The Song Fight Bulletin Board

The most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet concludes that human activities threaten the Earth's ability to sustain future generations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4391835.stm

Of course we're doomed. Haven't you seen some of the signs of the apocalypse? Like the Surreal Life.... Brigitte and Flavor Flav. Verne Troyer and that Brady guy.....the world is gonna end for sure.

haven't scientists and environmentalists been saying this for a long time now?

That "Human-Produced Reactive Nitrogen" graph is hilarious. Is that prediction line the one you would draw if you had to guess? And if so, where's the similar "Marine Fish Harvest" prediction line? For consistency's sake, we should top 100 million tons by 2020!

Linear extrapolation is crap. Complex systems are never linear. I'm not sure why people really bother with predictions about 2020 (let alone 2042, Mr. President). DOW 36,000!

(Note: I agree strongly that human impact on the ecosystem needs to be studies, and results should drive policy to lessen or at least direct that impact. But man, people love using statistics to scare folks. Looking at that "Changing Ecosystems" graph at the bottom, all I can think is "what are these lost land types being replaced with?" I don't think "suburbs" quite makes up the difference.)

fodroy wrote:haven't scientists and environmentalists been saying this for a long time now?

Not to mention the second law of thermodynamics.

(Granted, that's a few orders of magnitude different...)

But hey, I'm sure God will step in and sort everything out so that we, His chosen people, will survive in eternal bliss and happiness. </sarcasm>

Global waming is all Clinton's fault!!!

Niveous wrote:Of course we're doomed. Haven't you seen some of the signs of the apocalypse? Like the Surreal Life.... Brigitte and Flavor Flav. Verne Troyer and that Brady guy.....the world is gonna end for sure.

you think that's bad. that's nothing. the next group includes both jose canseco and omarosa.

fluffy wrote:But hey, I'm sure God will step in and sort everything out so that we, His chosen people, will survive in eternal bliss and happiness. </sarcasm>

well, he's already given america back to his chosen people.

i have a hard time understanding why everyone sees this as new news. i've been hearing this for as long as i can remember.

fodroy wrote:I have a hard time understanding why everyone sees this as new news. i've been hearing this for as long as i can remember.

But now it's officially official... Perhaps Bush will finally ratify kyoto.

maybe we'll just all die! who cares!

Check out two books (both by Jared Diamond here at UCLA):

Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

The first outlines an environmental (as opposed to genetic) explanation for how certain cultures came to dominate the planet (eurasians as opposed to africans or native americans).

The second book is more relevant to the discussion here and talks about the fall of societies. Very often the fall of a society can be blamed squarely on environmental conditions.

I guess I have three thoughts:
1. read the books because they're enlightening
2. the world is more robust and complex (as mostess suggests) than people give it credit for
3. certain aspects of our civilizations are way more fragile than we would be comfortable knowing. we may not be 20 billion people standing on a flat arid desert eating each other for food and moisture as the linear projections might suggest, but only because our civilizations will either collapse long before we could do that kind of damage, or it will make certain critical adjustments.

I think the goal of our leaders should probably be the latter, and it should be higher in priority than protecting energy companies, and not as misdirected as saving the 'flightless lunchbucket' or other such stupid individual creature.

DOOMED were DOOMED I TELLs YE


THE END IS NIGH

DOOMED WERE ALL gonna DIE




cor id love a sandwich board that said that
id wear it everywhere

Rock.....as they say

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 549D14.DTL

be careful walking through Washington DC carrying your luggage.

WTF?

So holding suitcases is a crime. We need the missing elements to the story Jack!!

Tabloid reporting technigue #118 - posting "news" items before any amount of detail is available, just to get a story out there before someone else "scoops" you.

For all we know this was a staged excersize. The fact that no mention is made about the fate of the suitcases (where was the bombsquad?) means that nothing happened to them. If they were going to storm the guy, and were acting out a scenario where they would treat him as they would a true threat, then they'd need an ambulance standing by. But they just "walked him away".

The way these shreds of information are assembled as if this is a complete story is pathetic. It would seem that posting it on the boards was meant to have us go "oh my god, our country is crazed". Which is equally...um...uncalled for. But maybe there was another point which I missed entirely.

Yeah, and assuming that what the article stated is true, I get the impression that the guy was just minding his own business, on the way to a hotel or conference, waiting for his colleague to get out of the bathroom or something, and just taking in the cherry blossoms.

They left the suitcases behind, too.

what's next? the real life minority report?

i think my point in posting the link was exactly spud's reaction. what the fuck? why is there not more information on the perceived "threat"? why did they just leave the suitcases? why did the paper run the story? why include some dipshit quote from the congressman?

maybe it was to prove we are a safer place than we were before 9/11. more paranoid sure....but safer.

mind you this came off AP Breaking News

/wtf

Shit like this has been going on since before 9/11. By shit like this, I mean both "agents trained to overreact to prevent possible situations from ever occurring" and "reporters forced to pad one sentence into 250 words".

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/capito ... index.html

in the picture, the guy looks more bored than threatening. or like he's waiting for a cab or something.

It's right out of Hollywood too.

"I want to see the president".

Dude. That DOES NOT WORK.

Like, he's gonna ask him to help save his dying Aunt Schiebo or something... and Bush'll run in, all heroic on the back of some llama screaming " I'm coming Terry... I'm coming!!"


Right.

What should threatening look like?