Nature is good

>nature is good
>technology and progress is bad

Other urls found in this thread:

thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_bunkers_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

A misinterpretation. More like, humans need to be careful when playing god with nature because it can turn around and fuck our shit up if we make mistakes.

Though I think this is becoming less and less true as time goes on, we might already have the planet on our leash.

>we might already have the planet on our leash.
How do you mean?

There isn't really anything likely short of a large space object collision/gamma ray burst or intentional extermination that could wipe out our species entirely at this point. No other scenario really makes sense. And the collision/extermination scenario will only get less likely as we leave the planet.

Gun is good, man is evil.

Our climate may disagree. We are our own worst enemy. Not a fucking tree hugging hippie either.
inb4 retards who cant be bothered to understand 4th grade science

Saw this on acid

Then we'd adapt to that new climate using technology.

The idea that we can't adapt to climate change is laughable. Worst case scenario famines will kill off a bunch of people and that will be all.

The irony is people who think this can end in extinction reflects a lack of scientific understanding on many levels. For example, as the temperature increases, the temperate zone simply shifts northward and southward. For another example, the argument that "humans cause climate change" and "humans cannot control the climate" is inherently oxymoronic. For another example, we already have artificial atmosphere controlled environments. For another example, multiple nations spent billions creating complexes and technology specifically to ensure the survival of the species in the case of atmospheric collapse due to the cold war. Just the tip of the iceberg, really. It's fear mongering, nothing more.

I really like the doujins of this, they really make me think.

I admire your tech optimism my friend, I am just not that hopefull.

>teenagers understanding of technology
theres no reason that the technology we would need would be so easy to develop. cold fusion would be a permanent solution to fossil fuels solving one aspect of climate change outright. we dumped billions upon billions into it, and it's still decades from working. it might never work. technology is only as good as the science its built on, and theres no real investment in that

>"good" and "evil" in a Ghibli movie
Really?

L-link?

The problem is that we should have started years ago with this, we are way behind schedule. I am arguing that we are right now are doing too little too late. Hope I am wrong.

>There isn't really anything likely short of a large space object collision/gamma ray burst or intentional extermination that could wipe out our species entirely at this point.
you're basically saying we have the planet 'on our leash' because we don't realistically face extinction in the short term. that's utterly retarded.

Fission technology is already perfectly environmentally sustainable, not to mention other things such as hydroelectric, solar is now energy positive, and we haven't even started messing with geothermal yet. You really think humans are going to go extinct because we stop burning fossil fuels? That's a 'teenager's' understanding of technology.

Did you even read my post? There is literally nothing about climate change that could possibly lead to extinction.

We don't realistically face extinction at all, and we already control the planet.
>humans are the main cause of climate change
>humans do not control the planet
Pick one.

we are going extinct if we dont stop with fossil fuel

>progress

Under what realistic scenario? See

Brainlet fear politics.

You have basis to claim that the enviroment will not "kill" us. I thought you had some sense in you but I guess not. Are you 17?

>famines strike a whole latitudinal ring of the planet
>mass migration that makes the last 5 years look like a joke
>wealthiest countries in the world either collapse like rome or double down on policies of ethnic cleansing
>this approach to human life soon extends to most citizens of the countries themselves, who are forced either into strict labor conditions by a bloated police state, or left to starve
>humanity slowly changes it's breeding habits so that the poor do not procreate, and the underclass is built from the thousands of unwanted bastard children of the rich elite
>species turns into a kind of eusocial mammalian antlike creature, losing art, spirituality, humour, and love in the process
>evolution

The scenario that climate change could reach a hypothetical event horizon and start snowballing out of control until the atmosphere is rendered uninhabitable.

Its kinda true. People always get full of calm and happiness while in nature, while we are surrounded by technology we just feel miserable and discontent all the time

The earth used to be made of lava, then ice, then mega flora, if humans weren't around to spew dinosaur blood into the atmosphere, what changed? Is it possible that the planet does its own thing with the heating and cooling deal? I think it's very arrogant to say that 100 years worth of combustion engines and logging fucked up the billions year old celestial giant.

Did you not read my post? See , I literally gave four separate bases, in contrast to your zero.

That gets pretty ridiculously hypothetical halfway through but humans still don't go extinct in that scenario.

>We don't realistically face extinction at all
that's stupid as fuck
>humans 'control the planet' because we are contributing to climate change
that is even fucking stupider

I'll remember this post when disgusting Americans ruin the world through climate change

One that ignores the oxymoron that "humans cause climate change" and "humans cannot control the climate, ignores the fact that we already have atmosphere controlled environments that we can grow food in, and ignores the fact that we won't sit around and do nothing when there is an actual problem unlike right now when there is literally no problem.

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

Are you guys even trying or just ad hominem?

Your post sucks and you are pretty stupid.

You think that being able to affect something equals being able to control something. Thats extremely fucking retarded.

If I can ruin my drinking water by taking a piss and shit there, does that mean I can instantly make it drinkable again because I once took a shit in there? Is that your logic, shit-for-brains?

>progress is good

evidence points the other way though. Keep living in your dream world.

Brainlet fear politics with no basis.

America is one of the greenest countries on earth, if you want to fucking fight about co2 go up to China, India, Brazil, or anywhere in the middle east, bitch.

If we are the main cause of climate change, it follows that we can cause the climate to change. Basic logic.

>does that mean I can instantly make it drinkable again because I once took a shit in there?
Yes, we have the technology to purify water and it's used in a daily basis in most first world cities.

>mass migration that makes the last 5 years look like a joke
>Pay some dude minimum wage to gun down niggers at the border
>release a f2p video game where you hunt migrant boats with a drone
>scared of mass migration in 20 fucking 17
kek

What evidence? You guys just spew ad hominem and nothing else. There is literally zero evidence that humans cannot survive a climate catastrophe, it's inductive reasoning at best that your claims are supported on but fallacious reasoning in this thread.

you sound like some 12 year old aspie who went to Sup Forums and now thinks he can appear intelligent by copying the climate change is false rethoric and spouting "not an argument"

you are being naive about how much control we have

>keep living in your dream world
>not the real world where Henry Ford destroyed the 4.54 billion year old lava ball in 100 years by burning oil and harvesting rubber trees
Well alright

Pure ad hominem. Do you guys have an argument or not? You haven't even refuted four of mine, only approached one of them and failed.

It's easy to sit there and say you're the greenest country in the world when you're basically an empire who circumvents green laws through exploiting third world countries that don't adhere to them. Just a semi-socialist country exploiting free-market third world countries, the hypocrisy is tangible.
How's that for an argument faggot?

You're an idiot, just because I can build an environment to sustain myself and other people on a toxic desert planet doesn't mean it should be left to get to that point, and just because you can't feel yourself scalding doesn't mean the water isn't starting to boil. You make it sound like if everything but the human ability to live gets completely fucked then it's a o k.

but windmills are technology

What are you? Retarded?

He's right though, they aren't arguments and neither is your post.

The scenario where technology and higher thinking are products of our developed society, not the other way around. From the first agriculture to financial markets, all of humans developments have been to give people more time and energy to spend on thinking of new developments they would otherwise spend on foraging, hunting, and killing other tribes. The real danger of climate change is the psychological effect on humans. People will become more combative, sensing diminishing resources and possible death. This forces us to dedicate resources and manpower to the conflict, rather than the climate, which progressively gets worse especially if theres an industrial scale war going on. Our technology is nowhere near good enough to terraform the earth, or create a sustainable colony on mars. It's not even good enough to kill everyone who might come try take our stuff cause of climate change. If we were to try a nuclear war would start, resulting in our destruction anyway.

There are technological solutions, but they all work hand in hand with a huge change in industrial, political, and defensive policy

>>release a f2p video game where you hunt migrant boats with a drone
>the Running Man bloodsport show I've always wanted will be a video game in my life time
Best timeline

Yeah "we" are totally an unified species and "we" can totally agree to fight against climate change just like "we-trump" "we-china" and "we-india" already did

You realize that its easier for different countries to spend the resources together but saving it together is far far harded

Post evidence. No, telling someone to look it up is not evidence. Why does anyone even give these snake oil salesmen the time of day
>by 1995 we'll all be underwater!
>by 2000 the world's oceans will be gone though!
>2010 we'll lose the eastern seaboard!
>the planet won't even be here by 2015!

What? What does that have to do with extinction caused by climate change? It's not relevant, so no, not an argument.

>just because I can build an environment to sustain myself and other people on a toxic desert planet doesn't mean it should be left to get to that point
Shift of goalposts, the subject is "whether or not climate change can cause human extinction".

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".

>and just because you can't feel yourself scalding doesn't mean the water isn't starting to boil.
Poetry. Not an argument, no basis in facts unlike the four points I have made.

His spergout about humans being able to control everything isn't either. He is just a retarded kid who wants to push Sup Forums ideology (the one where climate change isn't affected by man but if it is, its not affected by americans but those fucking chinks)

less retarded than you, who couldn't define what progress in the human context even is yet will assign an equally vague concept of 'good' to it.

we aren't the main cause of climate change.

I for one can't wait for the end, I'll make sure to drown a few normies when I go

So you are either admitting that green tech is bullshit or that America pays it clean, why the salt? Don't you know it's bad for the atmosphere?

even if 'we' unify to battle climate change there's no guarantee that we can intentionally and precisely manipulate it to our universal benefit. especially if it's in a feedback loop.

Yeah can you provide any sources of governments who have stated this? This is just what you think other people think.

>well have elected a genuine retard by 2016!

we are causing the main causes of accelrated climate change

Pretty hypothetical, based on my arguments with a basis in reality. Using your logic, I can write a fiction about humans coming together to screen large particles from the atmosphere.

>Nuclear war can result in the extinction of humans
Not reasonable and I literally already covered that base twice for the same reasons climate change killing humans isn't reasonable.

Climate change isn't even a problem, why try and fix it?

>Though I think this is becoming less and less true as time goes on, we might already have the planet on our leash.
I wish I could see the look on your face when Yellostone blows.

And we locked it in by 2008, global warming occultists btfo again.

Wasted dubs on retardation, do you not understand that there are other things like animals, plants, and natural cycles on this Earth that are affected by slight changes in temperature? Just because you're not choking to death right now because the air got 0.000001% hotter doesn't mean nothing has changed, and I shouldn't have to tell you what could happen if cards start getting taken out of the house of cards.

It's literally basic logic. If humans are the main cause of climate change, it follows that humans can change the climate. That's called an "argument". Calling me stupid is not an argument.

I don't even care if we are or not, I've only pointed out the contradiction in reasoning for people who say we are. Whether or not humans are the cause, it is incapable of destroying us at this point.

Nope the message is Americans are fucking evil for nuking Japan.

the idea that the technology will exist is hypothetical. I'm working from what we know, and if that scenario is too far fetched, you should reexamine what you believe about technology.
By extinction i mean destruction of developed society, if we have some hunchback irradiated pigmen rolling around the barren rock afterwards, that's hardly worth caring about

Your logic is shit, you would not escape the cave

>cards start getting taken out of the house of cards

ecological systems are nothing like a house of cards and there are no constants. New niches just mean new species and evolutionary dead ends, protecting an undesirable species just so we can see one in a zoo is vanity and not altruism.

Yes, we'd have a temporary atmospheric disaster that we already have the technology to survive.

Of course species will go extinct, we are already in the midst of a mass-extinction event. There is however no realistic scenario that results in the extinction of humanity in this direction, as we already have developed autonomous sealed environments due to the threat of the cold war, and that's only the beginning, but one exception is all it takes to destroy your argument.

"have an effect" and "having control" are very very different things.

I'm not saying "technology will exist", I am literally saying "technology ALREADY exists". Read.

>By extinction i mean destruction of developed society
You really think the massive subterranean complexes in the US and Russia are just going to revert to hunter-gatherer philosophy in an atmospheric collapse event?

Not an argument.

>smashing up Faberge eggs and toddlers with hammers is ok because you're just altering the state of the matter and nothing is being lost

I went searching for time articles on global cooling (the "science" used to say we were heading for an ice age, it's one long science fiction genre play) and just found a bunch of well cited articles that btfo climatology alarmists. Just take your pick, really.

thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

Semantics. If humans have an effect on climate change, that literally means that humans can effect the climate. We've already proposed tons of technologies for battling large particle increase if necessary. We haven't implemented them because there's no reason because there's no problem.

that does not mean we cause climate change. that is an unintentional, unpredictable short term result of our actions on a continuous process.

>I don't even care if we are or not, I've only pointed out the contradiction in reasoning for people who say we are.
there's not a contradiction because you're failing to distinguish between causing and controlling climate change. you can cause something to change in some limited sense but that does not mean you control it.

>Whether or not humans are the cause, it is incapable of destroying us at this point.
truly myopic. we rely on a certain stability and access to resources in order to enjoy the benefits of technology. if enough natural disasters come along to debilitate our infrastructure we will have to adapt as a species. whether that's likely or not i don't know, but you must recognise the possibility of extinction in order to attach a probability to it.

There is an argument that human beings couldn't possibly change the atmosphere because the Earth has been through so much before and it's retarded. Peoole underrate how much a species can interfere with an ecosystem. There are numerous cases of overpopulation of a certain animal causing untold damage to an ecosystem and they have to be culled or else the whole place goes to shit.

Just look at Beavers, how a dozen or two of them can completely change and diversify an ecosystem because of how they make lakes wherever they go. I'd say we are still better off just putting limits on things like smog, but we should ramp up fossil fuel use wherever we can because we are much more likely to find good alternate energies within an economy that is backed by fossil fuels rather than cutting our legs out from under us.

This is essentially true. Impermanence and flux are the only constant things in our existence.

Semantics. See >if enough natural disasters come along to debilitate our infrastructure we will have to adapt as a species.
Most of humanity dying =/= extinction. In fact it would probably be a significant improvement to our species, extremely eugenic and wealth concentration would skyrocket.

Honestly it's kind of true. Technological advances are awesome but is it really worth fucking up the environment and climate?

>beavers make dams and destroy forests, that means humans make camaros and destroy planets!
Just stop

it doesnt though. think
what the fuck are you on about, subterranean complexes? is this the lizard people?

>Most of humanity dying =/= extinction.
most of humanity dying can lead to extinction. i'm aware of the difference.

>Semantics. If humans have an effect on climate change, that literally means that humans can effect the climate.
that's a tautology, and it doesn't mean we can control the climate.

>ITT: if I survive then what's been lost?

Just because your gonna die eventually doesn't mean I should get to kill you whenever so I can burn your body for warmth.

If you're strong enough, why not?

That wasn't my point at all, I didn't say Beavers destroyed Forests I just said they have a massive influence on them more than any other animal and for the better in most cases honestly.

I am utterly amazed at how in the same post someone can both make the claim that humanity has mastered technology to such a degree that we can remake the entire planet in our image, and go on to say that human activity can't and couldn't have such large scale consequences on the planet that it'd threaten our survival as a species.

I agree that a few camaros would spruce up any forest, no pun intended

not sure what you're trying to say, this has no significance on ecology whatsoever. It also somewhat proves my poitn that you aren't being altruistic, you are simply saying that nature is only valuable as a commodity for humans to enjoy and should be frozen in time. Pigs and Rats are responsible for wiping out more species than humans, as just another populous organism on this planet it's ridiculous to suggest that we should have zero impact on the environment.

Do you not use this forum? Why not just link the post instead of being a passive aggressive grandma about it? Are you some shill who got lost while advertising something?

because we are humans, we are stronger togheter and not like some libertarian power fantasy where social darwinism is rule. You are far from as smart as you think you are. You will disagree but you are only fooling yourself.

>forum

Excuse me, redditor?

Educate yourself. The irony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_bunkers_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosvinsky_Kamen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex

Unfortunately there is no realistic scenario that causes the difference in this instance. You need a large object collision, or intentional extermination. There is nothing else that we will not fully realistically survive.

>that's a tautology
That's what I'm saying. And no, it literally means we can control the climate.

If we understand what is causing climate change, which we do, and if we understand what can combat large particles in the atmosphere, which we do, we can control the climate. We just don't because we don't have to because there is no problem.

Everything is a symptom of nature; including technology. Everything grew out of nature. Technology is not an abomination of the process it is very much apart of the overall process. Same goes for us human beings.

Why not? The two claims complement each other. Are you retarded?

How long do you think it will take for that to happen?
Before or after europe and the middle east become the new africa?

>not like some libertarian power fantasy where social darwinism is rule.
The irony in this is that it's actually true and the world is controlled by a very small amount of people who are basically ancap at their level.