Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

World's first animals caused global warming

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seanjo

Evil little b*******!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer

I don't understand the last line in the synopsis about not realizing animals cause global warming. Cows were blamed for it years ago.  When are we going to admit that we can't stop it unless we do a mini meteorite effect in the atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight we get.  Short of starting a nuclear war, I wouldn't be able to venture a guess how to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
1 hour ago, paperdyer said:

I don't understand the last line in the synopsis about not realizing animals cause global warming. Cows were blamed for it years ago.  When are we going to admit that we can't stop it unless we do a mini meteorite effect in the atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight we get.  Short of starting a nuclear war, I wouldn't be able to venture a guess how to do that.

Reduce the Human population, then we don't need all those cows, we don't need all the land we use to grow food and can return it to forest use, we don't need all the energy and manufacturing industry.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix

The way some people describe climate change, is as if they're asking for, or wanting a mass extermination of life to protect the planet. I mean lets be honest, what's the end goal? Money, imprisonment, population control? One thing I know is that the planet will kill you before you even think about killing it. Lets also not ignore that climate change has not always been a negative and evil thing in the past. Take a look at the global warming era in Europe for example. This new movement is very political more so than actually caring about how to resolve the actual issue. It's about money and votes, lets be honest.

All I see is pure hate toward life with articles like this. You want to prevent global warming or climate change, then stop regulating and start innovating. Innovation is the only answer and anyone with a degree in business knows that regulation hinders innovation. Don't regulate the population and don't regulate businesses that are trying to grow because they'll be the same people that will make your lifestyle better with new and improved technology.

Edited by Trenix
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix
3 hours ago, seanjo said:

Reduce the Human population, then we don't need all those cows, we don't need all the land we use to grow food and can return it to forest use, we don't need all the energy and manufacturing industry.

That is a really disgusting way to put it. What gives you the authority as another person who's directly part of the problem, to regulate the population and how they live? Why not start with yourself? How about you don't have kids and don't use any sort of environmentally unfriendly energy AT ALL. You're a hypocrite. Before you tell anyone what we should do; try doing it yourself first. The reality is, we all know you wont. You're on the internet right now for crying out loud. You are as much of a problem as everyone else, if not worse than third world countries without a computer or internet access. Pure virtue signalling. Try to find a solution that isn't done through force so everyone can equally agree upon it.

Edited by Trenix
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
12 minutes ago, Trenix said:

That is a really disgusting way to put it. What gives you the authority as another person who's directly part of the problem, to regulate the population and how they live? Why not start with yourself? How about you don't have kids and don't use any sort of environmentally unfriendly energy AT ALL. You're a hypocrite. Before you tell anyone what we should do; try doing it yourself first. The reality is, we all know you wont. You're on the internet right now for crying out loud. You are as much of a problem as everyone else, if not worse than third world countries without a computer or internet access. Pure virtue signalling. Try to find a solution that isn't done through force so everyone can equally agree upon it.

Well, to soothe your hyperbole, I would use generational birth control after gaining a consensus, make contraceptives mandatory and one child per person mandatory.

I expect you think by cutting out fossil fuels we will solve the problem, wrong, each Human has an ecological footprint, which needs land, energy and resources to fill, the more Humans there are the larger that footprint is. 

Now I know that what I propose will never come to fruition, so what we will get is wars, famine and disease, which will pretty much help solve the problem for a while...but it's OK, you won't be affected, your Grandkids will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
7 hours ago, paperdyer said:

I don't understand the last line in the synopsis about not realizing animals cause global warming. Cows were blamed for it years ago.  When are we going to admit that we can't stop it unless we do a mini meteorite effect in the atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight we get.  Short of starting a nuclear war, I wouldn't be able to venture a guess how to do that.

We don't know whether we can or cannot stop global temperature rise.  There is very little research on the subject.  But it's the only game in town and if we want to keep living on this planet, we need to do something about it before it does something about us.

The final verdict on cows was that they don't contribute significantly to global warming.  It only took five or so studies to come up with that.  A lot of people still haven't got the word.

The best solution to the carbon-in-the-air problem is not putting it there to begin with.  Wind is already competitive and solar will be within five years.  These are already replacing coal plants; what we need is a Federal loan program to speed it up and to replace aging power grids.  Battery technology is getting better rapidly.  We should see affordable electric cars soon.  After that, a Federal cost-share program aimed at replacing gas and coal furnaces with electric heat.  A little energy conservation wouldn't hurt either.

Second approach:  sequester carbon - put it back into the ground; convert CO2 to fuel; better farming practices and returning some land to forest would all help.

Third approach:  remove carbon from the air and put it into the ground.  Compressor plants could separate CO2 from air, mix it with water and inject it into deep formations.  The downside is earthquakes and compressor plants ain't cheap; it will take govt programs to pay for them.  But, hopefully, we won't need them.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, Trenix said:

The way some people describe climate change, is as if they're asking for, or wanting a mass extermination of life to protect the planet. I mean lets be honest, what's the end goal? Money, imprisonment, population control? One thing I know is that the planet will kill you before you even think about killing it. Lets also not ignore that climate change has not always been a negative and evil thing in the past. Take a look at the global warming era in Europe for example. This new movement is very political more so than actually caring about how to resolve the actual issue. It's about money and votes, lets be honest.

All I see is pure hate toward life with articles like this. You want to prevent global warming or climate change, then stop regulating and start innovating. Innovation is the only answer and anyone with a degree in business knows that regulation hinders innovation. Don't regulate the population and don't regulate businesses that are trying to grow because they'll be the same people that will make your lifestyle better with new and improved technology.

Human over-population is the fundamental problem.  Population is still increasing, but at a decreasing rate.  It should top out between 2050 and 2100 at somewhere near ten billion people.  After that, expect a slow, gradual implosion.

What to do in the meantime?  Ten billion is still an awful lot of people.  Start with women's education.  Women will choose to have smaller families if they had a choice.  Family planning and birth control (Birth control prevents a lot of abortions if that's an issue for you.).  If that isn't enough, offer incentives:  pay each person a bonus to undergo voluntary sterilization.  Cap tax deductions at four.  Make birth control available free.

The draconian measures you envision are not necessary.  Why adopt them?

Doug

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer
5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Human over-population is the fundamental problem.  Population is still increasing, but at a decreasing rate.  It should top out between 2050 and 2100 at somewhere near ten billion people.  After that, expect a slow, gradual implosion.

What to do in the meantime?  Ten billion is still an awful lot of people.  Start with women's education.  Women will choose to have smaller families if they had a choice.  Family planning and birth control (Birth control prevents a lot of abortions if that's an issue for you.).  If that isn't enough, offer incentives:  pay each person a bonus to undergo voluntary sterilization.  Cap tax deductions at four.  Make birth control available free.

The draconian measures you envision are not necessary.  Why adopt them?

Doug

 

Family planning is all well and good for countries that have educated people and people that want to be helped.  We need to worry about all the countries that don't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If that isn't enough, offer incentives:  pay each person a bonus to undergo voluntary sterilization. 

This type of thing sounds awfully socialist to me, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here the booming populations are almost if not exclusively in third world countries. So then the problem unfortunately becomes political very FAST! 

For example, migration is not a solution. However even saying this simple truth is Politically charged. Despite that I'll say border-less Nations and unmitigated migration would be the worse possible case scenario if your goal is to limit population growth globally. (Pets my Pseudo-Siamese Cat [that's what evil conservatives do after posting on the interwebz] fyi)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix
11 hours ago, seanjo said:

Well, to soothe your hyperbole, I would use generational birth control after gaining a consensus, make contraceptives mandatory and one child per person mandatory.

I expect you think by cutting out fossil fuels we will solve the problem, wrong, each Human has an ecological footprint, which needs land, energy and resources to fill, the more Humans there are the larger that footprint is. 

Now I know that what I propose will never come to fruition, so what we will get is wars, famine and disease, which will pretty much help solve the problem for a while...but it's OK, you won't be affected, your Grandkids will.

What you propose will bring war. You believe you got the moral high ground, but just look at what you're writing. It's pure dictatorship from what you're proposing. More and more people think this way, it's very wrong. What you gonna do if someone has more than one kid? Abortion? What you gonna do if someone doesn't take contraceptives? Imprisonment? Death? Sterilization? I propose innovation, finding ways to reduce our impact on earth and maybe even possibly find a way to move onto other planets. We have an entire universe that's supposedly unending; available to us. Instead of moving forward, you want to restrict, regulate, and enforce. Your thoughts aren't even new, I hear these outrageous claims time and time again, your ideas aren't your own. There are political movements that aim for exactly what you propose.

Now I'm not here to be a jerk, but some of the stuff you guys are saying is completely illogical and insane. If you found anything what you said logical or sane, then you need to truthfully reevaluate your moral code. Also I don't care for CO2. It's not known what will come from all these emissions. We can't figure out the weather the next day and these climate scientists think they can foretell the future within decades, it's ridiculous at best. Scientists claiming ridiculous things isn't new either. I've heard scientists stating that in 2020's we're going to need 2 planets to sustain ourselves. Al Gore claimed that the Artic would already be without ice, guess what, still ice. Come on guys, it's good to think out of the box, but there is a lot of flaws and poor predictions. We need to stop taking them to the extremes. I personally don't believe in the future, my grand kids would be burned alive.

So lets end it with a saying, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing". It's probably the most factual thing anyone could honestly say. Also when it comes to population control, which you're a big supporter of. You know what's very effective and non-dictatorial way of managing a population? Education.

Edited by Trenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
2 hours ago, Trenix said:

What you propose will bring war. You believe you got the moral high ground, but just look at what you're writing. It's pure dictatorship from what you're proposing. More and more people think this way, it's very wrong. What you gonna do if someone has more than one kid? Abortion? What you gonna do if someone doesn't take contraceptives? Imprisonment? Death? Sterilization? I propose innovation, finding ways to reduce our impact on earth and maybe even possibly find a way to move onto other planets. We have an entire universe that's supposedly unending; available to us. Instead of moving forward, you want to restrict, regulate, and enforce. Your thoughts aren't even new, I hear these outrageous claims time and time again, your ideas aren't your own. There are political movements that aim for exactly what you propose.

Now I'm not here to be a jerk, but some of the stuff you guys are saying is completely illogical and insane. If you found anything what you said logical or sane, then you need to truthfully reevaluate your moral code. Also I don't care for CO2. It's not known what will come from all these emissions. We can't figure out the weather the next day and these climate scientists think they can foretell the future within decades, it's ridiculous at best. Scientists claiming ridiculous things isn't new either. I've heard scientists stating that in 2020's we're going to need 2 planets to sustain ourselves. Al Gore claimed that the Artic would already be without ice, guess what, still ice. Come on guys, it's good to think out of the box, but there is a lot of flaws and poor predictions. We need to stop taking them to the extremes. I personally don't believe in the future, my grand kids would be burned alive.

So lets end it with a saying, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing". It's probably the most factual thing anyone could honestly say. Also when it comes to population control, which you're a big supporter of. You know what's very effective and non-dictatorial way of managing a population? Education.

TL;DR....look up 'consensus'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Susanc241

The populations that have many children per family tend to be third world countries where health care is poor and child mortality high.  Dependent on a child or two caring for them in old age they have many children to ensure this outcome.  It was ever thus, even in Victorian England, but our family size reduction came about as health and health care improved due to better living conditions; sanitation, vaccination, improved diet etc.  Generalising, population growth in first world areas is decreasing and to achieve the same in the third world we need to help them achieve what we have.  We are at a stage (which began in the mid 20th century) that we should aim, globally, to replace each current person on a one for one basis - this has been my belief all my adult years and why I only had two children, one for me, one for their father.

Edited by Susanc241
Correcting spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix
12 hours ago, seanjo said:

TL;DR....look up 'consensus'.

I know what it means and my response still remains valid. Many people would oppose what you suggest, therefore there would not be a consensus. Even if there would be, the future generations may not even agree with it. Thus when you make something mandatory, what would you propose to do to those people? What you state is nothing less than tyrannical. I know it's hard to believe, but we can agree upon things without force. Like saying means things we can agree is bad, but do we really need to punish people who do? Of course not. The consensus is out the window once you make it become mandatory. My suggestion of what we can do to resolve this issue of overpopulation requires nothing to be forced upon innocent people. A consensus without mandatory action. And who would draw this consensus? The people? Mob rule anyone? Well it's good that I live in America where I have inalienable rights so people like you can't infringe people's right to life.

Edited by Trenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 7/3/2018 at 3:23 PM, paperdyer said:

Family planning is all well and good for countries that have educated people and people that want to be helped.  We need to worry about all the countries that don't!

And that's why we need women's education.  Here, there, everywhere.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 7/3/2018 at 9:34 PM, lost_shaman said:

This type of thing sounds awfully socialist to me, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here the booming populations are almost if not exclusively in third world countries. So then the problem unfortunately becomes political very FAST! 

For example, migration is not a solution. However even saying this simple truth is Politically charged. Despite that I'll say border-less Nations and unmitigated migration would be the worse possible case scenario if your goal is to limit population growth globally. (Pets my Pseudo-Siamese Cat [that's what evil conservatives do after posting on the interwebz] fyi)

Many of the solutions do get awful close to being socialism, at least in part.  So what's wrong with that?  And the issue has been political ever since Al Gore's Powerpoint.  Nothing new there.

Open borders is the LAST thing we want.  But make no mistake, we do want them.  As it stands, if we import too many people from abroad, they will have depressing effects on our economy, without helping the economies they come from.  We have to build up there economies so they won't need to come here.  Then we can open the borders with no problem.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Many of the solutions do get awful close to being socialism, at least in part.  So what's wrong with that?  And the issue has been political ever since Al Gore's Powerpoint.  Nothing new there.

Open borders is the LAST thing we want.  But make no mistake, we do want them.  As it stands, if we import too many people from abroad, they will have depressing effects on our economy, without helping the economies they come from.  We have to build up there economies so they won't need to come here.  Then we can open the borders with no problem.

Doug

P. S.:  We (the US) already offer incentives for everything from planting trees, to growing fewer crops, to buying a house, to installing more-efficient heating systems, to replacing your roof with a fire-resistant one, to tax deductions for health insurance, to ...  I agree we need to be a little more careful in what we offer support for, but if that's what you see as socialism, we're already socialists.

Socialism is employee ownership of capital.  Davey Tree Experts, Publix Super Markets, Penmac, Amsted Industries, Winco Foods, Graybar Electric, Terracon, Reasor's, American Cast Iron Pipe, Columbia Forest Products, Holden Industries, Airborn Inc. and dozens more are employee owned.  Any insurance company with the word "Mutual" in its name is owned by its policy-holders and is a collective (socialist) effort to share losses.  Socialism is already here.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
On 03/07/2018 at 6:25 PM, Trenix said:

That is a really disgusting way to put it. What gives you the authority as another person who's directly part of the problem, to regulate the population and how they live? Why not start with yourself? How about you don't have kids and don't use any sort of environmentally unfriendly energy AT ALL. You're a hypocrite. Before you tell anyone what we should do; try doing it yourself first. The reality is, we all know you wont. You're on the internet right now for crying out loud. You are as much of a problem as everyone else, if not worse than third world countries without a computer or internet access. Pure virtue signalling. Try to find a solution that isn't done through force so everyone can equally agree upon it.

Thats a touch harsh. Unless seanjo has 6 kids and is working for a company which is choppimg down forests and his family are wasting gallons of fresh water a day because they think they have a right to do so, i think you have jumped on him before knowing how he lives.

This world is big enough for humans to live on, but the ever increasing demands for food and fresh water, fuel and mod cons are taking an effect and it is a fact that the growing population is the problem.

Do you believe humans should have as many children as they like today in areas where they rely on others to supply them with fresh clean water and food?  Even if they have the funds to pay for it, it is still a demand for resources and part of the growing problems. 

I am all for regulating the population when people reach the stage where their life style affects others. 

What right have people got to demand they can have as many children as they like and expect they can use whatever they like when there are many who have chosen to economise and think about the effects on the planet? 

Also I am sick of seeing people with loads of kids on benefits, if they can not afford to fund them then they should not keep having them.

I am NOT referring to war torn countries or areas which have a natural disaster, that is different.

Humans are demanding more resources as the population grows, 

20 hours ago, Trenix said:

what would you propose to do to those people? What you state is nothing less than tyrannical.

I do not think he is suggesting to kill of any excess population...i think he means to curb the breeding, which is what i am for.

20 hours ago, Trenix said:

My suggestion of what we can do to resolve this issue of overpopulation requires nothing to be forced upon innocent people.

Educating people and not giving handouts so freely is what is needed. But again, having the money to feed loads of kids, still requires extra resources, money will not replace forests over night or provide clean water if it runs low.

What do you mean by innocent people, no one is saying they are guilty of anything. If a couple have 6 children and they have the income to support them and grow their own food and have access to their own fresh water, then good for them. But it is not currently working like that. 

Look what happened in China, and they did not need aid from other countries, but the effect on the country was obvious and the effect of the worlds demands is already pretty serious,  so if people continue to have lots of children because they think it is their right, then things will only get worse...and pretty quickly.

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And that's why we need women's education.  Here, there, everywhere.

Doug

Allwell and good.  Try educating the women of African tribes or other cultures where the caste system is still in place.  All you'll do for those women is get them beaten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, paperdyer said:

Allwell and good.  Try educating the women of African tribes or other cultures where the caste system is still in place.  All you'll do for those women is get them beaten.

We have Peace Corps people in Africa doing just that.  Nobody has to tell the husbands that the wives are using birth control.

I have often thought it would be fitting justice to allow women from hostile countries (Iran, ISIS-controlled areas, etc.) to come to the US as refugees and to see that they get an education.  Then see that word, and maybe people, get back to the countries of origin.  I know of a doctor who did just that and is now serving in occupied Palestine.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Also I am sick of seeing people with loads of kids on benefits, if they can not afford to fund them then they should not keep having them.

In the US, that is the result of deliberate government policy.  A family is denied welfare benefits as long as there is a man living in the house (Conservatives are afraid he might be living on welfare when he could work.).  A man who is laid off and unable to find work must abandon his family so the government will feed them.  This is what happens when the "family values" people try to govern.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Many of the solutions do get awful close to being socialism, at least in part.  So what's wrong with that?

For one thing socialism always fails, so if you want to fail at whatever lofty goal you have then use socialism and it will be good as dead. 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Open borders is the LAST thing we want.  But make no mistake, we do want them.  As it stands, if we import too many people from abroad, they will have depressing effects on our economy, without helping the economies they come from.  We have to build up there economies so they won't need to come here.  Then we can open the borders with no problem.

We have open borders already, millions of people with valid passports visit the U.S. every year. That's not what "Open borders" mean to you, you mean anyone should just be able to go wherever and live and vote, and that is the "Open borders" you guys want which would effectively end the concept of sovereign Nations.

If you want to build up the economies of central America and Africa why don't you start doing that? The problem is no-one knows how to do that. For  example the idea we are talking about "sterilization", how are you going to get say 400,000,000 African or Central American men to agree to that, and how much would you pay them? Who is going to pay for it if you get them lined up? 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P. S.:  We (the US) already offer incentives for everything from planting trees, to growing fewer crops, to buying a house, to installing more-efficient heating systems, to replacing your roof with a fire-resistant one, to tax deductions for health insurance, to ...  I agree we need to be a little more careful in what we offer support for, but if that's what you see as socialism, we're already socialists.

Those things are not Socialist. We fund our local, State, and Federal Governments with taxes and we spend that money in diverse and sometimes strange way's, but that does not in anyway mean that the U.S. is a socialist country. 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Socialism is employee ownership of capital.  Davey Tree Experts, Publix Super Markets, Penmac, Amsted Industries, Winco Foods, Graybar Electric, Terracon, Reasor's, American Cast Iron Pipe, Columbia Forest Products, Holden Industries, Airborn Inc. and dozens more are employee owned.  Any insurance company with the word "Mutual" in its name is owned by its policy-holders and is a collective (socialist) effort to share losses.  Socialism is already here.

OMG! This is not anything like socialism! You are talking about ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans). Where companies can give employee's stocks as opposed to money in the employee's 401(k), here a company where all employee's 401(k)'s own more than 50% of that companies stock it is considered Employee Owned.

Hardly Socialism Doug!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette

Am I the only one that can't figure out why people are stumped over something so glaringly obvious? Animals turn oxygen to carbon dioxide... hence they raise the carbon levels and warming. Plants turn carbon dioxide to oxygen... hence we cleared the rainforests are killing to oceans and can't figure out why carbon levels are skyrocketing? How dense can you get all we have to do is plant trees and stop wiping out the plants. But it looks more like we are all going to suffocate because profit means more to people than our kids surviving. If evryone in the world planted a tree I promise this mysterious thing might happen you know carbon>oxygen. Just a hunch.

Edited by Nnicolette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

In the US, that is the result of deliberate government policy.  A family is denied welfare benefits as long as there is a man living in the house (Conservatives are afraid he might be living on welfare when he could work.).  A man who is laid off and unable to find work must abandon his family so the government will feed them.  This is what happens when the "family values" people try to govern.

Doug

Not true. I was on welfare for a year when my son was born. Welfare isn' made for people who can' actually work. It was discontinued because I was expected to be in their class 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Obviously if I wasn' a single mom or had someone to raise my newborn baby for me while I attended I wouldn't have needed welfare because I could just have a job during those hours. Idiotic system. Families get benefits but single parents (the ones that actually need the help because they care for thier own small children and are unable to work) do not. 

Also let me clarify. Your premise here is entirely false. You don' get denied if a man is in the house it' the families where one parent is perfectly capable of working while the other watches kids that get the most benefits because they have more mouths to feed. It' bull**** and the system need renovation to help the people who actually need it rather than only the people who shouldn't have to.

Edited by Nnicolette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.