>>8673198

Fuck the future of humanity. If browsing this board can teach you anything, it's that humanity is a plague which has no business existing in perpetuity. If we're going to eat ourselves to death we should just accept it, and take another bite.

you're both idiots for believing in the false left vs right dichotomy. The second guy is an idiot doubly so because he thinks gravity is a force

>I want
Big delusional baby

no argument

no argument

"no argument" is not an assertion that you are correct. Furthermore, there's no point in arguing on the internet.
Gravity still isn't a force.

My initial post didn't imply that I'm correct, it implied that he is wrong.

He asserts that the current humanity "kills" the Earth, therefor I asked for his scientific proof (which should, obviously, be aligned with the points). No other claims were made from my side requiring proof.

This nonsense from the left is exactly how and why this happened. Good read for those interested:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>The planet will be fine
It quite clearly won't be. Humans are already responsible for a mass extinction event.

>But user, that's all happened before

Yes but two things:
>I don't want to live in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome
>WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP IT

>No arguments

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that rightists have a low IQ.

> I don't want to live in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome
Zero proof that this is an issue.
> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP IT
Zero proof of this either.

Don't worry, the person you're replying to just read the slate article and is arguing with emotion rather than fact. As we can both observe, this is clearly not working to people who have 2 brain cells to rub together.

>Zero proof of this either.
>There is zero proof that alternatives to fossil fuels exist

Shit user best alert the media, that whole "nuclear power" business apparently doesn't exist.

>Zero proof that this is an issue.
> Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.

nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/abs/nature09678.html

Of the 704 species that could be assigned conservation status, 32.8% are in categories with elevated risk of extinction. Declines in abundance are associated with bleaching and diseases driven by elevated sea surface temperatures, with extinction risk further exacerbated by local-scale anthropogenic disturbances.

science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/560

But let me guess, all this is perfectly fine.

>It's a giant ball of rock that has survived worse than anything we can throw at it. The planet will be fine.

Nobody is talking about the ball of rock when they say the planet will be harmed, you stupid motherfucker.

ur right, we should dedicate ourselves to making sure every living thing will never die ever. After all, if an animal goes extinct, and we are smart, it's gotta be our faults.

I wonder who we can blame for the millions of species that went extinct before the industrial revolution, though...

>Literally no arguments

Brainlets, out!

>ur right, we should dedicate ourselves to making sure every living thing will never die ever.

No, just making sure that we don't make them go extinct you dozey bastard

>what is natural selection
waah why aren't you intervening and artifically tampering with the environment?
fuck off
fuck off

Animals will go extinct either way, usually due to the progress of another species. We progress at a significant rate, and we still manage to mitigate damage to other animals.

It's nature you leftist fagit

>Animals will go extinct either way

No they won't you moron

Again, I point to the MILLIONS of species that went extinct prior to the industrial revolution.

You can plug your ears and say "lol not an argument" all you want but that doesn't make it true.

You're the biggest idiot for being b8ed into arguing with idiots.

>Didn't read the articles

It quite clearly shows that they've only been placed in this state by human activity.

>Animals will go extinct either way

Oh well then, lets just fuck the environment. Who needs ecosystems anyway?

>The planet's going to be fine because I say so

>I want 100% proof that I need to before I try to make this planet a better place!
That's why you capitalists shouldn't be allowed in any government. Everything you do ever is not supposed to be the best for everyone, it is only supposed to help with your personal greed. That's how you Americans live. All your wealth goes to a few fortunate people, who buy your media to tell that it's all fine while you make a thread asking whether your burn is 2nd or 3rd degree and what to do about it. Just think about it man, there is no fucking human progress in that. There is no prevention of human suffering. It's just the illusion of progress and the illusion of opportunity. You see your demigods flying around in their private jets to their summer homes and think your country's still got it when the truth is that there is no reason why anyone is supposed to have that much money and there is no reason why anyone should be conditioned to emulate this kind of lifestyle.

So what is your alternate solution to handling the climate change crisis?

Animals who cannot adapt to the changing system (a system will always change. You're on a science board so you should be familiar with the second law of thermodynamics) will go extinct. Humans are utilizing the system around us for progress. I will always value human progression over that of a stupid fish that only has 100 fish brothers left that cannot live outside of a 2 degree range of temperature

How are you on a science board if all of this evades you?

> Oh well then, lets just fuck the environment. Who needs ecosystems anyway?

Exactly. We have technology that can replicate any benefits of the species that go extinct, and we can easily just invent new technology to counteract other consequences. So why should we destroy the economy over something that is literally not an actual problem, and has only been portrayed as such by leftist fearmongers and the lying media?

The progression is amazing!

>climate change isn't real
>ok, it's happening but it's not man-made
>well, man-made climate change is real but there are too many assholes around to do anything about it anyway

>Slate

Just let them dig their own graves, senpai. Never tell an enemy when they're making a mistake.

Using proven technologies to reduce our impact on the planet. Nuclear for example could easily meet our energy needs. Beyond that there's CCS and in a few years hopefully electric vehicles.

Sorry I didn't realise I was being baited. After all there's no way someone can unironically doing things like apply thermodynamics to a non-thermodynamic system, or believe that we have technology that can replace and entire ecosystem.

The solution is culling human population.
You have entire countries of nothing but 3rd world degenerates that breed and breed even though they can't sustain themselves let alone a child.

Once we have more room in the world and less populations, we'll have a lessening affect on our climate. Simple.

That's not what we are saying at all you idiot

Let me summarize it for you:

It's *not* real, but even if it was, it doesn't matter.

>"After all there's no way someone can unironically doing things like apply thermodynamics to a non-thermodynamic system"
>Doesn't know what roll the sun plays in the environment

You're at best scientifically ignorant and at worst a scientific regressionist. Either way, you belong on le reddit politics board and not on any form of science board

Nuclear as in Nuclear plants? The sort that fail and destroy more of the environment than 500 smelters running 24/7 for a year could do? That's stupid.

> MUH CAPITALISTS
That capitalism that you're so quick to decry is the only reason you're alive to criticize it. You think people invent new technology out of the goodness of their hearts? Nope, that's just a utopian fantasy. In the real world, scientific progress occurs because there is money to be made. Capitalism is the single biggest reason behind the decline of human suffering in the world, it has lifted more people out of poverty than literally anything else in human history. By attacking that, you attack the very foundation of all civilization and scientific progress. So if you want to live as a stone age primitive, go ahead. But don't try to drag the rest of us down with you just because you can't stand the idea of people behaving rationally and pursuing their own self interest.

Oh you guys.

>Nuclear for example could easily meet our energy needs.
Leftists oppose that too, so until you get rid of them there's zero chance of that happening. And, of course, once they're gone there will be no one who buys into your AGW doomsday cult, so it still won't happen.

Chernobyl fucked the region surrounding it for estimated 30K years. Sure power plant meltdowns are exceedingly rare, but they happen. The jap reactor was damaged due to nature not us. Putting your faith in chance is the dumbest way to prevent anything negative from happening to our planet.

How about this:

There should be a /political science general/ thread where /pol/ and Veeky Forums settle their differences and come to logical agreements

Politics and science don't go together at all.

>/pol/
>/logic/

W-what about Technocracy?

>logical agreements

don't be silly

A fantasy.

>Capitalism brought me smartphones, so everything should be sacrificed for it!
You know what measure is? Like, in the sense of a balance between things? It's not all black and white. Criticizing capitalism without boundaries is not communism. Try to understand that before writing down your generic capitalism defense speech.

>le nuclear disaster meme
After the disaster, the other reactors in Chernobyl were operational until 2000.
Even the effects of worst nuclear disaster in history was nowhere near the disaster it was portrayed. And that was with the slavs running a stress test with tons of flaws and no containment structure.

Fine

Technologically-oriented libertarian government?

Balance is only useful when the other side has something worthwhile. The fact that every single attempt at socialism has failed miserably is evidence that there is no reason for balance. Why should we try to balance a capitalist society with a shithole like North Korea or Venezuela?

Science is successful when you remove emotions from it.
To rule over anything you need to be guided by your emotions.

They mutually cancel each other out.

>it's a "self righteous liberals" episode

No one is producing facts. Not the people who manipulate, take out of context, purposely smear, or outright fabricate stories, like your modern mainstream media. And at the same time Trump and Co. are gaming the system to present their own fairly distorted take on things.

Lets not pretend anyone is really operating off of a factual basis here. CNN was legitimately pushing a story about a "secret M16 agent with rumors of Trump having a Russian prostitute piss fetish" a few weeks ago.

This is the age of misinfo and you are going to have to approach anything anyone says with a big fat truck of salt.

>To rule over anything you need to be guided by your emotions.
What? How is a council of experts voting on a topic related to emotions in any way? Switzerland doesn't seem emotional at all, it seems quite autistic in administrating itself

Yet the area surrounding Chernobyl reactor 4 is still fucked with no signs it will ever recover.

Relying solely on nuclear energy is the single stupidest post i've read thus far. Putting all your eggs in one basket increases the chances one will break, and all you need is one nuclear reactor to break to doom us all.

According to history, nuclear power plant meltdowns are caused by two things:

>poor/archaic technology (no longer an issue)
>filling it with retards or starving people

Faith has nothing to do with it, meltdowns are basically 100% preventable.

Bias. Just like you can't agree with me on this subject, you'll never have 100% unbiased opinions factoring into a vote.

They're preventable if the reactors are run by people who aren't horribly corrupt or incompetent. Which means not by human beings.

And why is a proposal of a Technocracy (which is supposed to limit bias) bad?

This post is so retarded it's hard to know where to start.
>The fact that every single attempt at socialism has failed miserably
Other than the stupid immigration policies, it's worked pretty well in Scandinavia.

>is evidence that there is no reason for balance.
Restraining rapacious capitalism isn't wanting to become even a socialist state, let alone a communist one.

>Why should we try to balance a capitalist society with a shithole like North Korea or Venezuela?

What the fuck have either of those two failed states go to do with capitalism? I get the feeling you don't know what capitalism is, user. You see those two states are broadly communist, we don't want that. Just some restraint to be shown by the current capitalist system.

Then how did the tsunami and earthquake off japan cause the nuclear reactor to almost meltdown?

Who said it was bad? I sure as heck didn't. I said it was a fantasy because it is. Unless you're ruling over robots you can control 100% you'll never achieve an autocracy because emotions.

Good point, let's just shut down all of human society then because lol you can't trust anyone right?

You should be asking why such a cataclysmic event DIDN'T cause a meltdown

> Scandinavia
If your country is basically 100% white people, anything can work.

Swamped the back up generator preventing the cooling systems working. Modern reactors can use the steam produced from the heating of water within the reactor to power it's backup systems.

No, I'm saying we should hurry up with building our new robot overlords.

>There is America and there is North Korea
You obviously really don't understand what balance is. You sound like some brain washed kid raised in the cold war. Educate yourself.

Made me laugh

So failures aren't entirely man made

>Restraining rapacious capitalism isn't wanting to become even a socialist state, let alone a communist one.
> Just some restraint to be shown by the current capitalist system.
What evidence is there that capitalism should be restrained? You've provided none.

shut the fuck up

Who said that it was?

See A couple of articles (of which there are many) that show that human activity is pushing ecosystems to the limit of what they can endure.

Also,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Aftermath

>Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight

And that's why we need a /polsci/ thread - to settle stuff like this, because both of us will keep disagreeing for a couple of hours

I personally remain in favor of a libertarian technocracy being the most efficient form of government *right now*, especially with the fact that Colonization: Part 2 is right in front of us, and this is the specific government that boosts a nation's development into that sphere. I'm sure that most of Veeky Forums agree with me, as everyone here has the age of NASA and space rivalry as the golden age of science, which was a de-facto rivalry between a libertarian and a communist technocracy, two polar forms of technological focus that need to be further explored

Who cares if the ecosystem can or can't endure something? We have technology to handle any loss of productivity that might result from species going extinct or whatever else you're whining about. You haven't done anything to show that there's a real problem that needs to be addressed, you're just demanding that civilization turn away from the thing that has been behind virtually every improvement for the last two centuries just because it hurts your precious feelings.

> to settle stuff like this
It's never settled because it isn't about facts. Leftists don't care about facts, only feelings, and those aren't going to change no matter how many facts they're presented with that debunk their dogma.

>We have technology to handle any loss of productivity that might result from species going extinct

What evidence is there that we have the technology to keep an entire artificial ecosystem going?

> to keep an entire artificial ecosystem going?
We don't need to, all we need to do is invent technology that can take the place of the things that benefit us. The vast majority of species are worthless and their extinction would be no loss, and the ones that are somehow useful can easily be preserved or replaced.

>The vast majority of species are worthless and their extinction would be no loss

Wew lad. You've got to be trolling with this shit. Still waiting for that magic technology that can keep replace ecosystems, by lets make it easy for you:
>What technology do we have available that can help the fishing industry handle any loss of productivity from overfishing.

Global warming would have already been solved if leftists hadn't sided with the oil companies to kill the nuclear industry through over regulation.

Loss of productivity creates demand for technology to remedy that loss. That demand makes it profitable to invent something to meet the demand, leading to investment in scientific development that will produce the technology needed to solve the problem. If the problem is real, then there will be money to be made in creating a solution, and so it will be created. This is a simply case of supply and demand, maybe you should try reading up on basic economics before you run your mouth off and reveal how retarded you are.

I'm not seeing any evidence user. Where's the evidence user?

The history of the last two centuries is full of examples of this. Problem arrises, profits can be made in solving, so someone invents new technology that solves it. That has been the story behind practically every major technological advancement in history.

So you have no evidence that we have a technology do we have available that can help the fishing industry handle any loss of productivity from overfishing.

Just appealing to muh economic """"theory"""" as if anything is possible.

No need to get all emotional and start swearing.

Please refer to this thread for confirmation that you're a literal brainlet.

Kindly kill yourself on the way out

Well I mean facts are clearly ineffective in communicating facts. Obviously we need non-facts to help people know the facts. Kellyanne knows all about it.

Damn you sure are exhibiting high levels of frustration my friend, did the post trigger you?

Also, I fail to see any answers to any of the points, a link to a thread discussing global warming is not a valid argument, sorry

>that pic
ew
i bet you want to bang her you perv

The evidence is right there my intellectually challenged friend. You just have to read, your mother did teach you that, right?

Hah, I seem to have missed it my friend!

Please do assist me into linking one (1) reply that answers any of my points, as I seem to be mentally impaired enough to not see any

I would do that, but I fear I would be robbing you of a valuable learning opportunity. Namely, that sometimes you have to try real hard to understand something. It'll help you in the long run.

By saying
>u r dum leftist
>u r dum liberal
you automatically invalidate any point you wanted to make and no one will listen to you. Just make your point and say nothing more if you are genuinely interested in persuading someone. Maybe these "tactics" work at the "debates" your small town church holds, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

> You called me a leftist so I'm going to ignore everything you say
That just proves that you really are a leftist. Congratulations.

Not an argument.

HA! Jokes on you, I'm actually an Objecitivist. As such I'm certainly the most rational person itt, moreover my impeccable rationality can discern worthwhile posts from retarded meme spewing. If the depth of your logical reasoning is "ur a leftist", then no, your posts aren't worth my (or anyone else's) time. Thanks for trying though, one day your rational inquiry might be such that it could rival my own, that day isn't today, however.