Live To Be 1000???

[Iashi]

and i pointed out that all such evidence is lost to my memory, and the memory of my computer.
ergo, your argument is moot.

My argument is that your claim is not a credible one. Both I and now you yourself have proven that.

[Asthaloth]

and i pointed out that all such evidence is lost to my memory, and the memory of my computer.
ergo, your argument is moot.

My argument is that your claim is not a credible one. Both I and now you yourself have proven that.

you can prove nothing without a little faith.
i have faith that i will remember where the article was at some point and prove my point.
im sure you have faith in that im an imbecile.
one of us right, the other wrong, but until i can prve that the article exists, or you can prove that it doesnt, your argument is still moot.
if youll excuse me (and well, lets face it even if you dont) i have better things to be doing than argue about the cruder points of theoretical science

[Iashi]

you can prove nothing without a little faith.
i have faith that i will remember where the article was at some point and prove my point.

Your claim then is no more than a speculation.

im sure you have faith in that im an imbecile.

I may well but I would not claim it, knowing that I would be placing myself at a disadvantage doing so. Before I talk, I ensure that I know what I am talking about.

one of us right, the other wrong, but until i can prve that the article exists, or you can prove that it doesnt, your argument is still moot.

You are asking then, that I find evidence that oil reserves will last beyond 2070 or deplete before 2070. I did so before even challenging your 2070 claim.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html

This one, for example, cites that oil would run out at 2058 if no further reserves were found.

It also states that the knowledge of world oil reserves is presently increasing at a rate greater than oil consumption.

http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=00423

This one says that world oil reserves are only 80% of what they are believed to be and says that oil will run out between 2010 and 2020.

[Articfox]

you can prove nothing without a little faith.
i have faith that i will remember where the article was at some point and prove my point.

Your claim then is no more than a speculation.

im sure you have faith in that im an imbecile.

I may well but I would not claim it, knowing that I would be placing myself at a disadvantage doing so. Before I talk, I ensure that I know what I am talking about.

one of us right, the other wrong, but until i can prve that the article exists, or you can prove that it doesnt, your argument is still moot.

You are asking then, that I find evidence that oil reserves will last beyond 2070 or deplete before 2070. I did so before even challenging your 2070 claim.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html

This one, for example, cites that oil would run out at 2058 if no further reserves were found.

It also states that the knowledge of world oil reserves is presently increasing at a rate greater than oil consumption.

http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=00423

This one says that world oil reserves are only 80% of what they are believed to be and says that oil will run out between 2010 and 2020.

And that seems to prove nothing more then people are not sure what the heck the future holds. I just think that alot of people find it un-settling that the wrold can become such a bad place in there lifetimes. So they squander and search for every little answer to deture what will become. The future isn't bright, it won't be either as things are going and things don't seem to be changing. Because were an ignorant race of beings oblivious to what were doing, maybe thats over the top. But theres too many things goign against the planet to save it then the ones trying to save it. But in short...in about 100 years Earth won't be an all too pleasent place to live.

[Iashi]

But in short...in about 100 years Earth won't be an all too pleasent place to live.

Then I will ask you, too, on what basis you make this claim.

[Twisted Sanity]

Okay okay okay. This arguement isn't really much more than an "I'm right, you're wrong" debate, except using more scientific terms.

Lets face it, at the rate we're going at, you can't expect the world to be that great in 100 years time. You don't need any scientific basis for this fact, it's just common sense. I'm not in the mood to do any major research, so I'm not going to delve too far into this.

But you know what the truth is? Humanity works in a very strange way. We abuse and destory something, up until the point where it is nearly gone, and only then do we take care of it. Rhinos for example were hunted because they were pests to African farmers. Now, killing a rhino earns you a whopping great fine. The environment works the same way. Humanity will mine, use and cut down the environment up until it becomes a real danger to continue doing so. Then, we will stop, assess the situation, leave that part of the environment alone, and find something new to abuse and destroy until it is nearly gone.

As much as I hate to say it, it's almost in our nature to do so. How many of you have killed a cockroach or other insect, just because it scuttled into your living room? "ARRRGGHH! It invaded my person space! It didn't hurt me! It didn't do anything wrong! But I'll kill it anyway!"

So, I wouldn't quite say that humanity will depleat the world of it's resources so soon. Just before it becomes too late, we will stop. Hopefully... Plus anyway, by 2070 or 2050 or whatever, using oil and petrol will become obsolite (sp?). I mean, fuel cells will hopefully be available by then.

I dunno, thats my two cents.

[Articfox]

But in short...in about 100 years Earth won't be an all too pleasent place to live.

Then I will ask you, too, on what basis you make this claim.

Have you watched the news lately. The world is a bad, bad place. I don't see any reasn for it to get better and global peace suddenly ingulfing the globe.

[Iashi]

This arguement isn't really much more than an "I'm right, you're wrong" debate, except using more scientific terms.

And what, exactly, do you think an argument is?

Lets face it, at the rate we're going at, you can't expect the world to be that great in 100 years time. You don't need any scientific basis for this fact, it's just common sense.

Ah, I have heard of this common sense. It sounds awesome! Basically you can say whatever you want about whatever you want and you don't have to back it up because, hey! It's common sense!

But you know what the truth is? Humanity works in a very strange way. We abuse and destory something, up until the point where it is nearly gone, and only then do we take care of it. Rhinos for example were hunted because they were pests to African farmers. Now, killing a rhino earns you a whopping great fine. The environment works the same way. Humanity will mine, use and cut down the environment up until it becomes a real danger to continue doing so. Then, we will stop, assess the situation, leave that part of the environment alone, and find something new to abuse and destroy until it is nearly gone.

And somehow you get the magic number of "100" out of this?

So, I wouldn't quite say that humanity will depleat the world of it's resources so soon. Just before it becomes too late, we will stop. Hopefully... Plus anyway, by 2070 or 2050 or whatever, using oil and petrol will become obsolite (sp?). I mean, fuel cells will hopefully be available by then.

Fuel cells are already availiable. They just aren't widely used because oil is cheaper.

Have you watched the news lately. The world is a bad, bad place. I don't see any reasn for it to get better and global peace suddenly ingulfing the globe.

If the world is a "bad, bad place"? Compared to what?

[BurnWickedWitch]

Personally, I wouldn't want to live to 1000. I think ;living to be 80 is good enough for me.

[Articfox]

If the world is a "bad, bad place"? Compared to what?

Compared to what! Compared to everything. The world is a bad place: Wars, Disease, Crime etc. But I've been persuaded by your supreme logic, the world is great. So what if people are starving to death in 3rd World Countries. As long as I'm sitting on my couch watching my TV and drinking a Bud everything is good.

[Twisted Sanity]

Woah, chill out a bit Iashi. No reason to start getting rough and jumping at people's necks.

And what, exactly, do you think an argument is?

An arguement is two or more individuals or groups debating over a certain subject. And yes, it is pretty much an "I'm right, you're wrong" type of thing, but what you're doing is refusing to belive a single thing anyone else has to say. Even in an official Presidential debate, they agree on certain subjects! As much as anyone would love to think it, they're not always 100% right.

Ah, I have heard of this common sense. It sounds awesome! Basically you can say whatever you want about whatever you want and you don't have to back it up because, hey! It's common sense!

Yeah, it's awesome! /sarcasm
Think about it, honestly. Why do you look both ways before crossing the road. You can go on explaining it for hours, but in the end it all boils down to COMMON SENSE! Jeez. Some things you can just predict, just by looking and thinking about them. You're not always right, but sometimes you are. I look at the sky, and there are a lot of dark grey clouds. My common sense prediction: "It will most likely rain." I base this on no scientific fact, just common sense. And if I'm wrong, then sue me.

And somehow you get the magic number of "100" out of this? ]

Where in my statement does it mention 100. I mention it elsewhere as a POSSIBILITY (read that word carefully), but not in that paragraph. Read it again if you wish:

But you know what the truth is? Humanity works in a very strange way. We abuse and destory something, up until the point where it is nearly gone, and only then do we take care of it. Rhinos for example were hunted because they were pests to African farmers. Now, killing a rhino earns you a whopping great fine. The environment works the same way. Humanity will mine, use and cut down the environment up until it becomes a real danger to continue doing so. Then, we will stop, assess the situation, leave that part of the environment alone, and find something new to abuse and destroy until it is nearly gone.

Nope, don't see 100 anywhere in there.

Fuel cells are already availiable. They just aren't widely used because oil is cheaper.

Well of course they're available! But thats what I meant. When they become available (and by that I mean to the mass public, not just some rich overzealous yazoo).

If the world is a "bad, bad place"? Compared to what?

Compared to how it was about 500 years ago. I know, there were more diseases, more deaths, shorter lifespan, but the environment didn't take such a beating back then. I agree that human life is more important than the environment. But when you destroy everything, how is it possibly a good thing? There is pollution everywhere, and Africa has dubbed the plastic bag as their national flag! But according to you, everything is good and well, nothing to see here. The world is bad, and steadily getting worse. And within APPROXIMATELY 100 years, it will become very bad unless we do something about it



Please note that when I mention 100, it is just an approximation, a guess. I could very well be wrong. Just like those people that predicted that we would have Moon Olympics by the year 2010 (seriously)[/quote]

Last edited by Twisted Sanity on Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Hunter Lupe]

As for natural resource depletion, I've heard that it'll come very soon. The thing I heard about dealt with lightbulbs. Apparantly we only have enough tungsten (the filament) to last another 50 years or so. Not that lightbulbs are one of the bigger problems, but it exists. We could mine the moon and various asteriods for what we need, and for energy we can develop fuel cells (which I've heard are planned out).

There are a lot of energy-saving bulbs around that work without the tungsten filament. (Same principle as neon lights -- electrons are "shot" through a noble gas).

[Iashi]

Compared to what! Compared to everything. The world is a bad place: Wars, Disease, Crime etc.

Compared to everything? Well, "everything" includes the world. Are you really saying that Earth is a "bad, bad place" compared to other planets?

but what you're doing is refusing to belive a single thing anyone else has to say.

Is that what I am doing? Or am I merely remaining silent when I agree?

You're not always right, but sometimes you are. I look at the sky, and there are a lot of dark grey clouds. My common sense prediction: "It will most likely rain." I base this on no scientific fact, just common sense. And if I'm wrong, then sue me.

"Common sense" is often cited to back up notions assumed too trivial to reason with logic, however, since anybody can claim to have "common sense" in their favour, it obviously can't be used as evidence to back up a disputed claim.

Where in my statement does it mention 100.

Lets face it, at the rate we're going at, you can't expect the world to be that great in 100 years time.

Of course, the real dispute is over what you say next.

I mention it elsewhere as a POSSIBILITY (read that word carefully), but not in that paragraph.

If the following paragraph was not the evidence to back up your approximately 100 years claim, then you didn't provide any evidence to back it up at all.

Compared to how it was about 500 years ago. I know, there were more diseases, more deaths, shorter lifespan, but the environment didn't take such a beating back then. I agree that human life is more important than the environment.

The environment is not something external that humans interact with. Humans are a subset of the environment.

But when you destroy everything, how is it possibly a good thing? There is pollution everywhere, and Africa has dubbed the plastic bag as their national flag! But according to you, everything is good and well, nothing to see here. The world is bad, and steadily getting worse. And within APPROXIMATELY 100 years, it will become very bad unless we do something about it

If the world is "steadily getting worse", then you should be able to prove that there is an actual decline.

[Articfox]

Compared to everything? Well, "everything" includes the world. Are you really saying that Earth is a "bad, bad place" compared to other planets?

Well its pretty bad off for a planet that harbours life and intelligent beings. Atleast the other planets have an excuse that there desolate wastelands wastelands not able to harbour life at all. I don't care what you say though...100 years, its gonna be bad. At the rate its going, and you know what. Once one thing is fixed its on to the next thing, and the next thing. We killed our own planet face it. Its too late to stop, Earth is like a train goign at full speed down a track with the bridge out up ahead. Its just a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

The environment is not something external that humans interact with. Humans are a subset of the environment.

Doesn't mean they're not destroying it at an alarming rate.

[Iashi]

I don't care what you say though...100 years, its gonna be bad. At the rate its going, and you know what. Once one thing is fixed its on to the next thing, and the next thing. We killed our own planet face it. Its too late to stop, Earth is like a train goign at full speed down a track with the bridge out up ahead. Its just a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

This claim is based on conjecture. The speculation that there is presently or will imminently be some form of state of decline, although I asked you several posts ago, you have still not provided any evidence upon which this claim of a decline is based.

Doesn't mean they're not destroying it at an alarming rate.

Your premise is innaccurate. An environment cannot be destroyed. It can only be changed. You likely really mean something else.