 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 25658 Posts
|
Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:15:26 AM
"50 years ago cell phones were not imagined! Ye of little faith."
Star Trek, 1966 - Communicator.
A hand held, flip up device for calling the office.
Okay, it's only been 46 years not 50, but I'm rounding up. |
|
 sutra46
Female, 40-49, Asia
2008 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:57:42 AM
And 50 years ago they thought we'd have flying cars by now.
50 years ago cell phones were not imagined! Ye of little faith.
What the heck do you want a flying car for? We are looking at holographic transportation.
Think different. |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5283 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:17:07 AM
Five years from now there will be solutions that we are not even in the realm of [imagination]
And 50 years ago they thought we'd have flying cars by now. |
|
sutra46
Female, 40-49, Asia
2008 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:08:33 AM
*imagination |
|
sutra46
Female, 40-49, Asia
2008 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:07:48 AM
He is simply posing a question. Instead of this why not try that. That is how most inventions start.
No need to get the pagoda in the bunch over this now. Five years from now there will be solutions that we are not even in the realm of imaginig. |
|
 Justin9235
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1560 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:15:54 AM
Lol he cracks me up =P |
|
 photomstr
Male, 50-59, Canada
767 Posts
|
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:48:39 AM
Mother Nature is getting pissed . . . |
|
 phil7243
Male, 18-29, Australia
143 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 11:18:57 PM
I think the interpretation of 'bad for life' is important here; if you think that death in general is 'bad for life', then yes Earth is bad. If the inability to live in the first place is 'bad for life' then Earth is good.
Also CrakrJak has made the most rational arguments here. |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8751 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 8:25:45 PM
If earth was a perfectly safe, secure, and nurturing environment, there would be nothing here but single-celled life. If you want to evolve, you gotta thin the heard. |
|
 DrProfessor
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
3528 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 7:27:31 PM
Wow, that sucked. He used some really bad, anecdotal reasoning there. |
|
 paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
985 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 7:03:07 PM
the hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, & tornadoes we see are gentle fluctuations to an otherwise extremely well balanced system. check out some of the temperature swings or wind conditions on other planets. |
|
 mon360
Male, 13-17, Southern US
741 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 5:56:16 PM
humans are bad for earth |
|
 Fancysucksss
Male, 18-29, Western US
1051 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 4:18:24 PM
This is something I totally disagree with. Destruction breeds creation. Just like our wars have made us more efficient at killing eachother, they have also brought up better ways to defend ourselves, for the time being, from ourselves. It's good to figure things out and how to prevent them, but even better if these things are let be. Especially something big like this. at least until we know the exact outcome. Bad neil. bad! |
|
 lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
791 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 3:48:12 PM
The only flaw I see in his reasoning is that there's usually a reason things happen in nature, even if they are inconvenient for life in the way. Fires are necessary for some plant species to thrive, etc. If you prevent natural disasters, you better fully understand what benefit they provide and find a way to provide the benefit in another way. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 2:43:31 PM
patchgrabber: I never mentioned AGW and as I said we could destroy ourselves, but we couldn't destroy all life on earth even with the nukes. Nuclear radiation affects other forms of life differently than it does us.
Also, anyone that thinks we can somehow capture all the energy of a hurricane, tornado or tsunami is a first grade moron.
It's not THAT the wind is blowing, it's WHAT the wind is blowing that would make that effort futile and disastrous. The same goes for the debris coming in from a tsunami. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5283 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 1:59:32 PM
@MacGuffin: Fine, dismiss my argument all you want. I'm not saying NdGT isn't on to something, and I'm also not saying that it's not possible for us to prevent natural disasters in the future, I'm just saying that there is a specific reason we don't spend money into that research area: How does someone justify the amount of money needed for research into something when you can't also compare it to the value of the things that *would* have been destroyed? You're looking at a problem 100 years from now and I'm looking at it right now. |
|
 MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 1:51:53 PM
@patch: Forget it. Something tells me you'd have been going "but you can't USE an aeroplane to get to the moon......oh", right up until Armstrong made that first small step for man. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5283 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 1:22:48 PM
@MacGuffin: I know what you're saying, but there's quite a leap from airplane -> rocket as opposed to turbine -> ? Your example of a thermal exchanger doesn't fit, because even *if* it were possible to reduce the temperature of a specific fraction of the ocean, how would you even know where to start decreasing the temperature. The reason these technologies haven't been researched is because something like a tornado happens at a moment's notice. Sure there can be weather conditions that we can anticipate or monitor, but the scale of money and manpower needed to, say, quell a storm because there *might* be a tornado is not possible. Yes, yes, I know you're saying that in the future, but the video was referencing why we don't look into these technologies now, and I've just told you why. |
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 1:12:55 PM
@patch: I refer you to my earlier analogy about walking on the moon, and how there would have been naysayers back in 1950, saying "but aircraft couldn't take you to the moon". Simon there could as easily have been captioned "You're not going to use aircraft? WTF else are you going to use?". For hurricanes, maybe they'd use thermal exchangers to take the heat out of the sea before it even heats the air causing it to rise. Maybe they'd do something else entirely undreamt of at this juncture. The point is, I don't need to know *how* they'd do it myself at this very moment to be able to state that that it's not beyond humanity to *invent* a way to do it. Just because you and I don't personally understand every minutiae of *how* to do something, doesn't mean that it can't be done with sufficient ingenuity by other people in time to come. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5283 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 12:21:54 PM
 |
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 11:34:33 AM
...turbines that can be cheaply deployed at a moment's notice is just not feasible.
Nobody said it needed to be turbines. |
|
 CaptainPabst
Male, 18-29, Western US
1253 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 11:26:04 AM
my bad |
|
CaptainPabst
Male, 18-29, Western US
1253 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 11:25:26 AM
Sorry Gerry but they dont |
|
 drawman61
Male, 50-59, Europe
1401 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 10:45:38 AM
So he wants to hold back the waves? Did he learn nothing from King Canute? |
|
 Langer
Male, 18-29, Europe
308 Posts
|
Monday, May 28, 2012 10:39:38 AM
 |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}