And as the story goes, we find ourselves on page 12 of this topic. Some foretold a significantly shorter life to it, and as much as it's nice to see they were wrong (meaning there were fewer „you're dumb / no you're dumb“ type of posts), I'm sad to see it got to page 12 after my post.
Sorry for this
patting myself on my back.
I tried to show that we’re beyond all this;
but is it CO2 or Methane; is it people or nature; is it me or you; is it China or US; how much of whose CO2 is really doing this; who wrote the reports; what scientists...
My post was mainly aimed at
@herbu , I wanted to see if I’ll have any success in bypassing all the divisions.
So,
@herbu , if you allow, here’s a thought experiment which will, if nothing, show why most of non-republicans think you republicans are not exactly thinking straight, as much as I enjoyed your ripping on democrats:
Imagine there’s like 20 of us in a room in a typical “Bond final scene”, there’s a “Volkswagen Beatle” pile of C4 in one corner, in comes Mr. Bond and goes to try and diffuse the explosive and this is where you come to the scene with all your “wise republican questions”:
Wait, wait, stop! Don’t touch the bomb. First I want to ask whose bomb is it?
Is that really C4?
Who says it’s C4?
But I found one scientist who says that if you leave it to explode it won’t reach me in this corner of the room.
Maybe the bomb is Chinese and not really Russian at all...
Maybe if we leave it to explode we’ll colonise other planets sooner...
If we leave it to explode people will have jobs cleaning the debris.
Who authorised you, Mr. Bond, to diffuse the bomb?
What if it’s actually TNT and not C4?
Who do you vote for, Mr. Bond?
If we let you diffuse it, will that somehow portray Mr. Clinton in some positive light? We can’t have that.
I guess by now you see what I’m aiming at. I tried to show through risk assessment that there’s no preferable course of action to redirecting all the civilisation's resources towards tackling this issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Democrat, and I have no wish in saving anyone. Saving a species that doesn’t seem to be able to part ways with a destructive, filthy, plaguing, numerous diseases inducing mode of production is not worth saving. Not even for love or Bach.
I had no particular incline towards the green (and don’t particularly care for the lot), so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about proposed alternatives, but the best anyone managed to come up with is something along the lines of; if you pollute freely and with impunity, someone will find a way to turn ones waste into gold, for example making Adidas sport shoes from ocean plastic.
But even this “brightest” of them all is all but wise. The very plastic as a heap of material is the aftermath; it is the repercussion, a consequence, not a true origin of the problem. You can’t base production on pollution because that way you make pollution desirable and you end up needing it. You need plastic to get into the oceans and on its way do all the damage it does, poison, kill, devastate in order for you to get your “raw material”. It is really not a solution at all. You CAN’T recycle a defective mode of production. I already tried to explain this once; the production process is way too dirty in itself. If you paint a pretty face on it by the way of recycling you’ve merely attached it to life support.
For my closing argument, let me try and put it this way; everyone has to jump on the green train because that way you get to deny it for another day.
