aside petty nations, defined by nothing more than a few lines on a map and some worthless scraps of paper. We need one nation for all of humanity, industrialised, modern and ready to colonise space.
Or something.[/QUOTE]
you're fucked up
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
