# Save The World Or Use The World?



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Stelliferous said:


> Are you referring to me as a kid or giving a clue as to how best save the world


I'm saying "kids" in a derogatory yet jovial way meant to rally the troops. Someone should call an SJW on me.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Mick Travis said:


> I'm saying "kids" in a derogatory yet jovial way meant to rally the troops. Someone should call an SJW on me.


I don't know any SJW but I do know that life is meant to be valued, even when it's not very good. So using the world doesn't increase any value.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

TeamPB said:


> I'm pretty sure those from the alt-right try to save the world...well, from their point of view (THEIR world).


Well they want to save the world from herds of muslims just like Hitler wanted to deal with the Jewish Menace in order to save the world. You can put it that way, surely. If i was an alt-right politician, i would certainly do that, and i would have gathered an enormous following because i possess the unique combinaties of being mysterious, being irresistible, the ability to move people and i'm both creative and powerful with words whereas most infp's though excel in different terrains of art, i excel in speaking. I would certainly be noticed, and to be honest... It's even hard for me not to be noticed if i don't want to.


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Lakigigar said:


> Well they want to save the world from herds of muslims just like Hitler wanted to deal with the Jewish Menace in order to save the world. You can put it that way, surely. If i was an alt-right politician, i would certainly do that, and i would have gathered an enormous following because i possess the unique combinaties of being mysterious, being irresistible, the ability to move people and i'm both creative and powerful with words whereas most infp's though excel in different terrains of art, i excel in speaking. I would certainly be noticed, and to be honest... It's even hard for me not to be noticed if i don't want to.


"Well they want to save the world from herds of muslims''

How can I blame them for that?


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Mick Travis said:


> Are you a force of positive change working toward cooperation, efficiency, and abundance. Or, are you a person who sees humanity as doomed and takes advantage of humanity for fun and profit?
> 
> I seek to stop all selfish games, so I intend to save the world.


I'd create the illusion of positive change while taking advantage of humanity for fun and profit.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

The Dude said:


> I'd create the illusion of positive change while taking advantage of humanity for fun and profit.


It's been done.


----------



## StarLady (Jul 11, 2018)

TeamPB said:


> I'm pretty sure those from the alt-right try to save the world...well, from their point of view (THEIR world).


Yes, I would think an Objectivist or minarchist is more about using the world than any liberal or conservative.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

StarLady said:


> Yes, I would think an Objectivist or minarchist is more about using the world than any liberal or conservative.


Yea, the liberals and conservatives are only looking for a cut. Government is the middle man.


----------



## WhatIsYourConfirmationBias (May 10, 2018)

Option D? I see humanity as doomed, but I try in my own way to help the downtrodden and the weak...But I just don't see the point in spending any effort required to take advantage of the rest...Not to mention my conscience would bother me.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

WhatIsYourConfirmationBias said:


> I try in my own way to help the downtrodden and the weak.


Bless you, savior.


----------



## WhatIsYourConfirmationBias (May 10, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> WhatIsYourConfirmationBias said:
> 
> 
> > I try in my own way to help the downtrodden and the weak.
> ...


Um, well the fact is the bar is set pretty low at this point...There are people who devote their entire careers to this, I just email my legislators about various issues and occasionally give a homeless guy a sandwich...in comparison to that, my efforts are pretty miniscule. But it's enough to receive accolades nowadays, which says a lot about the state of society itself...


----------



## Chompy (May 2, 2015)

I wouldn't ever try to exploit people or use the current state of humanity for personal gain because that's why it's shitty in the first place. I can't say that I go out of my way often to make a big change though. I wouldn't even know where to start to be honest. So I suppose I'm waiting to die.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

I used to wait to die, but it took too long.
I've tried to save the world, but it failed.
Now I am just using the world, because that's only thing left I can do.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

TeamPB said:


> "Well they want to save the world from herds of muslims''
> 
> How can I blame them for that?


muslims are not humans to you?


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

WhatIsYourConfirmationBias said:


> Um, well the fact is the bar is set pretty low at this point...There are people who devote their entire careers to this, I just email my legislators about various issues and occasionally give a homeless guy a sandwich...in comparison to that, my efforts are pretty miniscule. But it's enough to receive accolades nowadays, which says a lot about the state of society itself...


Every little bit helps.


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Lakigigar said:


> muslims are not humans to you?


haha, I know I can be quite edgy when I talk about communities or people I dislike, but this is not what I implied...for once :smug:

Now, even though I deplore a serious lack of information concerning Islam (I will probably never open a quran in my life and it could be really useful), when you see concepts like Taqiya, when you hear some muslims and see the situation in muslim countries, you can legitimately feel threatened by this religion...especially when you come from a western country which is or was Christian.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

Save the world.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

The poll results are currently...

Save The World 62.50%
Use The World 0%
I'm Just Waiting To Die 37.50%

Is PerC this progressive? Is the world this progressive?

No con artists have fessed up. Are just a few people making utopia difficult to reach? Are those barriers only illusions?


----------



## Radiant Wheelbarrow (Oct 13, 2017)

I voted "use the world" because nobody else did, and it's fun to do things that nobody else did.

In other words, I'm not taking this poll, or this world, seriously. I'm sorry.

SAVE THE "use the world" POLL ANSWER!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Lets improve on:
-Climate changes (hurry!!!!!) 
-female rights
-freedom of speech


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Electra said:


> Lets improve on:
> -Climate changes (hurry!!!!!)
> -female rights
> -freedom of speech


I agree with you!!!

INFP's TO THE RESCUE!!!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Lakigigar said:


> I agree with you!!!
> 
> INFP's TO THE RESCUE!!!


Yeah babe!! :rockon:
Count me in


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

41% of votes:


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

It's complicated. I don't care about production. I don't really care if humanity ends and would kind of like to see it do so just because I don't see a point to any of this, but I believe in trying to make it a pleasant experience for everyone until that happens.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Why is there a dichotomy like it's one or the other?


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Why is there a dichotomy like it's one or the other?


What poll option would you add?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> What poll option would you add?


Pragmatically, it's possible to do both. So that should be there.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Pragmatically, it's possible to do both. So that should be there.


Could you give me an example? All I can think of are users who benefit from throwing their subjects a bone.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Save the world, of course.

Here's some relevant videos...


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)




----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

I'm part of the "I'm just waiting to die" group... I would have wanted to save the world, if the world would need or want saving, but it doesn't. And I guess I'm not cutthroat enough to use it. I just do a bit of both from time to time.

And I just don't trust idealists who think we can all just hold hands and live happily ever after. I think they're mostly hypocrites or deluded.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Strelnikov said:


> I'm part of the "I'm just waiting to die" group... I would have wanted to save the world, if the world would need or want saving, but it doesn't. And I guess I'm not cutthroat enough to use it. I just do a bit of both from time to time.
> 
> And I just don't trust idealists who think we can all just hold hands and live happily ever after. I think they're mostly hypocrites or deluded.


Thank you. I don't understand how a person lives with these thoughts. My life would go on a different path if I thought that way. I'd also be depressed. Could you help me understand how you got this viewpoint and how it helps you?


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> Thank you. I don't understand how a person lives with these thoughts. My life would go on a different path if I thought that way. I'd also be depressed. Could you help me understand how you got this viewpoint and how it helps you?


Well, it's pretty much all about observation.

*Save the world* - there are so many people who want to save the world... Consider politics, every ideology thinks it has the answer to the world's suffering. Save the world means different things to different people. But when people actually get power, they realise that in fact they're pretty powerless to "save the world". Only children would believe that they would ever have the power to save the world. The most powerful individuals ever in history couldn't do it, even if they wanted to. You get caught up in institutional complexity, confusing and competing interests on an ever grander scale. Adults know that the best you can do is maybe move the needle of global suffering slightly towards less suffering, but in the end you're not really "saving the world", you're just making a small difference for some people. Did anyone ever actually "save the world"?

Also, some of the darkest moments in human history start out with people who want to "save the world". It was the very idea behind Socialism/Communism. Over 100 million deaths later, some people still think that imposing a utopian vision of the world which contradicts every human instinct (e.g. competition) through force will save the world. The funny thing is that people will always fall prey to the idea that you just have to kill a few people, break a few eggs and then everything will be ok and we'll live happily ever after. It always ends up with you having to kill more and more and more people and restrict more and more and more freedoms and you'll even fake happiness in propaganda that you force feed people, hoping that at least you'll trick them into thinking they're happy. Well, nope, people do know they're not being saved. Just because they're quiet doesn't mean they're happy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*Use the world* - pretty much the cynical answer to the question. People who simply gave up on everything. Some of these people were former "save the world" types who lost heart. They fall in the other extreme, without understanding there is a middle ground ("I'm just waiting to die"). They may start actually, by using the world, making things so much worse. Another thing is that it's always easier to make things worse. I mean there really are people who can really go to the exact opposite of "saving the world" very fast. Assume Putin or Trump would simply launch a nuclear attack resulting in a nuclear exchange. To them it would be as simple as just pushing a button. It doesn't get easier than that. Now, there are people who use the world in less destructive ways, but more profitable to themselves. After all, if Putin wants to destroy humanity, that would also include himself. What's the point in starting global war, if you don't benefit anything?

Now, think of the money-hungry CEO. He doesn't go to the extreme of destroying the world. He just uses it. Ok, he rises through the ranks, he steps on a few dead bodies, but it's worth it, right? Well, he marries someone who sees him as a piggy bank, his "friends" are actually his business rivals who would stab him in the back the first chance they get, his employees are not his friends. Yes, he has a nice house, a yacht, etc. All the trappings of wealth... But... so what? He's alone, no one loves him, he has no one to share his dreams or ideals. He reached the top, but then he sees he's not that special, he's just another CEO among other CEOs. Rich people rise and fall all the time. He's never certain of his position. Yes, he doesn't have problems with money, but he might have problems with the law or with competitors. He works 16 hours per day to maintain an expensive lifestyle. Heck, I think I get more days off than him. He gets stress and problems, but the thing he may have wanted most: to make a mark on the world... He will pretty much be forgotten. Yes, to some people he might be a hero, but he won't really make the history books. In a few decades, others like him will rise and fall and he'll be forgotten. The company he led may not even exist anymore. He's less special than he thought himself to be. The fact is having some ideals is part of human nature, it's part of his nature, and (unless he's a psychopath) he will always feel like something is missing. That is a hole that any material possession cannot fill.

So what to do? "Wait to die", meaning be pragmatic and accept your human nature. Yes, you have ideals, but don't expect to solve humanity's every problem. Just try to at least solve some problems of those close to you and then move up and solve what you can. Don't beat yourself up for not solving everything for everyone. At the same time, don't be all altruistic, sometimes use the world, get something for yourself, it doesn't have to involve killing people who get in your way. It may be something as small as asking people for favours or saying "no" to people who want you to help them. Have some "you time".


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

@Strelnikov

I know change can't be forced. I know we can't deal with narcissists in power. They only get empowered by conflict. I think the only way to make a difference is to stop participating in "their" world. We need to walk away from our masters and form self sufficient communities.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Sangam swadik said:


>


Lol @ the people who give more value to the words of a stand-up comedian than actual scientists. His job is to entertain us, the job of scientists is to inform us. But of course all climate sceptists have to share this video, because they can't share a video of an actual scientists who's taken seriously denying man-made climate change simply because there are none left over.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Well let's laugh a bit...






Or... how a congressman magically changed his mind...






Check what's happening around the world and don't be an arrogant know-it-all who think he knows it better than the scientists, because you simply don't want it to be it true.

Remember, i do destroy every climate denier because everyone who even tries the fact completely ridiciluses itself without a doubt... or at best completely put things out of context with irrelevant stuff in order to prove the scientists are wrong, and they are true.

I've had a discussion with someone recently who told me that 500 million years ago... there was way much more CO² in the world while humans weren't around to put CO² in the air... That's true... But first of all, we're talking about 500 million years ago... the last Great Ice Age ended 20.000 years ago (the climate was 5°C colder than it was 100 years ago). 100 years ago, the climate was 1.5°C colder than it was now (and before that, we even had the Little Ice Age). Second... he forgot to say that the land back than was still barren. There were no trees or grasses to filter out the skies, and when vegetation actually started to grow on the land, and especially when plants and trees started to grow who became larger than 30 cm (which happened over a relatively quick-time), it started a series of mass-extinctions in the water (as well as among funguses on land, who might gaven plants that little push by basically ploughing the land and make it more dirty instead of rocky, because before that plants only grew in marshes and at the shores. This kickstarted some cooling (because of increased photosynthesis), the sea levels rapidly decreased and sea animals were quickly trapped into inner seas which became over time much more salty and became harder to breathe in... There were a series of anoxia events, seen in the fossil record by a series of black shell layers.

Every quick change in O² and CO² levels almost always led to extinctions and mass-extinctions. I think 4 of the 5 mass-extinction (or call it 5 of the 6 mass-extinction) had a very quick change in O² and CO² levels... Only during the Dinosaur extinction, the role of climate change and O² levels was less important, though... before the asteroid hit, some ecosystems were already hit by an ongoing climate change, but that alone was not of the severity to lead to such an mass-extinction, and the dinosaurs were really unlucky to had massive volcanism (in India) and an asteroid impact at roughly the same time... Not the fact that the asteroid did hit the Earth, or the massive volcanic flood basalts did lead to their demise, but the fact that these two events did hit at the same time lead to their demise. That's the growing consensus of the scientists. (and yes, there was some climate change because of the "nuclear winter - sun blacked out and acid rain", followed by recovery and warming until 55 million years ago, in which mammals and birds flourished). Since than, the Earth basically did cool... until 20.000 years ago, and since than the Earth's temperature is *quickly* rising.

Climate change is of all times, but it's the extent and speed of today's climate change that is worrying. Before that, climate change was basically unnoticable for one generation, but only over the course of a lot of generations. I have felt the climate change already in my life, and i'm only 22 years. You know what that meant... It's almost impossible to even get the winters i used to experience when i was very little... Summers like these we experience today did set a new standard for the upcoming years, and is something i've never experienced (far from)... 2003 and 2006 were similar, but this year the longetivity, the extention of all of this, the endless sunny and dry weather is something i've never seen. Far from.

97 of the climate scientists agree that the climate is changing, and that the change is man-made, but keep denying / ignoring the proof... I don't care, but you're really making a fool of yourself, and that's fun to watch. It's sorry that our dear planet has to suffer for your stupidity, but okay well enough, some people can't help it. Don't forget, i have no respect for climate deniers. *I will destroy and humiliate you*, not because you're being worth of my time, but mainly because it's just fun and so to do. You gave me the perfect assist, and it's easy to make the goal, so why wouldn't i.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

And since we're having this discussion anyway, you can gave me an answer to this question...

What expertise in climate & earth sciences does George Carlin (or you or whatever dude you trust (Donald Trump maybe?)) have. How long did they study for climate scientists... Do they have a specific interest in climate scientists, or is George Carlin only talking about climate change, to entertain his audience, and did he only prepare for his speech / jokes a month or so, and than travel the country around to spread his jokes, and did George Carlin mention climate change ever again, after he finished his Tour... And why did Donald Trump told the people that climate change is a hoax... Is it because he believes he has the expertise to actually know the truth, or is it because he has to impress his target audience and activate them to vote for him? Does your dear George Carlin that you admire so much actually work for NASA or a certain climate science agency, or whatever else agency / university?

You might not perceive the change outside your little home, but that's no surprise to me either, because if you never go around the world, you'll never see the world and see the changes... It's like showering and gradually making it hotter and hotter, and you won't perceive the change either until it's too hot and burn yourself.

If you really honestly believe that the climate is not changing, i suggest you to go to college and study climate scientist, and after you've finished the university class / college, and you still have the same opinion, than we can talk again.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

INTP's and INTJ's are also widely considered to be the smartest types... To be honest, i don't see it... I see the stubborness, but i don't see the insane smartness... English isn't my native language, but i often have more trouble reading texts of INFJ's and fellow INFP's because from some of them (especially the natives, but i'm often impressed by the level of some non-natives) i really have to read texts two, three or even four times and even than i won't understand it always. Their interests might sometimes focus on other domains, but some INFP's / INFJ's are into science / thinker's stuff as well. Some will only tell about their life, and write / create stories / make art and that's their choice, and they still show great levels of intellect, but the INFJ's / INFP's who are into science / politics have often always something interesting to tell, and can set more differences aside / can view things from a more neutral perspective whereas i've the feeling that a lot of INT's basically drown in their own stubborness. I wouldn't call them dumb because they are clearly smart, but they're so close-minded, that they're basically throwing their own intellectual capabilities and understanding and especially potential away.

I've especially that feeling with INT males on the forum here (and internet)... I find this what i observe here less apparent in INTx's in real-life.

I won't generalize, and this doesn't apply to every INTx on the forum, and than again, some might be mistyped just like some NF's might be NT's (me included possibly), but... i notice this with a lot of INTx's here on the forum. A lot, and i mean a lot of them are actually absolutely not open-minded about things and true intellectuals need to see things from a bigger perspective, questioning theirselves again & again (what i do... because even if it doesn't seem like this, i might question the left from time to time as well, as you might detect errors and correct them that way and self-criticism is an important value). *Some people sometimes need to explore the possibility that they might be wrong, because than and only than they can be considered a true intellectual.* I might put that in my signature.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Climatology / meteorology is my main passion. I might be wrong in politics (or better wording: exaggerate in spreading my beliefs or beliefs itself, and i know that very well). But climatology / meteorology was a hobby of me since i was 7 and especially since i was like 14 - 15 years old, when i truly indulged into that... I quickly learned a lot of things, and almost every day, there is one moment where i will check weather charts or research myself into one specific topic of climatology (climates of the past, possible climates of the future, our own climate, climates of different times, climate modelling, weather characterics / meteorology events and how they change over time, and even controversial stuff like predicting sun cycles / ice ages and so on...). I've explored a lot of it, and i know what i talk about, and i've questioned climate change and myself a lot too. Sometimes because climate change is boring as hell, and is a given, where i like to challenge people and challenge thoughts. I sometimes want change, or an unexpected upset. Climate change isn't really an unexpected upset, but more like an expected upset and i don't like how the media overportrays (at times) climate change too much as the apocalyps or how they mention it every time when it's very hot. And to be fair, journalists know almost nothing about meteorology and climatology as well, or at least they know much less about than i do. If i criticize George Carlin for not being a reliable source, than we must apply the same to a lot of journalists, who at best just copy - paste from other (hopefully) more reliable sources, but even during the copying some things might get wrong because they don't understand certain concepts / terms and might have a different message than intended to attract viewers, so the media is not really reliable in my views. I even don't pay attention to Al Gore, because imo he is a buy-out as well, and i have a different opinion on climate change than he does, and overall i don't like his attitude or the fact that he silences vital aspects of climate change. I value scientists way more than Al Gore, and i think anyone should do that, and just ignore Al Gore who still can't get over his 2000 defeat. Al Gore is a fake and not a true activist. He should accept the contributions of scientists more, because right now he's making a brand of climate change (and giving it political tension), whereas both the right and the left should work together on combatting climate change.

If i learned one thing over all the years, than it is that climate change is very well true, is man-made, and is the main challenge of our current generations. Even a rise of (only) 1.5-2°C (what is the ambition of the Paris agreement) would be a disaster. Look to what's happening over the world right now... with only a 1°C rise, and we still haven't changed our attitude, and just like a car won't immediately be able to brake, climate change won't be able to brake as well when we stop emitting fossil fuels from one day to the other, because of some mechanismes that can take much longer and only will have an effect much later (ex. sea level rise, loss of glacial content and thus albedo, ... ). There is no button that will let us return to the former climate of 100 or 50 years ago, they're gone for a very long time (and that may very well be millions of years). If we will be gone after some time, and the planet decide to cool again, than we might return to these conditions after probably million of years ago, but the possibility is that the Earth will just stay into those conditions or even evolve to hotter conditions (if ice cap of Antarctica disappears, that will be the case).


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I mean Al Gore could have been important for raising climate science awareness in political environments, but I don't like his attitude around it, and i think we could have pulled that off without him. His documentary: "An inconvenient truth" is just a lecture being filmed that won the best documentary at the Academy's and was such a joke... Every PhD could basically do the same and win an oscar than from filming his presentations lol.

My view is that capitalism is one of the reasons why it's so hard to adress to climate change, because the interests of the climates go right against the interests of the corporations and the economy. Though some measures can be taken without hurting the economy, and i believe at least... the right-wing can give them our support on that. Other measures will demand something from the economy, the one measure a little more than the other... If we truly want to solve our waste problems and the production / consumption process, in which we trick our customers in buying more stuff than they actually need (due advertisements) and thus wasting resources on stupid stuff (and in which the production or every product carries a price (CO² price)), than we might need to re-evaluate our economic system and opt for greener alternatives (like subsidizing green energy or a cooperated cheap European train network in order to reduce plain travelling, raising awareness that meat production carries a huge CO² price, isn't that healthy, and huge nature conservation parks and programs, maybe with the extent of 1/4th a continent (Africa) in which we preserve and protect wildlife and where human activity will be limited), and focusing on green technology / energy (planes, meat production, corporations), than we might make some steps...

Not only for climate change, but for the environment and animal wellbeing in general, because we have to be honest here... Climate change ain't our only environmental problem, and to the climate deniers all around PerC and the world... do you deny our other environmental problems or do you bury your head in the sand like an ostrich once again. Your call. Your choice.

Remember... we have still future generations who have to populate our planet... We need to keep this planet a nice place for them, make sure it has nice and clean blue air to breathe for them (air pollution), that the stars are still visible (combatting light pollution), making sure the cities aren't too warm (city heat that doesn't go away at night), that they still can see giant panda's and lions and learn about them on school (endangered animals), and that they can be prideful of humanity, and not see us as the generation who fucked everything up for them, because we were simply too selfish, and because we can't take any form of responsability.

/long rant


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

and to destroy the argument that the Earth has always changed the climate even when we weren't around, yes, but the extent of the warming nowadays is unprecenteded.










This is an idea of the climate of the past 50.000 million years

red: more approximate approximation of climates (100.000 years average)
blue: 10-million year average? (clear downwarts trend until very recently)

this is a graph i made myself to give you the idea of our climate change... We see clearly in the red line that the climate has warmed and cooled, but the blue line shows cooling until recently and than VERY SUDDEN WARMING. The cooling took 50 million years to get where we were 20.000 years ago... In that 20.000 years, we actually cancelled 1/3th +- of the cooling since 55 million years ago, which is absolutely ridicilous, especially since the geology and geography supported a warmer climate way more 55 million years ago (Himalaya and the current monsoon activity wasn't established yet, Antarctica wasn't isolated, didn't had it's sea current to keep it cold and isolated, and didn't had an ice cap which makes it locked into an ice age status since almost 30 million years ago.










here the real graph, take scale into amount and before you judge at least know how to read properly graphs, we're talking about a change observed in like 100 years.

*prediction for 2050 / 2100 exaggerated, but we have a 1.5°C rise already on such a short time.

*hothouse planets don't necessarily had warmer equatorial regions, but mainly had better distributed warmth around the poles. The Poles were than much warmer and rainforests and temperate forests did stretch to the Poles than. There were no ice caps and usually no land masses at the Poles during hothouses.

* location of the continents is very important in geology. Pangeae (the last supercontinent) had a very dry climate, because they had one big ocean, less shores, less island ecology, and one big land mass divided by a mountain range with an insane desert, and only rainforests basically in China which was basically the only island / series of peninsula's back than. Weather on the big landmass was harsh, with insane super hurricanes on the shores, and big desert dust super storms on the massive and vast desert.


----------



## PaladinRoland (Jan 11, 2014)

_I just waaaannnnnaaaa dddddiiiiiiieeeeeee_

I mean, I'm okay with living but going out with a bang? Count me in. 

No one wishes to go on forever. Especially if suffering and pain exists.
It has been a few billion years too...

Though I would live forever if there exists a pure world full of happiness and love. :happy: 
I wish to create that beautiful world... for her and for all of us.

I'm taking my chances with the grim reaper. 

This world is getting near its expiration date unless an absolute miracle happens but I cannot see that happening.

Death only has 99 dex, but I have 99 strength. h:
Piece of cake. We'll share a coffee or two after we are done settling it out. :laughing:

heh heh heh :kitteh:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm using it to save it! How dare you try to categorize me! :tongue:


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> And since we're having this discussion anyway, you can gave me an answer to this question...
> 
> What expertise in climate & earth sciences does George Carlin (or you or whatever dude you trust (Donald Trump maybe?)) have. How long did they study for climate scientists... Do they have a specific interest in climate scientists, or is George Carlin only talking about climate change, to entertain his audience, and did he only prepare for his speech / jokes a month or so, and than travel the country around to spread his jokes, and did George Carlin mention climate change ever again, after he finished his Tour... And why did Donald Trump told the people that climate change is a hoax... Is it because he believes he has the expertise to actually know the truth, or is it because he has to impress his target audience and activate them to vote for him? Does your dear George Carlin that you admire so much actually work for NASA or a certain climate science agency, or whatever else agency / university?
> 
> ...


You have made a lot of assumptions in your comments.I don't claim to be an expert on Climate change and I don't support Trump or any of his policies and I don't believe that Climate change is a hoax.My Intention of uploading the link to the video is that to show the nature of humans,people have a hard time in revealing their true intentions.Carlin makes an interesting point.We save the earth in order to consume its resources (that's what humans do) and you are facing the same problem again after depletion(ofcourse this might not be the case if its Fusion or something else) .So is it really Save the earth or Saving the Human race on earth?If we had found another alternative for earth then surely we would have taken it,then would we still save the earth?This leads to lots of interesting questions like "what is the appropriate stage at which the earth must be saved" and what does saving really mean,saving from what for why?So what I meant was by using the term"saving the earth" if we think that we are truly doing good,then we are mistaken because we might be simply satisfying our needs.A counterquestion,Why don't people talk about saving Jupiter or some of the about to die galaxies (if any) ?


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Sangam swadik said:


> You have made a lot of assumptions in your comments.I don't claim to be an expert on Climate change and I don't support Trump or any of his policies and I don't believe that Climate change is a hoax.My Intention of uploading the link to the video is that to show the nature of humans,people have a hard time in revealing their true intentions.Carlin makes an interesting point.We save the earth in order to consume its resources (that's what humans do) and you are facing the same problem again after depletion(ofcourse this might not be the case if its Fusion or something else) .So is it really Save the earth or Saving the Human race on earth?If we had found another alternative for earth then surely we would have taken it,then would we still save the earth?This leads to lots of interesting questions like "what is the appropriate stage at which the earth must be saved" and what does saving really mean,saving from what for why?So what I meant was by using the term"saving the earth" if we think that we are truly doing good,then we are mistaken because we might be simply satisfying our needs.A counterquestion,Why don't people talk about saving Jupiter or some of the about to die galaxies (if any) ?


You don't seem to understand it. Jupiter also doesn't have to be saved... We don't influence Jupiter. Things are going normal on Jupiter. It's just very irrelevant. We're the cause of our problems on Earth. I'm sure we have the possibility to solve those problems and treat the Earth with respect. Maybe you don't believe it, but if you don't believe in it, you have lost already before you started on your game.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Well, it's more like, fixing humanity's personal issues vs being the issue.

Gonna do my best to fix it.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

I know there are people using without thinking about it, because that's what they were taught to do.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> You don't seem to understand it. Jupiter also doesn't have to be saved... We don't influence Jupiter. Things are going normal on Jupiter. It's just very irrelevant. We're the cause of our problems on Earth. I'm sure we have the possibility to solve those problems and treat the Earth with respect. Maybe you don't believe it, but if you don't believe in it, you have lost already before you started on your game.


Its not irrelevant if you can think.Again you are answering a different question which is not "saving the earth".You can look at the posts in the Quora link below if you are interested in perspectives other than your own.
https://www.quora.com/Why-must-we-save-the-earth


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Sangam swadik said:


> you are answering a different question which is not "saving the earth".


People would need to do some planning to destroy the earth. This thread is about human contentment. Ecosystems are naturally part of that.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

when I was young I thought I could change the world
now that I'm old I realized the world changed me
tbh I'm just killing time until time kills me


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

At this time, only about 40% of the population cares. I think the only option for those of us who care is to lead by example and walk away. We need to form self sufficient communities for ourselves and everyone else who can see that our way of life is superior.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Mick Travis said:


> At this time, only about 40% of the population cares. I think the only option for those of us who care is to lead by example and walk away. We need to form self sufficient communities for ourselves and everyone else who can see that our way of life is superior.


Well most people want to go out swinging. Not just... lose. So a minority just walking away and "being the bigger man" usually doesn't work because of the fact if people think they are going to lose, they'll fight harder to the point of getting themselves hurt and losing sight of why they fight in the first place. Then when that is realized, selfishness is right around the corner because they learned they don't want to destroy themselves. 

So nothing is stronger than selfishness. Except God. This is why it's the end of days..


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Stelliferous said:


> Well most people want to go out swinging. Not just... lose. So a minority just walking away and "being the bigger man" usually doesn't work because of the fact if people think they are going to lose, they'll fight harder to the point of getting themselves hurt and losing sight of why they fight in the first place. Then when that is realized, selfishness is right around the corner because they learned they don't want to destroy themselves.


I'm sorry you're having a bad time getting people to help with communes. Maybe your approach is a little pessimistic.



Stelliferous said:


> So nothing is stronger than selfishness. Except God. This is why it's the end of days..



View attachment 811811


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

i'm waiting for the snapback, whatever direction its in. 
should be fun to observe
if i fall then i fall, it was aight


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

If you'd like to save the world, there is a discussion here...

https://www.personalitycafe.com/nfs...ion-what-would-you-change-todays-society.html


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

A little of both


----------



## Theories (Mar 24, 2016)

Me? Superman wasn’t my favorite superhero because of the look or the awesome powers, but what the powers would allow me to do- save the world.

Saving the world wouldn’t be the end, however. What we choose to do once it is saved is where it will count most. I would then not lead with my awesome abilities, but supervise and try to guide humanity on a clear course. This is all ideally speaking, of course, without the human factor of selfishness and greed. For those who believe ultimate power corrupts ultimately, I say you’ve never met an INTJ-A 1w9.

By nature I am an optimist. By nurture I am a skeptic. What I am not however, is a pessimist. I am built to save the world.


----------



## Sayyida (Dec 13, 2018)

I am pretty dedicated to the idea of making my life worthwhile and leaving my tiny, little corner of the world better than I found it, but I'm not perfect and would be lying if didn't admit to liking my creature comforts.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm just waiting to die.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Forest Nymph said:


> This is stupidly naive. It will take between 100-300 years just to colonize Mars. "Leaving the Earth to the greens" might leave your children or grandchildren fried to a crisp. As if you're the upper class who would escape first, anyway.


I don't think it's naive to expect a Martian settlement in a few decades, we have had the technologies for some time, only the American space program doesn't get enough money. If a new space race, this time between America and China, starts in the 2020s, there probably will be a base on Mars in my lifetime.

Once humans are present there, Mars will turn into a new Wild West and attract most daring and productive people kept down by bureaucratic systems on Earth. The growth of the new society could be very fast, like the growth of many African economies today (who don't care for environmental regulations).

I also imagine many places on Earth, like Russia or Canada, could become MORE habitable because of global warming! The boomer leftists' favourite dystopian scenarios won't come true, like late 19th century horse poop apocalypse scenario turned out to be nonsense.


----------



## The Veteran (Oct 24, 2018)

Forest Nymph said:


> This was a great intellectual innovation about 120 years ago. Timber companies and miners destroyed our nation from East to West by about 1900. Species were already going extinct completely, or populations had been utterly depleted in some areas. We have brought some of those species back from extinction since, just as pro-active environmental methods stopped the hole in the Ozone layer from becoming bigger from the Montreal Protocol (no, this is not related to climate change, some people make this mistake but it's actually two different man-made issues - one that was solved, one which is dangerously on-going).
> 
> But yeah...Native Americans actually knew how to manageably sustain lands hundreds, thousands of years ago. They knew about controlled burns, etc. It took activism on the part of intellectuals and scientists and artists to get them to see that there would be no more trees for timber if they just kept cutting West.
> 
> White people, on the whole, are very stupid in terms of knowing how to manage the natural world. Recently science has made "amazing" discoveries that Ancient Chinese people understood in their pagan medicine thousands of years ago. White Europeans might be good at things like math, categorization, and detail, but they're almost entirely responsible for the destruction of the Earth and it literally has to be explained to them like they're five years old, and even then they call it a "scientific discovery."


I'm so glad I am not American or lived in America.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Save/use
View attachment 820369


In terms of usage: Use to improve yourself so you can help others as much as you can and weed out the s***.

Save: I want everyone and everything to be happy and healthy, the animals too, plants even. Everything. But no, we cut down trees build buildings and call it "progress". Progress for what? Destroying the earth and nature...

Somewhat waiting to die too, lol.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Save for use but not beyond.
There's nothing sacred on this earth but us.
Nature worship is a death cult, do not buy into it.
For all life follow the same principle:
Save for use but not beyond.

That said, the earth goes to waste being badly managed, as does always happen when the oxen is muzzled.

* *


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Euclid said:


> Save for use but not beyond.
> There's nothing sacred on this earth but us.
> Nature worship is a death cult, do not buy into it.


Very nice, sounds like poetry and I completely agree! The only thing sacred is the mind/spirit, and on this planet only humans have it.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Spacenik86 said:


> Very nice, sounds like poetry and I completely agree! The only thing sacred is the mind/spirit, and on this planet only humans have it.


Gotta save the animals too.


----------



## Albatross (Jan 18, 2019)

Nahhhhh.... Not opportunist enough to use the world yet, Not naïve enough to think this world can be saved... So many problems that need an answer now but the humans are so contradictory and vindicative to save the world.
Ecological problems, can't be resolved without a non-corrupt government organisation that use the earth is dying situation to make money on the back of the population either with f*cking taxes or by signing wonderful aggreement with lobbying compagnies that are polluting more and more. 
Govenrment problem?? Hahaha! people that would be fantastic at ruling are generaly not interested and the greedy people who want to suck power out of everything takes their place evrytimes... And people are soooo fooled around by the media ( super friend with lobbies and political peoples) like I am not one of those people who think a world without conspiracy is possible, it was ther from the beggining, it is necessary. I just hope one day those who are scheming, will do it with the people who are "nothing" like me, my parents sisters, brother, friends... in there mind.... NOT because they know best. But because they listen to our needs!


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Euclid said:


> Save for use but not beyond.
> There's nothing sacred on this earth but us.
> Nature worship is a death cult, do not buy into it.
> For all life follow the same principle:
> ...


To explain a bit what I meant here because some might have the knee jerk reaction in the brain...

There is a designation in psychology called OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder - what does it mean? Some people who have this disorder, keep washing their hands for hours and hours, just to get them slightly more cleaner, but they will never get perfectly clean. There is another term, namely perfectionism, which also hints at the same sort of thing. As a result some may say perfection is a bad thing, and then fall on the other side by becoming negligent overall, but the problem here is really that in focusing on that one thing and trying to make it perfect, you spend all resources on that and neglect everything else. 

This is a syndrome that a lot of environmentalists suffer from, in that they think any and all pollution is intolerable, and it stems from seeing nature as something pure and clean and sacred that should not be polluted at all costs. Instead we are the one who should be sacrificed at all costs, all our prosperity has to be sacrificed, and this is why in the past nature religions did stuff like child sacrifice to the fertility goddess and such, and we have it now back again with mother Gaia and the new age movement, the age of Aquarius and all that crap, it's a death cult, where in human prosperity has to be sacrificed for the sake of the earth. In Christianity in contrast you have human prosperity at the top, well you have God at the top but the earth was created for us, the animals were created for us, all the natural resources are for our use, and because we disobeyed God and started worshiping nature instead, we squandered and neglected the earth.

https://biblehub.com/micah/7-13.htm
https://biblehub.com/revelation/11-18.htm

So what is the solution? 

Aristotle had this idea of the golden mean and you also see this in the eastern philosophies, but what this really is is moderation; find the amount of time you should spend washing your hands, how clean is sufficiently clean for the task at hand - are you working in a chip manufacturing or are you just dusting off your hand so you don't get dirt in your food? If the house is on fire should you be washing your hands or be more worried about GTFO of there. This is because each of these things have a certain utility value; you weigh between options of actions to take, which produce the best result of them all. 

Kant defined a distinction between two types of values:
1. A price
2. A dignity

A price is something which you can trade for something else of equal value, and utility is a kind of price e.g. how useful is my jacket, what am I willing to pay for it? Aesthetic value is the other kind of price, how much am I willing to pay for this painting, which is kind of useless but it's still valuable to me.

To all these things you can assign a price tag and OCD is when you spend a lot on something that's really not that valuable.

A dignity in contrast, and this is a much more important value, in fact infinitely more important, as otherwise you could put a price tag on a human being and sell him off as a slave, or kill unwanted babies. 

However according to moral law, one is never to use a human being as merely a means to an end. This is why utilitarianism is wrong, because it reduces all value to utility, and therefore makes man into a disposable tool. The end does not justify the means. In the Groundwork Kant writes:

"In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity.

What is related to general human inclinations and needs has a market price; that which, even without presupposing a need, conforms with a certain taste, that is, with a delight in the mere purposeless play of our mental powers, has a fancy price; but that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself has not merely a relative worth, that is, a price, but an inner worth, that is, dignity.

Now, morality is the condition under which a rational being can be an end in itself, since only through this is it possible to be a lawgiving member in the kingdom of ends. Hence morality, and humanity insofar as it is capable of morality, is that which alone has dignity."

Those are the two things, that have a dignity, humanity, as a precondition for morality and morality itself, which are held as sacred. When however nature is treated as sacred, humanity is reduced to a tool, to be sacrificed on the altar of Gaia.

Even the ancient Greeks got it wrong because when they preached eudaimonia they did not take into account what is sacred, and that is why they stumble on the cross 
https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_corinthians/1.htm
because in their philosophy virtue is merely a means to happiness, and is there called wisdom (a selfish earthly philosophy), and for the same reason eastern philosophies also fall short, in reducing it all to a means to escape dukkha - suffering.

But as Kant defines morality in the Critique of Practical Reason, morality is not the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy, but how to make ourselves worthy of happiness.
@Spacenik86 @Creator 22


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Euclid said:


> Even the ancient Greeks got it wrong because when they preached eudaimonia they did not take into account what is sacred, and that is why they stumble on the cross


Aristotle preached eudaimonia, Plato and Pythagoras did not. In Philebus, Plato claims that life of the mind is superior to pursuit of happiness (promoted by Philebus), debunking the "founding fathers" of America 2500 years before they were born.



> utilitarianism is wrong, because it reduces all value to utility, and therefore makes man into a disposable tool


Utilitarianism is just hedonism without the selfishness. Under this axiology, the most moral course is to drug everyone so that noone experiences anything save perfect bliss.



> A dignity in contrast, and this is a much more important value, in fact infinitely more important, as otherwise you could put a price tag on a human being and sell him off as a slave, or kill unwanted babies.


So dignity would represent the kind of intrinsic value that only intelligent life has?



> morality is not the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy, but how to make ourselves worthy of happiness.


I'll put it on a poster


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Euclid said:


> To explain a bit what I meant here because some might have the knee jerk reaction in the brain...
> 
> There is a designation in psychology called OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder - what does it mean? Some people who have this disorder, keep washing their hands for hours and hours, just to get them slightly more cleaner, but they will never get perfectly clean. There is another term, namely perfectionism, which also hints at the same sort of thing. As a result some may say perfection is a bad thing, and then fall on the other side by becoming negligent overall, but the problem here is really that in focusing on that one thing and trying to make it perfect, you spend all resources on that and neglect everything else.
> 
> ...


I would never kill anybody.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Spacenik86 said:


> Aristotle preached eudaimonia, Plato and Pythagoras did not. In Philebus, Plato claims that life of the mind is superior to pursuit of happiness (promoted by Philebus), debunking the "founding fathers" of America 2500 years before they were born.


I used to read Plato this way too when I initially read Plato, but there's eudaimonia lurking in Plato's reasoning too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia#Plato
I suppose what I found compelling was the serveral descriptions of a justice in alterlife using greek mythology (for instance in Gorgias) that lead me to that conclusion. On the other hand the concept of eudaimonia cannot be simply reduced to mere happiness in modern terms, or in epicurean terms ("pleasure" in Philebus)but was much more complex so one might be too quick to dismiss the ancients because of this but ultimately, the notion of happiness is still baked in, so that it could be said to be a kind of wisdom + happiness, so that it doesn't directly collapse into a short term thinking hedonism. The real problem however is that justice does not collapse into a virtue, which would entail that it is negotiable, which it isn't, and this is why Kant distinguishes justice from virtue 
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kant-the-metaphysics-of-ethics#Kant_0332_364
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1443#lf0332_label_157
which is a very important distinction, because the typical excuse for authoritarian governments is to compel people to act morally, e.g. China's social credit system but they who would otherwise not be acting morally are still not acting morally when compelled, because they're merely acting out of fear of punishment, so the excuse falls flat since the whole point with duties of virtue is that it's based on the adoption of an end, rather than the adoption of a means, but the one motivated out of fear, still fails moral requirements. Instead man is free to choose the means which in their judgment best fulfills the virtuous end they have adopted, and so when one helps someone in distress, the one who is helped is not owed the help, but the help is freely given, otherwise it would be merely paying back something that is due. This is why in Christianity, you have the doctrine of grace, both as a duty on our part that has no corresponding right (others are not entitled to your help, but one is free to choose whom to help) and the notion of divine grace, whereby God is not seen as owing us anything, but is freely giving us all what we have. The notion of God is also made necessary from a moral standpoint, because as Kant shows that there is no guarantee that acting morally will result in happiness as eudaimonists argue, and so it must remain an object of hope, and from a practical perspective, an object of belief that such happiness can still be attained even after choosing the moral path of life, (which is not motivated on happiness, but out of duty), hence Christians preaches the crucifixion which the Greeks had a hard time accepting thinking it folly - but then again Socrates too suffered a similar fate as described in Plato's apology and Phaedo, both alluding to a notion of justice in afterlife, so it's true that there is a lot of common ground there.

* *















Spacenik86 said:


> Utilitarianism is just hedonism without the selfishness. Under this axiology, the most moral course is to drug everyone so that noone experiences anything save perfect bliss.


If such could be maintained in perpetuity yes, but one of the problems with utilitarianism is that it's hard to know what will work in the long run, and that's why people continue to be miserable; there's no science of happiness. Even with all the technological advances we have made today, the rich who can buy all the gadgets and conveniences of life are still miserable, even the ancients knew better and by following Aristotle one would have lived a more wholesome fulfilling life.



Spacenik86 said:


> So dignity would represent the kind of intrinsic value that only intelligent life has?


Yes, this is one of the preconditions, because only the thinking being can conceive of the moral law and thus act on principles. Much like Aristotle defined man as the thinking animal, Kant defines humanity in a similar fashion as shown in the religion:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1793.pdf#section*.5
(1)As a living being man has a predisposition toanimality;
(2)As a living and reason-possessing being man has apredisposition to humanity;
(3)As a reason-possessing and morally accountable beingman has a predisposition to personality[see Glossary].
The third predisposition here "personality" is not what we typically call personality. From the Glossary:
personality:In uses starting on page 12 the word refers tothe condition of having respect for the moral law. 
The feeling of respect or the moral feeling could be said to be part of the psychological makeup that connects directly with moral reasoning so that the latter generates it, and is what gives us conscience. And there is already evidence showing that humans have a unique mental faculty for this, namely the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex not found in any other animal:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...cated-the-conscience/articleshow/29632772.cms
and I guess because it is generated out of this consciousness of the moral law, and is self wrought, while part of dignity it's not per se a precondition for morality but actually part of morality itself, or rather the first effect of it on the mind, and why Kant calls this an intellectual feeling, rather than a sensible (pathological) one.
https://www.con-textoskantianos.net/index.php/revista/article/view/219/227

Finally I noticed there's an error in what I wrote before in my poem, this is partly due to there not being a good word other than price for usefulness and aesthetic value, but it's an important distinction because despite being useless, there is a close relationship between aesthetics and morality and thus it has a privileged and sanctioned position from a moral perspective, so that an artist doesn't have to feel bad about being useless, because he does inspire society, just like religion and culture.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't even think the world _can_ be saved tbh, there's no way to win against entropy.


----------



## Steelight (Mar 15, 2017)

Just waiting to die. But if I had to choose, I'd use the world. I used to want to save it but....

"You either die a hero, or you live...long enough to see yourself become the villain".


----------

