1. Summer vacation time shares in Siberia

9/15/2006 10:11:57 PM

less humans.

9/15/2006 10:13:26 PM

What if a scientific study used computer modeling to simulate the ENTIRE United States being covered with trees? The wisdom of the mainstream media and liberal wet dreams suggest that the effect would be a desirable one, right?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051206162547.htm

The result was that the temperature actually rose. Suck on that, tree-huggers.

9/15/2006 11:05:48 PM

you sure owned us.

go back to drawing your shitty cartoons and thinking youre a badass for not calling the cops.

Quote :

"The wisdom of the mainstream media and liberal wet dreams suggest that the effect would be a desirable one, right? "

cite somewhere where ANYONE from the msm or a liberal group said that it was desirable to have the US completely covered in trees.

you are a dumbass.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

9/16/2006 12:46:19 AM

9/16/2006 1:27:40 AM

I think that if true, there actually are some positives that could come of it. It'd completely shift the world's power structure out from under its current paradigm. Geopolitical systems that promoted synergy, and crucial longer-ranged shared objectives would emerge as more favorable than ones that favor greater concentrations of information and fear spreading capacity. Given the innovations in science since the last government resembling ours was tried, I don't think it'd be impossible for a better way than ours to emerge as the superior way to govern tribes of people. It could even happen within our own borders, as well. I guess what I mean to say is that perhaps global warming wouldn't be so bad.

9/16/2006 1:33:09 AM

Loneshark was arguing for a while that since only the poor would die, and rich would end up ok, its not bad.

9/16/2006 1:53:40 AM

Don't get me wrong. By "not so bad," I mean measured from a vast distance in spacetime from here. Without playing the cards right, it could end up being very nasty for the present.

9/16/2006 2:05:22 AM

Concerning the alleged "shitty cartoons," my Pentagon handlers will not allow me to confirm or deny that I am the cartoonist in question. He does spell his name different, though ("Hook-Saw" versus "hooksaw"). Hmmmm, is it a ruse to confuse? Our initials are the same, too. Puzzling.

In any event, I kind of like having a secret identity. It worked for Spider-Man. Hey, wait, check the hyphen--just like Spider-Man. It could be an homage.

The study was examining a version of the constant drumbeat by the MSM and some liberal groups that more trees are the answer. If more is better, why not see what would happen if the entire United States were covered? The following are some links to defend my position:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1380

http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm?msid=30&page=16

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-treesdog_10nat.ART.State.Bulldog.3f6e945.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10315103/

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1204522&ad=homepage

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/global_warming.htm

Oh, by the way, PinkandBlack--fuck you.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 2:29 AM. Reason : Comma]

9/16/2006 2:24:09 AM

Compared to times throughout Earth's 5 billion year history, it is still quite cold, and stands to get much hotter to even compare to temperatures from 65 million years ago. Some things we can look forward to when it gets warmer are the end of permafrost in the arctic regions, which means more land for growing food, increased rainfall from increased evaporation from the Earth's oceans, and otherwise unuseable land burried beneath glaciers in places such as Greenland and Antarctica.

And as far as trees in the US are concerned, there are more trees in the US now than there ever were in recorded history. Thanks to our love of paper and cheap housing, and all the tree farms that support that love.

9/16/2006 9:48:14 PM

suspend for trolling^

9/16/2006 10:03:46 PM

Quote :

"suspend for trolling^"

9/16/2006 11:56:27 PM

^him too

9/16/2006 11:58:28 PM

Quote :

"suspend for trolling^"

9/16/2006 11:58:49 PM

Gamecat, what were you responding to? The idea that Global Warming is true? If so, then you need to explain yourself more as I see nothing about Global Warming that would encourage Mankind to abandon the current political-economic system.

9/17/2006 7:35:58 AM

Quote :

"The study was examining a version of the constant drumbeat by the MSM and some liberal groups that more trees are the answer. If more is better, why not see what would happen if the entire United States were covered? "

nobody is suggesting (aside from maybe Greenpeace, and they dont exactly represent the mainstream) that the us should be completely covered in trees and its a ludicrous assuption to think so. Oh no, the MSM reported on a fucking Greenpeace protest and an environmental study, they must support Greenpeace's position, and thus means all liberals take a Greenpeace position towards the environment.

but what am i saying, YOURE A FUCKING BADASS, DUDE!

9/17/2006 8:11:09 AM

but you see, it IS the liberals who are backing extremist groups such as greenpeace by giving them such publicity. every one of those articles backs that position. liberals love to harp on global warming as a causation for something that's NOT happening, as caused by big, bad industry. its obvious that the whole "environmental movement" has been taken over by the communists and socialists in the far left, trying to bring down american capitalists and industry. kyoto is a joke and i wish more of you knew that.

9/17/2006 8:14:40 AM

Kyoto is a joke for several reaons other than why you hate it.

Also I love it how the liberal media machine is ruining everyones lives when the media reports global warming when really it causes people to worry thus watching the news thus increasing viewership thus increasing advertising cash.

The media reporing global warming is really just adding to the capitalist American dream of making people shittons of money.

9/17/2006 7:59:25 PM

I would rather back a group like Greenpeace than anything Randy believes in.

9/17/2006 8:10:11 PM

Quote :

"If more is better, why not see what would happen if the entire United States were covered?"

jesus christ... please don't tell me it was state that gave you your degree

do you know anything about equilibrium and stability of systems???

oh, by the way man... water is good for you. why don't you go chug a swimming pool, you'll feel GREAT

9/17/2006 8:42:14 PM

The Sun gives me Vitamin D

im going to lay in it all day and I will feel great!

9/17/2006 8:52:02 PM

Quote :

"Concerning the alleged "shitty cartoons," my Pentagon handlers will not allow me to confirm or deny that I am the cartoonist in question. He does spell his name different, though ("Hook-Saw" versus "hooksaw"). Hmmmm, is it a ruse to confuse? Our initials are the same, too. Puzzling. In any event, I kind of like having a secret identity. It worked for Spider-Man. Hey, wait, check the hyphen--just like Spider-Man. It could be an homage. "

lol

WATCH OUT! HERE COMES THE BADASS 40-YEAR OLD CARTOONIST!

9/17/2006 8:57:01 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: If so, then you need to explain yourself more as I see nothing about Global Warming that would encourage Mankind to abandon the current political-economic system."

Governments change as the resource availability within their countries do. It's as simple as that. The resources available in a nation will change as the nation's environment does.

9/18/2006 2:47:13 PM

Not true.

Cultural norms play a far larger role in determining a nation's government than something as irrelevant as "Resources"

Bangladesh has every resource a nation could ever want, yet it is still a poor backwater.
Japan has few resources yet is a modern industrialized nation.
Norway discovered an ocean of oil off its coast quite awhile ago and yet it has not become a "Petro State", it is still undeniably a modern Western country.

I argue that Saudi Arabia would have been an oppressive monarchy regardless of whether or not oil was ever discovered and Japan/Britain/France/U.S. will always be a modern stable industrialized country even if a mountain of gold or oil is discovered.

You see, nations built on foundations of freedom and economic liberty do not need resources, they can buy them. Meanwhile, nations built on foundations of oppression and theft desperately need resources because they are incapable of the production necessary to buy resources.

9/18/2006 3:41:14 PM

we're fucked, fellas

9/18/2006 3:52:22 PM

^^ "Resources" != "resource availability"

An economist should know the errors involved in not making such subtle distinctions.

9/18/2006 3:59:01 PM

Ok, so, if you meant resource availability then why didn't you say that?

Plus, it doesn't counter my assertion: A nation built upon a foundation of freedom and economic liberty will always be prosperous and efficient, regardless of whether oil is at $30 a barrel or $500 a barrel. A short term shock is painful with large dislocations and falling living standards, but a well founded society will survive the shock and allow the market to resume the necessary adjustments to continue maximizing the value derived from available resources.

Of course, how is global warming supposed to reduce the availability of resources?

9/18/2006 4:11:53 PM

Great question. Ask a qualified climatologist and get back to me. I bet you'll get interesting answers.

Quote :

"Gamecat: Governments change as the resource availability within their countries do. It's as simple as that. The resources available in a nation will change as the nation's environment does."

Why didn't I say that?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 4:14:16 PM

Quote :

"Great question. Ask a qualified climatologist and get back to me. I bet you'll get interesting answers."

How the hell is a "qualified climatologist" going to tell me why a slightly warmer planet makes mining iron, growing wheat, and mixing concrete harder?

Mines are underground, immune from the weather. Wheat can be grown anywhere, what does it matter if we grow it in Wyoming or in Canada?

Besides, the U.S. economy currently employs less than 1% of its workforce mining/growing/harvesting all the resourced used by the other 99%. So, from a labor-value standpoint, even if global warming made resources twice as difficult to produce it would increase this percentage to 2%, obviously not a political/economic disaster. Back in the 19th century our society was far more free with more acute economic liberty yet over 60% of us were engaged in mere resource collection.

9/18/2006 4:32:24 PM

A qualified climatologist can tell you what the environmental impacts of global warming on specific areas of the Earth will be. We humans call those specific areas of the Earth nations. Those nations and their economies are governed by different political systems.

The United States is one of those nations. Like every other nation on Earth, it is interependent. It exists because other nations exist.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 4:34:15 PM

Well, I guess I have no choice but to track one down and ask him, as it seems you don't know what they are.

9/18/2006 4:45:40 PM

Right.

And I'm also admitting that I could be wrong with my speculations. But none of them seem to be founded in a lack of logical induction. Otherwise you'd be arguing with my premise.

9/18/2006 5:13:02 PM

Hmm, but I did, I find your assertion that freedom and economic liberty will be abandoned because of global warming is rediculous, it is in times of uncertainty that we need it most.

The reason I stopped arguing was because you admitted you didn't know any reasons why your assertion might be true.

9/18/2006 5:18:56 PM

your spelling is ridiculous.

9/18/2006 5:20:27 PM

I have a new idea. You read so little of what I say, I might need to do this once in a while. Come on, TWW, let's play a game of...

What did Gamecat actually say that LoneSnark didn't seem to catch?

Quote :

"Gamecat: I think that if true, there actually are some positives that could come of it. It'd completely shift the world's power structure out from under its current paradigm. Geopolitical systems that promoted synergy, and crucial longer-ranged shared objectives would emerge as more favorable than ones that favor greater concentrations of information and fear spreading capacity. Given the innovations in science since the last government resembling ours was tried, I don't think it'd be impossible for a better way than ours to emerge as the superior way to govern tribes of people. It could even happen within our own borders, as well. I guess what I mean to say is that perhaps global warming wouldn't be so bad."

Note the total lack of even the existence of: "assertion[s] that freedom and economic liberty will be abandoned because of global warming"

Thanks for playing!

9/18/2006 5:28:13 PM

Gamecat, I can only interpret what you write. "Geopolitical systems that promoted synergy, and crucial longer-ranged shared objectives" is not a blueprint for a political-economic system, so I had to derive what you were trying to describe.

The current economic system is founded upon the self-determination of individuals cooperating to attain higher goals, or economic liberty combined with mutual cooperation. You strongly implied that the future system would be fundamentally different. More specifically, how are you going to promote "synergy" and "longer-ranged shared objectives" without abandoning economic liberty? Obviously my imagination is not as creative as yours, so enlighten me.

It seems to me that if you do not abandon economic liberty and self determination you will have a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, with individuals deciding to ignore your long-ranged plans and concentrating on cooperating with like-minded individuals to full-fill their own plans, which may or may not be synergistic or long-ranged.

So, two questions to you: How will you radically reorder the system without reordering the system? And, have you come up with any reasons why reordering might be useful/necessary?

9/18/2006 5:42:06 PM

1) How will you radically reorder the system without reordering the system?

Gandhi radically reordered a system without firing a shot. So did Hitler when he invaded certain nations during WWII (none of which involved the French, I might add). Evidently, it's possible to do that through means that don't involve firebombing, or flying planes into, buildings of any kind. Even, as remarkably as it might seem, by leaving buildings intact and large numbers of people alive.

Fortunately, none of us is Hitler. At least, I doubt it. I wonder about our other famous conspiracy theorist sometimes. All I had to do is establish it's possible to effect change without violence. Violence catalyzes change, but doesn't have to be viewed as its single-source.

Given that, we have to effectively diagnose the problems within the system before we can set out to do any reordering of anything. I'm in that phase right now. Diagnosing the problems and the reasonable places they seem to stem from.

2) And, have you come up with any reasons why reordering might be useful/necessary?

Some. They're related to opportunity costs, usually related with "doing nothing." And admittedly, limited in the amount of consideration I, or the resourceful elements of our society, have given them mostly. It's also fair to point out that there's only limited data available on ideas that haven't been tried or tested before. Some exists, however.

Take a look at the proposals of energy-sharing by R. Buckminster Fuller. Making it a well-stated, well-financed goal to research, develop, and disseminate the idea of sharing our energy grids by a set date would give us a unified, i.e. non-ethnocentric purpose to better our global economic situation. The benefits are real, of economic value, political value, and ultimately biological value so they shouldn't be hard to sell to any government.

I think they'd be a better central motivating ideal to shoot for than beating back the latest ideological interests conspiring to kill us. Those things have always been happening, and our reactions to them have been relatively boring from a historical perspective. The solution is usually: "conquer this, conquer that, then everything will be ok for us and future generations."

9/18/2006 5:57:11 PM

Quote :

"Gandhi radically reordered a system without firing a shot"

True, but he didn't do it while maintaining a system of economic liberty. Gandhi was a socialist and India became a socialist country after his death. Property was seized, businesses were nationalized. The individual Indian entrepreneur had his long-term plans overtaken by those of the Indian Politicians.

Quote :

"energy-sharing by R. Buckminster Fuller...would give us a unified, i.e. non-ethnocentric purpose to better our global economic situation"

Ok, so, you want the White nations of the world to begin producing more electricity and giving it away for free to the poorer nations of the world? Would this not encourage them to waste electricity, since it is now free? Is this a good idea in a world which is evidently running low on power? And what about the non-poor nations makes it all-right to enslave them to the power needs of the poor nations? If I make myself poor too, will I also get free electricity?

I guess I am once again writting too much into your statements, but this is what it sounds like you intend.

9/18/2006 6:10:15 PM

I'm really waiting for a technical analysis of the ideas, frankly. Clearly, there are cultural reasons that exist preventing the idea from being a reality. I'm looking more for what those causes are than actually proposing it as a solution.

As I've mentioned about a thousand times:

Quote :

"Given that, we have to effectively diagnose the problems within the system before we can set out to do any reordering of anything. I'm in that phase right now. Diagnosing the problems and the reasonable places they seem to stem from."

Within science, economics, government, politics, religion, and pretty much any other outgrowth of human existence, history proves that time and again if people fail to identify the problems, or continually misidentify symptoms as problems, that little or no progress within any of those fields is possible.

---

Quote :

"Ok, so, you want the White nations of the world to begin producing more electricity and giving it away for free to the poorer nations of the world?"

Who said they should give it away for free, you dirty, dirty hippie?

Quote :

"Would this not encourage them to waste electricity, since it is now free?"

Given their cultural lack of gluttony of said resource, I'd say that it'd be our responsibilities to make sure they don't. We'd have to make sure our own shit didn't stink first, though.

Quote :

"Is this a good idea in a world which is evidently running low on power?"

Think of the energy savings involved. Far less power loss over the cables translates into more power into your televisions, computers, and the extensions of technology into the rest of the world. In fact, that's one of its benefits. It encourages the extension of technology even through purely capitalist means into those areas of the world that didn't previously have it.

Quote :

"And what about the non-poor nations makes it all-right to enslave them to the power needs of the poor nations?"

The fact that it's also run by sentient bipeds, who largely agree when you get down to it, that other bipeds are of equal worth.

Quote :

"If I make myself poor too, will I also get free electricity? "

Only if you want to live in the dark.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 6:25:31 PM

Quote :

"Think of the energy savings involved. Far less power loss over the cables translates into more power into your televisions"

Yes, and in a capitalist world that saved electricity has a cash value attached to it. By placing the power grid in the hands of free enterprise we can realize those savings. But launching "sharing" upon the scene that dollar value gets lost, replaced with what sounds fair and what we're willing to tolerate.

Quote :

"Given that, we have to effectively diagnose the problems within the system before we can set out to do any reordering of anything. I'm in that phase right now. Diagnosing the problems and the reasonable places they seem to stem from."

Which problems are you talking about? Our society has many issues that need addressing, none of which are unusual and none of which are remarkably harmful if ignored. If you know of one then please, let me know the name attached to this problem so I can look into it myself.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/18/2006 6:49:33 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Yes, and in a capitalist world that saved electricity has a cash value attached to it. By placing the power grid in the hands of free enterprise we can realize those savings. But launching "sharing" upon the scene that dollar value gets lost, replaced with what sounds fair and what we're willing to tolerate."

Again, who suggested abandoning Free Enterprise?

Ayn Rand wasn't the only philosopher in the world. Nor was she a terrible one. But she was born out of a reaction to totalitarian governmental regimes. Thus, I'd say, she developed a healthy distrust of government. That doesn't imply that anyone who doesn't trust government must trust corporations more. Or even at all.

I'd just like to point out I've never argued corporations or even Free Enterprise wouldn't be involved. In fact, because they would be involved, I believe this could work.

I think that what you described is very much what the dollar value represents in the marketplace already. The aggregate measure between what's fair and what's tolerable to charge for items and labor within a marketplace. Doesn't seem limited to dollars--mutable things really. Those ones and zeroes that replaced them in our bank accounts took care of that long ago.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Which problems are you talking about?"

First of all, the inability of economists of sound mind and body to wholely ignore logical arguments presented to them.

Secondly, the encouragement or enhancement of encouragement to possess, access, or disseminate accurate information. We're seeing a little demand from this due to the market. I could swear I even praised Rupert Murdoch for this recently. But I don't think the pace is acceptable, given our technological advancement.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Our society has many issues that need addressing, none of which are unusual and none of which are remarkably harmful if ignored."

Poor information exchange between experts can have disastrous effects on society. Especially if those experts doubt one another for philosophically stupid reasons.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: If you know of one then please, let me know the name attached to this problem so I can look into it myself."

I've done my job.

9/19/2006 1:23:53 AM

To nchockey-turd: State has never GIVEN me anything--except bills. ANYTHING that I have received was EARNED. Know that.

To Pink-o-andBlack and Whale-luggie: I have never initiated a post asserting that I am a "badass," as you put it--YOU must be thinking it. Try not to feel so intimidated; I won't hurt you. Well, maybe I'll hurt your feelings a little.

9/19/2006 2:53:40 PM

LOL!

I SEE WHAT YOU DID TO MY NAME THERE AND THAT IS FUNNY!

Quote :

"The Sun gives me Vitamin D im going to lay in it all day and I will feel great!"

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:05 PM. Reason : /]

9/19/2006 4:04:21 PM

leave it up to strong conservatives to bring out the real wacko liberals with their hate

9/19/2006 4:06:13 PM

^^ I thought so, too. Well, we can agree on something.

9/21/2006 2:47:49 AM