Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-23-2010, 08:10 PM   #16
New Yorker
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,158
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

This is not the first time you have completely, I repeat, completely misread something I have posted. Like, taken away a meaning diametrically opposite to that in the post.

Please accept my apology.
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2010, 02:50 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 12:12 PM
The verdict is not in yet. Certainly when people hear these things about the future they automatically seem to think its right around the corner. After all, dire predictions were made about the 21st century and now we are in the 21st century. But still, just because some of these really bad things haven't happened yet doesn't mean they won't still or that the people predicting them were off base. In some case it may be that the prediction of certain events led to steps being taken to prevent, or at least delay them. After all, thats the goal: to warn people of what may happen if certain steps are not taken. Assuming those steps are taken it should not come as a suprise that the predictions never come to fruition, or at least don't as quickly as they would have.
__________________

__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 06:26 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
There are no real problems?

Every year 15 million children die of hunger.

Search hunger >>>
If you wouldn´t have chimed in, I probably would have said the same.

"life expectancy had increased by one third, child mortality had fallen by two-thirds"? I recently looked up Zambia on wikipedia and found out that average life expectancy had fallen from 60 years to 37 years (women) and 38 years (men), largely because of AIDS.

In 2008, 100 of every 1.000 new born babies died.

The quantity of available optimism/ pessimism depends on where and how you live. I will not conclude that Zambia´s people are pessimists - I´ve never been there.

Also polar bears probably aren´t that happy with the glacier melting.
Melting ice kills polar bears, say boffins • The Register

Dolphnis in Japan aren´t happy either.
The Cove Movie: Welcome

One thing is interesting though, pollution from cars is down 98%? Is this guy sure? Back that up for me if you can. Where´s this data from?

Anyway, I don´t want to seem pessimistic. Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line have air conditioning. To quote another poster, as soon as the paycheck arrives, we can buy what we want, uh yes!
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 07:21 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line have air conditioning. To quote another poster, as soon as the paycheck arrives, we can buy what we want, uh yes!
I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about this. In quite a few parts of the US - including probably the less wealthy parts - air conditioning is a necessity.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 07:25 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 8,999
Local Time: 02:12 AM
Quote:
If you wouldn´t have chimed in, I probably would have said the same.
Well yes but be fair, he wasn't chiming in against the quoted opening author's somewhat pollyanna-ish take on the world, but against something I actually didn't say.

And the quoted opening author, while almost certainly on someone's payroll, did have half a point: global collapse, while never out of the question, has not happened yet. The world has failed to end. Some of those 1970s hobby-horses (ice age?) do look a bit silly now, while others have risen to higher prominence (peak oil). I'd agree that some of the implications he draws from that are a tad dodgy, but if end-of-the-worldism is on the way out, I say good. It's a cop-out.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2010, 01:21 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
Well yes but be fair, he wasn't chiming in against the quoted opening author's somewhat pollyanna-ish take on the world, but against something I actually didn't say.
I don´t care; the main point is that millions of people still die of hunger, after we already had optimistic previews as early as 1970 which said that hunger and poverty would be eradicated soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
And the quoted opening author, while almost certainly on someone's payroll, did have half a point: global collapse, while never out of the question, has not happened yet. The world has failed to end.
Let´s see about the future, climate change really worries me; from floods and hurricanes to vast parts of developing countries losing their harvest.

Of course the world in one way or antoher will continue to exist. The question rather is, with or without mankind. See, even after a world wide nuclear war there would be a couple of cockroaches left.

Nature itself is quick to recover, if left alone by mankind/ pollution etc. A former city will be overgrown by jungle in about, say, 100 or 200 years? Which is a pretty short timespan for nature.

How quick has the human race been to ruin most balances that nature developed in millions of years? We just needed 300 years to blow the balance up.

The athmospheric effects we feel now stem from pollution from the 1980s/90s. Needs a minimum of 10-20 years, so we´ll find out sooner or later if we´ve really ruined the natual balance for good.
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2010, 07:01 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 8,999
Local Time: 02:12 AM
On your last point, I'm intrigued by the claim that the atmospheric effects of today stem from pollution in the nineteen eighties and nineties! That one is news to me. Isn't it usually posited as a cumulative effect of the pollution from about 1850 to today?

It isn't as though climate change isn't a concern, but I'm afraid the timeframes are a bit on the long side. That is precisely why it is so hard to get it on the political centre stage.
__________________

__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com