what do you think?

[Mercedez Ben]

since this effects everything, it effects techno. so yes i think it's relevant that the WWF thinks we're going to be well on our way to self-anhilation by 2050. where will we dance if the air is unbreathable, eh? i'm sure some of you have read the article but it's been on my mind all day. curious about others' thoughts:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750783,00.html

[aleks]

by 2050 i won´t be able to dance anyway...

[Mercedez Ben]

right, right. fascinating. after a few hours of no response i tried to delete the thread assuming people weren't interested. but feel free to entertain.

[Peezee]

if i know america, they will continue to ignore this problem until it is a few years away and has been proven to be the absolute inevitable. at which point they will use a whole bunch of tax payer money to pay scientists and engineers to come up with some wack-ass quick fix solution involving new synthetic chemicals and technological gadgetry that can double as economic boosters for the corporate economy. and inevitably this will help problems in the immediate future while worsening them in the long run.

the alternate and ideal scenario is getting enough people to take notice of these problems, care about the problems enough to write letters and/or get our government to notice that the nation is not a bunch of morons, and take the time and effort to look at the best long term solutions and how to reach them.

while this is off-topic for this entire forum, thanks for bringing it up anyways Ben. forums that focus specifically on these issues are comprised of the same small group of progressive thinkers that are already in agreement on the matter. it is reaching a critical point where it needs to be addressed by the rest of society too (although it is still largely an american issue, and i know we americans are a minority on this forum- but it is still an issue everyon should be familiar with and concerned about).

[Mercedez Ben]

thanks for the response ezpz. if this assessment is accurate, it's probably too late, right? i think the answer is a spiritual one. to be able to cope with the pain that this devastation will bring and has brought upon everyone. i hope to turn myself into a giant lightpod and blast out of this world. til then i'll be here to heal but damn this shit is hectic. is there time? if there is, is there the means or the will? grim outlook on that front.

[Mercedez Ben]

another rather grim possiblity is that this is classic survival of the fittest in action. the fat fat cats are saving up enough reserves so that when the shit hits the fan, they'll be in the clear. hop on a ship and get the hell out. i wouldn't put it past some of them.

[Sheridan]

another us citizen here who is completely and entirely scared of my own government.
the new regime doesn't give two shits about anything but money.
here are just a few of President Bush's first accomplishments as president:

*cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%
*delayed rules that would reduce "acceptable" levels of arsenic in drinking water
*revoked rules strengthening the power of the government to deny contracts to companies that violate federal laws, environmental laws, and workplace standards
*allowed secretary of the interior gale norton to request suggestions for opening up national monuments for foresting, coal mining, and oil and gas drilling
*broke his promise to invest $100 million per year in rain forest conservation (which is probably the biggest threat to the environment by allowing too much water vapor to go up into the atomosphere)
*pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, ulimately signed by 178 other countries
*cut HALF A BILLION DOLLARS from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget
*abandoned his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxode emissions
*appointed Lynn Scarlett, a global warming skeptic and an opponent of stricter standards on air pollution, as undersecretary of the interior
*approved interior of the secretary gale norton's plan to auction off areas close to Florida's eastern shore for oil and gas development
*announced plans to allow oil drilling in Montana's lewis and clark national forest
*tried to reverse regulation protecting sixty million acres of national forest from logging and road building
*canceled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to develop prototype high mileage cars
*proposed to ease the permit process for constructing refiniries and nuclear and hydroelectric dams including lowering environmental standards
*proposed the selling of oil and gas tracts in the alaska wildlife preserve

so you can see where the leader of the free world is trying to lead us.

[alex cortex]

in particular regarding that only the exploitation of natural resources and the extermination of plants and animals are subject of this article. we all know there is a lot more catastrophies lurking in (near) future. illnesses (especially STDs), wars (for water, ground, freedom, whatever), increasing unfair distribution of economic and military power... this list is endless. and what depresses me quite often, is that especially young and pseudo-alternative media much to often denounce it as uncool to be concerned. people could loose their individuality by being part of a "anti-movement". scary.

[Peezee]

wow, what grim and apocalyptic ideas surfacing- perhaps it is on-topic after all as the name of this place is NO FUTURE.

in response to ben's response-
I wasn't exactly trying to say it's already too late to do anything useful. I think that attitude is equally detrimental - we should always be looking to do everything to better the situation as much as possible.

I agree that approaching the issue from a spiritual aspect is important though. I think if everyone was entirely true to self, constantly evaluating their lives, actions, morals, and relationships, and working to improve these elements- this would be the single most helpful step in countering the corruption that plagues society today.

[Chejai]

There are two things that you have to be aware of when you read any of this material:

(a) These reports are prepared by so-called "pressure" groups which commonly use scare tactics to fire things up a bit and, whilst claim to present scientific data, are strongly biased and selective in what they choose to report; and

(b) In general the facts that are presented are worst-case scenarios that are often based on old data. There has also and continues to be improvement in both our understanding of how the earth actually works and how the systems that control it, therefore, our potential approach to management and conservation should be regarded as having a similar potential to improve - which I believe in many areas it is.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree that things need to be done, but they should be based on comprehensive studies that can give clear and robust answers that have both ease of application and ability for malleable management.

Getting rid of George Dubya would be good start!!

[Sheridan]

thats the thing. there was a very large study in the states and the final results were given to former president clinton at the very end of his term. so when Bush got into office he took one look at it and said that it hadn't proved anything. that is why he started to do some of the things that I listed before. my mom told me that in recent months he has started to recant and say that something needs to be done. whether the world will be uninhabitable by 2050 or 5050 is irelevant. we are using up our natural resources and we are using them up quickly. we have the technology to make cars be way more fuel efficiant but then the poor oil companies wont make nearly as much money (boo hoo) so you have the fat cats in washington dc pulling legislation to do so.
it is that kind of aristocracy type rule that will ultimately bring it all down. when we still have elected officials stating that the greenhouse effect and global warming aren't real I worry what it will take to make them understand.

[Peezee]

Chejai-
Who decides which studies are clear and comprehensive?

My roomate has a bachelor's degree in Environmental Science and has given me similar dates for these environmental factors from her studies at the University of Michigan.

Maybe the world is not going to end in 2050, but the timeline is in not as long as people would like to think thanks to world leaders who care more about themselves than their nighbors or their children.

[Chejai]

Good question and one that is constantly debated - but I find the key is always in the application. You see so many studies being done out there that simply make you ask "why"........and a lot of people can't answer that simple three letter word. There should be a use to it or it's either wasting time, or simply mental masterbation. Nothing wrong with that of course, as we all like stimulus, but when it comes down to issues such as what is being discussed, you need to maintain focus. But there's no point dredging up the same old stats year in year out about fish stocks etc without looking into what is actually being done about it, as there are some really interesting moves being made by a number of government, private organisations and academics.

It ain't all doom and gloom.

[Atarythm]

As always will the americans ignore the problem until it becames catastrophic and then it'll be to late...:(

...But this time they will not be able to make a movie about it.........

[marcel]

Originally posted by Sheridan


so you can see where the leader of the free world is trying to lead us.

i think he's not trying, he even DOES it

we can talk about bush and what's going wrong with him about hours(starting with his 'election'..)
i ask myself why the people are always so blind. why don't do the americans see whats up with their government? maybe not a question to be asked from a german

some weeks ago i read an article about bush who was asked before 911 from a journalist what he thinks about the taliban. bush thought it was a rockband..

[jamyna]

Originally posted by Peezee
Maybe the world is not going to end in 2050

I cant help but wonder what sort of world we will be living in by then, even if we don't meet with a cataclysmic ending.

All reports tell us that the ecosystem is reeling, the sea levels rising, seasonal changes offset by months in some regions. The time for change is now. The trouble is that government have traditionally dragged their heels when it comes to environmental issues, it always takes a back seat. Christ, dear old Gee Dubya actually only acknowledged the existence of global warming two months ago! The bloke is in the pocket book of every energy company in town, as is exemplified in Sheridan's post.

So long as there are people like that in power, we don't even have a chance - so register your vote, and SPOIL it - is my advice. If loads of people scrawled something about their environmental concerns (and nothing else) at the polling station, then surely the government would be forced to come up with an alternative: At that point the people have proved that while they are pro-active (and not just the apathetic, despondent non-voting morons most politicians are happy to govern) they are also deeply dissatisfied with their rulers who sit back and do nothing.