The General Degredation of Society

[TinMan46]

Since this forum seems to be a pretty thoughtful and intelligent forum, I've decided to share with you my views on what I view as "The Degredation of Society" as a whole and how I, personally, believe that this generation of kids is fast becoming the least intelligence in recent history, thanks to the magic of technology such as Video Games and cell phones.

If you look around you today, what do you see? It's an absolute mess. Teenagers these days can't manage looking up from their tiny cell phone screens to pay attention to the environment around them for more than 10 seconds. In the past decade, you can easily see that we've hit a brick wall in the field of technological and medical advancements.What have our youth created lately, that will help further our civilization? Teleportation? Trips to mars? Moon bases? Cures for cancer. No, we have the wonderbra, and new ways to rapidly increase our weight and decrease our life expectancy. Kids are paying less attention to getting a decent education and more attention to how many space marines they've killed, or when the next binge drinking party is. If humanity continues this trend of decreasing intelligence I fear that we may dig ourselves into a rut that will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get out of!

For example, when cell phones first got text messaging, people thought it was amazing. But the small, difficult way to type messages eventually led to "Textspeak", very grammetically incorrect form of the English language that I am sure you are all familiar with. It's moved from Text messaging to the internet, and within the next few years I believe this trend will be picked up and used by more and more adolescents, eventually overtaking and crippling the English language. It's what I believe to be a very serious problem.

People, if we don't do something soon to radically change the behavior and outlook on our childrens' life, we're going to have a serious decline in general intelligence all over the world. The children are our future, and if we don't do something, we are going to be in deep trouble.

[devonin]

In the past decade, you can easily see that we've hit a brick wall in the field of technological and medical advancements.People who are still kids today have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether there are advancements in techonology or medicine. People who were kids 30 years ago (Back before widespread use of cellphones and video games) are the ones responsible for any lack of advancement. So even if there -is- lack of advancement, there's no connection at all to use of cellphones or video games.

What have our youth created latelyOur youth are supposed to create anything? They're still being educated.

Teleportation? Trips to mars? Moon bases? Cures for cancer.So just because a few specific advancements you think would be cool (We don't need trips to mars [ though we've made several with devices ] and bases on the moon are perfectly doable with current technology just not worth it) doesn't mean no advancements have happened.

No, we have the wonderbra, and new ways to rapidly increase our weight and decrease our life expectancy. Wonderbra is like 40 years old dude. And in addition to the creation of various consumer products that if used like a moron can cause you to gain weight, we've also developed all kinds of great ways for people to get exercise and lose weight.

For example, when cell phones first got text messaging, people thought it was amazing. But the small, difficult way to type messages eventually led to "Textspeak", very grammetically incorrect form of the English language that I am sure you are all familiar with. It's moved from Text messaging to the internet, and within the next few years I believe this trend will be picked up and used by more and more adolescents, eventually overtaking and crippling the English language. It's what I believe to be a very serious problem. Because the english language has existed unchanged and sacrosanct for thousands of years right? English is only 1600 years old, and 'modern english' is only about 500 years old. The language is developing, and if some of us (myself included) don't like the 'textspeak' method of adapting the language, if it gains enough widespread use, it will -become- let's call it 'postmodern' english. We won't like it, but it isn't automatically "bad" just because we don't.

People, if we don't do something soon to radically change the behavior and outlook on our childrens' life That's on the parents, yes? And the educators? Not a forum full of teenagers.

[foilman8805]

devonin already hit on what I was going to say. Considering that most youth (which, for the sake of this argument, I will include myself) are still in school, how the hell do you expect me to create anything? I'm still learning. I guess I don't fit into your vision of society either since I'm pursuing a degree in aerospace engineering huh...

And can we just step out of the debate here and focus on what you think is important for a second: teleportation and trips to Mars? Cures for cancer? How about we just work on getting everyone on this planet food and water first. One step at a time, Christ.

Last, rather than focusing on the adaptation of the English language to 160 character limit text messages, why don't you consider the advancement in the nano-technology that allows your cellphone to even do that **** to begin with! I have a phone that is less than 4 inches in length and half an inch thick with a full keyboard, email access, internet access, a 2 megapixel camera for photos and video, a microSD slot that allows me to put a 2GB memory card smaller than a dime into my phone for extra memory, mp3 music playback...the list goes on. I find that incredible, and I appreciate the advancements in the technology that have allowed me to even own this device.

One more thing...how is a human being's intelligence in anyway related text messaging? Isn't that something that is generally a product of genetics?

[Sullyman2007]

In the past decade, you can easily see that we've hit a brick wall in the field of technological and medical advancements
That's just silly. I'm sorry OP but think about what you just said. What's that statistic you always hear? It's something like "we've advanced more in the past 50 years than we have is the past 200". Something like that, right? Even so, how can you blame the pace of advancement, or 'degradation', as you put it, on a generation who has only existed two or three decades.

You are asking a forum of primarily 16-21 year olds why they haven't been 'paying attention to their environment' or 'looking up from their cell phones'. I can't speak for this entire community, but I just started college. I plan on pursuing Radiology, and who knows, maybe one day I might help develop a cure for cancer.

[Reach]

Last, rather than focusing on the adaptation of the English language to 160 character limit text messages, why don't you consider the advancement in the nano-technology that allows your cellphone to even do that **** to begin with! I have a phone that is less than 4 inches in length and half an inch thick with a full keyboard, email access, internet access, a 2 megapixel camera for photos and video, a microSD slot that allows me to put a 2GB memory card smaller than a dime into my phone for extra memory, mp3 music playback...the list goes on. I find that incredible, and I appreciate the advancements in the technology that have allowed me to even own this device.

Ditto. Seriously, nobody I know really appreciates how advances in computer science and quantum physics effect our everyday lives. So many things we take for granted on a daily basis wouldn't be possible without the extraordinary leaps and bounds we've made in technology over the past few decades. I suppose you don't really *need* to understand or appreciate something like quantum physics to build cool stuff, but I think it's something important to note.


With that said though, society could be in for trouble in the future, just not for the reasons specified by the OP.

Statistically speaking, we're probably talking about the most intelligent generation on record. University attendances are up and test scores are through the roof - competition at the highest level of academia is more intense than it has ever been before. Academia is a feeding frenzy. Sure, more people are using technology and some of those people are doing it in not so intelligent ways - I wouldn't necessarily call that a decline in general intelligence though. That has happened throughout every generation.

It's more of a cultural shift of the zeitgeist. For example, kids vocabulary sizes aren't getting smaller - they're just filling that vocabulary with different words than their parents did. IQ scores are certainly not going down (Well, I'll get to that), and they're probably the biggest predictor of academic success and ability to contribute to society in useful ways.


However, we are saddling our future generations with some of our mistakes. If you want to talk about declines in general intelligence, that could be possible. This highly competitive society gives little reason or incentive for intelligent people to have large amounts of children, but ample reason for...'others' that are most definitely less intelligent to have copious amounts of children. IQ scores have generally been on the rise for the past century, though this so called 'Flynn effect' died out completely about 10-20 years ago in most developed countries.

It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that this trend could reverse and general intelligence could decline, but that has more to do with reasons outside of the hands of scientists and people making leading breakthroughs in technology.


We're also saddling future generations with the lack of response on the issue of global warming, but that's another topic entirely.


People need to be educated more and more as this world gets increasingly complex - there are constantly more and more complex issues on the rise that generate the need for intelligent people. And in many respects, we lack those people. There are often people in charge that are making decisions that don't know what they're doing. However, I wouldn't take that and then jump to the conclusion that society itself is degrading. Rather, it's more of a matter of getting a little ahead of ourselves on issues we might not be capable of dealing with yet.

[rajdaddy]

Im pretty positive you stole this from somewhere in a attempt to be intelligent, but you failed miserably.


but i agree man, this world is full of idiotic people, you being one of them.


We're also saddling future generations with the lack of response on the issue of global warming, but that's another topic entirely.

Global Warming is a hoax, John Kerry is using it to sell you his carbon tax idiot.
You are obviously one of the idiotic people i mentioned above


I plan on pursuing Radiology, and who knows, maybe one day I might help develop a cure for cancer.


The cure for cancer has already been found in the form of Hemp Oil.

Let the insults and flaming begin, I could care less, i don't plan on coming back to this page.

[Reach]

Global Warming is a hoax, John Kerry is using it to sell you his carbon tax idiot.
You are obviously one of the idiotic people i mentioned above




Please provide even a single iota of scientific evidence that has been replicated on some level and published in a respectable scientific journal that does not support the notion of anthropogenic global warming.


I don't like calling names, but I am calling you out here, because you have no idea what you're talking about and are incredibly rude.

Post something respectful and intellectual or leave, please.

Im pretty positive you stole this from somewhere


I'm interested to see what information I posted has been stolen. Please, by all means, give me a link or reference.

Let the insults and flaming begin, I could care less, i don't plan on coming back to this page.

Well, in that case I've wasted my time, but I guess we can ban him. Blatant trolling.


Trolling or not, the problem with idiots is they perceive themselves to be as smart or smarter than the intelligent people, and therein lies their stupidity.

I guess that's where Devonin comes in.

[devonin]

Let the insults and flaming begin, I could care less, i don't plan on coming back to this page.YOu could care less, which means you do care. Luckily, I don't. Go away, never come back.

[TinMan46]

Sorry guys, but you're all wrong. I guess you just don't have the mental capacity to understand my views on this.

[foilman8805]

Sorry guys, but you're all wrong. I guess you just don't have the mental capacity to understand my views on this.

lmao oh

[Wineandbread]

Actually, I recently read "Empire Falls" by Niall Ferguson recently for my World History class. It placed a pretty large emphasis on cultural degradation of Western civilization as evidence of the decline of the West. But I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

I agree largely with what Reach has to say. Technological advances seems to scale with the need for intelligent people to operate and further development for new technology. Sure, it also simplifies daily life and makes us use less effort to accomplish otherwise difficult or tedious tasks, but I don't see how that could be ruled cultural degradation.

We're still trying to put moon bases and cure cancer too. It's just a slow process. There's a lot of inventions that happen by accident, and perhaps that accident just hasn't occurred yet.

[Ice wolf]

I agree largely with what Reach has to say. Technological advances seems to scale with the need for intelligent people to operate and further development for new technology. Sure, it also simplifies daily life and makes us use less effort to accomplish otherwise difficult or tedious tasks, but I don't see how that could be ruled cultural degradation.

To add on to what you said:

Even though these technological advances may simplify our lives to a point where some consider our culture in decline, they could allow us to make even further advances because we will have cleared ourselves a path through which we can more easily attain technological advances that were once out of our reach, be it a cure for cancer or landing humans on Mars.

[qqwref]

Teleportation? Trips to mars? Moon bases? Cures for cancer.
If you want to look at how technology is advancing, the best way to do it isn't to look at random stuff you think ought to be invented in The Future. Teleportation is (as far as we know) impossible without a massive energy input (it takes a surprising amount of energy to teleport even a single particle); space exploration is far too costly and doesn't have nearly enough benefits for humanity to keep attempting it; and many people are working on cancer cures but, as it seems to be an extremely difficult problem, there is no success so far. Same for curing AIDS.

There HAS been a lot of advancing technology recently, though. As foilman8805 pointed out, computers and electronic devices have improved drastically in all respects in the last decade - we have better computing power, better graphics, more memory, and smaller devices, and all of these things have advanced to the point where an electronic device from 10 years ago is basically unusable. The amount of nanotechnology and information technology that has gone into these developments is amazing, but since it's so physically tiny I think it's difficult for many people to notice how much we have advanced. Our understanding of DNA and cell mechanisms has gotten much more advanced too, to the point where we are beginning to be able to make vaccines that work at a molecular level to identify and kill infected or cancerous cells. It may look like there have been no important advances, but more scientific papers are being written now than ever before.


As for the degradation of society, I don't think it is as simple as just saying "look, we are spending all of our time txt msging and can't pay attention to anything". Teenagers and young adults today are part of essentially the first generation to be brought up with the internet. Nowadays, you can post something on youtube or twitter and hundreds of people from around the world can see it within a few minutes. A lot of the things that people used to think of as important are now irrelevant because of the internet - for instance, there's no point in memorizing speeches or poems (or geographical features, or equations, or historical events) if you can look them up on Google in seconds, but if those are the standards you are judging people by, you can't expect teenagers to have as much knowledge in those areas as people who are 30 years older.

Since we're the first generation to be so involved in this kind of stuff, we're having a lot of trouble trying to figure out where our place is in the new globally interlinked world. I think that the reason young people today seem so unconcerned with the real world is that the real world has started to become, in some ways, obsolete. Now that it's possible to essentially live your entire life on your computer - order food, pay bills, go shopping, hang out with friends, do almost any type of work, write and publish articles - you could argue that it is instead the older generations who are not paying attention to the world. You have the right to criticize teenagers for not paying as much attention to reality as they should, but you should realize that your criterion for success is biased, because it comes from a world where the technology that is ubiquitous today hadn't even been conceived of.

[devonin]

Sorry guys, but you're all wrong. I guess you just don't have the mental capacity to understand my views on this.

Go away and come back when you aren't 12.

Let me rephrase more clearly: You post in this forum again before you've learned how to respect the other users of this forum, and I will ban you.

[TC_Halogen]

This is an amazing topic. Too bad the person who posted it has a really bad attitude.

Let me start by saying that I, along with probably everybody else who has posted--will disagree with the theory of technology not making advancements. Look right in front of you! You're using a decently small object that holds at least fifty keys to communicate your thoughts to others via boxes that can somehow register your exact buttons each and every time (assuming they do not break down). And that's just the simple job of a keyboard.

why don't you consider the advancement in the nano-technology that allows your cellphone to even do that **** to begin with! I have a phone that is less than 4 inches in length and half an inch thick with a full keyboard, email access, internet access, a 2 megapixel camera for photos and video, a microSD slot that allows me to put a 2GB memory card smaller than a dime into my phone for extra memory, mp3 music playback...the list goes on. I find that incredible, and I appreciate the advancements in the technology that have allowed me to even own this device.

Exactly this--nano-technology is absolutely amazing in the capabilities that it has. You can use an object the size of the palm of your hand, powered by a battery as thick as only a single finger, to talk with someone on the other side of the globe.

Degradation of society: I'm going to speak for myself, as far as this goes:

If you look around you today, what do you see? It's an absolute mess. Teenagers these days can't manage looking up from their tiny cell phone screens to pay attention to the environment around them for more than 10 seconds.

Don't simply attribute this to teenagers only--adults are guilty for this as well. Take the city of Chicago as a good example. A while ago, there were not any laws telling people that they could not talk on their cellular phones while driving. Yes--it's a given, people should not be doing it in the first place, but it shows that adults are also willing to prioritize their new technology over the safety of their driving.

What have our youth created lately, that will help further our civilization? Teleportation? Trips to mars? Moon bases? Cures for cancer.

The youth should not be responsible for creating new advancements until that specific generation has been taught through proper schooling on how to do some of these things. With that said--there has been medical advancements on smaller operations. Let's take eye surgery. Now, you can repair vision problems through laser surgery, something that wasn't available say, 10 years ago.

People, if we don't do something soon to radically change the behavior and outlook on our childrens' life, we're going to have a serious decline in general intelligence all over the world. The children are our future, and if we don't do something, we are going to be in deep trouble.

I wouldn't say there would be a serious decline in general intelligence; you do have to proper school your children regardless of technology. However, I do believe that reliance on technology will increase; things that people were able to do on their own with hard labor, say, fixing cars, may be a bit easier if technology advances itself more. This is just one example.

Overall, I wouldn't say society hasn't degraded, but I will say that people do rely on technology much more than they did five to ten years ago, and it's probably guaranteed that reliance on these technologies will get exponentially higher.

Which brings me to a thought of my own: what happens if all forms technology suddenly stops working, like a future Y2K? Sure, it may sound like a dumb thing to think about, but imagine it. No television, no cellular phones, no computers, no forms of communication, etc. Would the reliance on technology that is likely to build be more problematic than it would be now?

That's all of my thoughts for now. (Man: I really need to post here more, this is only my third time O.o)

[Solid Dreams]

Not even that.

Scientists figured out a way to put an image in PARTICLES. And then pull it back out.

Can you imagine that happening even 10 years ago?

Just because we don't live like the Jetsons isn't an excuse to think that we all suck and fail.

(I thought Al Gore was the pusher for Global Warming.)

I'd like to put it out there that a lot of advancements that we've had have actually come from teenagers. From stretching as far back as the Apollo 13 mission where a bunch of people devo and I's age basically brought back people from the moon without computers, to now, where a freakin 8 year old invented a way to cook bacon healthier AND faster, and yet "our generation" isn't accelerating to meet your needs.

If you think that we should be going further faster harder, then I suggest you go out and do it yourself. Crying that cell phones and video games (what?) ruined children is sort of silly.

Teleportation?
Not our job. Leave that to Star Trek.
Trips to mars?
Not our job.
Moon bases?
Not our job, either.
Cures for cancer.
Last I checked, youth (high schoolers, I guess?) weren't being issued lab equipment. In fact, I would assume that there's a cure for cancer already out. But there's no profit in cures, now is there?
Now that we have stem cell research, I would say that we will have cures for cancer, parkinsons, and a lot of other diseases that we've been struggling with, not to mention small things like paralysis...if the older generation doesn't hide them away.
new ways to rapidly increase our weight and decrease our life expectancy.
You can actually thank the baby boomers for that.
Kids are paying less attention to getting a decent education and more attention to how many space marines they've killed, or when the next binge drinking party is.
Before video games it was football/soccer/baseball/tennis/rugby games. Physical activity=mental acuity?

If humanity continues this trend of decreasing intelligence I fear that we may dig ourselves into a rut that will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get out of!

Haha. No, that's the government's fault, going on what Reach said. Promoting laziness doesn't seem to be the best of things, but then, that's not our youth, that's the generation before us.

I think it's sorta amazing that you latched onto cell phones and video games. Saying that those two make people stupid is about as valid as saying that if you play Doom 3 you will become a mass murderer.

In fact, I would argue that even in a non-scholastic way we're smarter, because of the technology we have. We have google and wikipedia, from which you can learn basically anything you've ever been interested in. It's not all lolcatz and dde i ttly gt drnk lst nite and halo warz.


But we're all dumb, I guess, so how would we know? :/

[Vendetta21]

I think talking about the decadence of society is generally a myopic look at the old paradigm for civilization c. BC400-AD1930 and thinking it applies to the new. It does not. Society's cultural, economic, and ethical decadence is not related to the phase of its technology. And in the new paradigm technological advance tends to trump the previous three. It has been 17 years since the advent of the internet and Mosaic, and we still haven't developed a solid model for how to interact with the technology and make the best use of it. I know 17 years seems like a long time to someone who is very young like yourself, but to be honest in Sumarian culture they lived the same exact way for thousands of years, and their culture was constantly on the rise in a relative outlook. I have no idea what your reference point is for growth, or the sample you are using as a microcosm to interpret the world.

Also, when talking about society what we are often talking about is a sample size of the people we meet in our general area and the things we read in pop culture information sources. Neither of these have a strong correlation for anything about society and its values in general. How a group responds to one isolated incident halfway across a continent is not a great determinant of how their society works. To truly understand anything you must immerse yourself in it in one way or another.

What I'm saying is that I don't feel you have even a nominally sober view of the world.

[Vendetta21]

Also, when talking about society what we are often talking about is a sample size of the people we meet in our general area and the things we read in pop culture information sources.

You also have to remember something about the past, if you are using it as a reference point for now and the future: the great people of history are the smallest minority of the groups of history. The past of the world is filled in majoram with people who did mindless and repetitive manual labor. History only remembers the highest echelon of those that shined in any given culture, in any given era.

If you are choosing to use the things pop culture inundates you with as your reference point for the current state of your culture, you are talking about the lowest echelon of culture. The people currently moving the world are probably not reading PEOPLE magazine or are obsessed with reality TV, they are probably not wrecked with fiscal irresponsibility and massively overweight out a simple inability to either exercise or eat healthier.

If your problem with humanity is that its laypeople are dumb and irresponsible then you have a problem which has unceasingly existed since the dawn of recorded history. I think the code of Hammurabi exemplifies that. If one can get past the fact that the stele seems magical with its reliquary etchings and actually read through the laws it proclaimed, you would realize that the need to proclaim laws so simple indicates something about the culture c. 1790 BC. In gauging the span of 4 millennia, it seems clear that there is some thread in the commoners as a group that has always existed: their stupidity.

Changing that is something that people have been trying to do for hundreds of years, and with some slow but apparent successes. People today are a hell of a lot smarter on average then people hundreds of years ago. In fact, studies have shown students c. 2007 to be significantly smarter in general academic subjects than students c. 1986. That is a span of ONLY 21 years.

I know that as a student still in primary schooling you probably find yourself to be more intelligent then your counterparts and that some of your frustration arises out of the fact that some things that you seem to think are simple and intuitive are not grasped by others. Also, I'm making an inductive leap, but based on your general method of arguing you probably have arguments based on what are generally effective intuitions but are not very good at articulating those intuitions. You probably expect people to have the presence of mind to understand things you feel are simple with ease, and that when people shortfall your expectations you feel that society has an issue with stupidity.

There is no issue. Stupid as we are, society only need survive, and we have the muster to do that in many circumstances with a hell of a lot less intelligence then we have now. The only issue is that you expect to be understood without effort on your part.

Solamente,
V

[dsliscoo]

lol, Vendetta you are cool.

Now everything has been covered..

nah uhm lol
There is a book I have been reading recently. "Everything Bad is Good For You" by Steven Johnson. Pretty much completely arguing the OP. Everything from television to the internet he argues is creating a more adaptable society. Theres statistics comparing complexity of modern shows to past shows. The difference is phenomenal. He also goes to show that although the extremes of society, the extremely smart and the mentally handicapped may not be getting any smarter but the bulk in american society is becoming smarter. Anyways its a good read for anyone is interested in this topic at all.

To the OP's comments about telecommunications I think it is probably one of the greatest advances since written word. For a leap, unitarian(particularly Transcendental Unitarian, mouth full..) beliefs were that by isolating yourself you could listen to the Greater spirit. Which is essentially everyone being connected together and talking to eachother. The great writers of this transcendental movement said this thing that your intuition is the way it talked to you for the most part anyways. Some of them believed they had dreams and things of the such, but their sanity is not what I want to bring up right now. With communication the way it is( and hopefully will spread and become) you will actually be able to know what the greater good is and determine if thats even what you want to do with a logical mind that doesn't speak in whispers or dreams. Things like the internet, phones, and even books allow a connection and unity in society that is real. Even connecting the past to the future is accompished through this. Humanity will probably find its global identity one day even if it is just some crazy armageddon and nuclear holocaust.

and as for global warming, yeah pretty sure its getting hotter.. but its hard to tell with the cycles of the world averaging out over time to see if we are actually pushing a point of no return.

[Solid Dreams]

Also, I'm making an inductive leap, but based on your general method of arguing you probably have arguments based on what are generally effective intuitions but are not very good at articulating those intuitions. You probably expect people to have the presence of mind to understand things you feel are simple with ease, and that when people shortfall your expectations you feel that society has an issue with stupidity.

I wouldn't even say that, it's more along the lines of a toddler being told that he can't do something and he lashes out in a temper tantrum. While we may have proven him wrong, he doesn't seem to be capable of going "Okay, you're right, I'm sorry" or further arguing his points.


Which, ironically, pushes his "society is decomposing theory."

[Afrobean]

I don't much care to read all of the posts pointing out how wrong and wacky the platform of the OP is, but Reach said something that I want to comment on:

Please provide even a single iota of scientific evidence that has been replicated on some level and published in a respectable scientific journal that does not support the notion of anthropogenic global warming.
lmao did you really need to say "anthropogenic" when you could just as easily have used a word any one could understand

That said, I've seen charts around on the Internet that indicate that while the average temperature has risen in recent years, this rise correlates with solar activity or something like that and has no correlation on the advancement of industrialization or the technological age.

Basically, I don't believe that it's our fault that the climate is changing, and furthermore, I expect that it's not a problem and merely manifestation of the planet's natural cycle. The issue has merely been sensationalized to an absurd degree, so much so that even if it is entirely anthropogenic, it's still nowhere near as bad as people think. People liken a rather minor shift in temperatures to an enormous emergency, a global catastrophe, when it's nothing of the sort. If it is man-made, then yes, something should be done about it in time, but that time is certainly not urgent. This bull**** green movement is just propaganda that doesn't mean anything. This isn't a ****ing ice age we're talking about here. You know, they're selling movies with "green" keepcases now. You know, the plastic case that a DVD comes in. They just cut out a large portion of the plastic, making the box fragile (and less costly to produce) and claim they're doing it to be green. Or that it's better for the environment. How about bottled water? They sell bottled water in "green" bottles now, but it's the same thing. They make the production cheaper, producing a cheaper product, but charge the same price and pocket the difference. It's just a means to an end for higher profits, you're not helping the environment by buying into this ****.

Sorry, I seem to have fallen into a rant there at the end. Points to take away from this post: using esoteric words when simple words work fine is silly, the shift in the climate is minor and easily not even man-made, people have bought into bull**** as a result of the over-sensationalization of what is at best a part of the natural cycle of the planet and at worst a minor problem that likely won't truly heavily impact any of us in our lifetimes.

[tangomango]

This bull**** green movement is just propaganda that doesn't mean anything. They sell bottled water in "green" bottles now, but it's the same thing. They make the production cheaper, producing a cheaper product, but charge the same price and pocket the difference. It's just a means to an end for higher profits, you're not helping the environment by buying into this ****.

Well, I definitely agree that there are many industries that are taking advantage of the notion of climate change. Many products are being labeled "green" as Afrobean said, that often reduce the usage of something insignificantly, and at times, not environmentally healthy at all! To be honest, I feel that it's pretty pathetic that there are some people that are actually gullible enough to believe in these products.

However, I disagree that it isn't our fault of climate change. While there are many causes of it from nature, I believe that our increase dependence on cars, as well as industrial production, has caused more pollution, which in turn leads to more greenhouse gases. I admit that some of the effects of global warming projected by some seem a bit unrealistic to me (extreme weather and loss of GDP come to mind). Even if does not impact your lifetime, what about the future? What if lack of responsibility and action damages the the next generation?

To sum it all up, I agree with Afrobean's statement that many products are being labeled as "green" to increase profit. I do disagree that climate change is not our fault, however, there are many factors to take in consideration too.

[Vendetta21]

lmao did you really need to say "anthropogenic" when you could just as easily have used a word any one could understand

Yes, he did need to say it. It signals that he knows what he is talking about and expects the same in a response. You're right that it can tend to alienate people, but this tactic is not less valid as a rule, and when someone is failing to respond with reasonable points and you need to evade argument-from-analogy fallacies in responses staying technical is the best way to maintain consistency and clarirty.

That being said, also

but that time is certainly not urgent.

The problem is that there is no way of knowing. We do not know how urgent it is. You're arguing from some sort of bias.

I know I often suggest things for you to read, but please, read up on catastrophic risks. I understand it's an imposition on liberties and that the fact that it is a zeitgeist in culture is frustrating, but that does not mean that the concern is worth being contrarian about.

You may enjoy this book
http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/book.html

Or the earlier postings of Eliezer Yudkowski on this website
http://www.overcomingbias.com

Or the postings on this website
http://www.lesswrong.com

Or really anything done by this school
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/

And no I'm not going to play your game, Afro. Do not argue back, I don't care what you have to say until you've read up on global catastrophic risks. It is worth looking at them as a whole to understand the need to take serious preventative actions. It opens your eyes to the impact and importance, and it often lays it out for you in a Bayesian decision theory format to make it resonant with you that it is in our best economic interests to be proactive. I'm not going to give you an abstract because my suspicion is that you'll pick it apart because of it's lack of comprehensiveness, which is exactly what an abstract strays from.

To be perfectly clear, I know better than to argue with you by now because you will pick at the small things and misunderstand what I'm trying to explain and it's better to just suggest a resource for the topical study of what I would impart to you otherwise. And you have a particular method of antagonizing me in to keeping going, which is a frustrating ordeal, so I'm cutting it right here before we go on for 2 pages and I basically just reiterate chunks of things from the above four resources.

[Afrobean]

The problem is that there is no way of knowing. We do not know how urgent it is. You're arguing from some sort of bias.
Based on my own understanding of the word "urgent", it is not urgent. You might consider something that'll cause trouble in the next 10 years urgent, you might consider 100 years urgent. Some might even consider the problem to be urgent merely because we may be able to reverse it with science, even if it wouldn't affect us in a negative way in the near future.

But that said, yeah, bias. I care if it affects me directly and I don't think it'll be happening any time soon.
To be perfectly clear, I know better than to argue with you by now because you will pick at the small things and misunderstand what I'm trying to explain and it's better to just suggest a resource for the topical study of what I would impart to you otherwise.
lol you claim to know better, but then bring statements against me anyway

Luckily I don't feel like putting forth that much effort and really being annoying and also I agree with a lot of what you said so whatevs

ps i only even pointed out reach saying anthropogenic because it felt more like he was dropping vocab words to try to dissuade anyone from arguing back and I personally feel that that's a worse tactic than my own tactic of just throwing gobs of words until my opponent just stops trying.

[Reach]

That said, I've seen charts around on the Internet that indicate that while the average temperature has risen in recent years, this rise correlates with solar activity or something like that and has no correlation on the advancement of industrialization or the technological age.

Basically, I don't believe that it's our fault that the climate is changing, and furthermore, I expect that it's not a problem and merely manifestation of the planet's natural cycle. The issue has merely been sensationalized to an absurd degree, so much so that even if it is entirely anthropogenic, it's still nowhere near as bad as people think. People liken a rather minor shift in temperatures to an enormous emergency, a global catastrophe, when it's nothing of the sort. If it is man-made, then yes, something should be done about it in time, but that time is certainly not urgent. This bull**** green movement is just propaganda that doesn't mean anything. This isn't a ****ing ice age we're talking about here. You know, they're selling movies with "green" keepcases now. You know, the plastic case that a DVD comes in. They just cut out a large portion of the plastic, making the box fragile (and less costly to produce) and claim they're doing it to be green. Or that it's better for the environment. How about bottled water? They sell bottled water in "green" bottles now, but it's the same thing. They make the production cheaper, producing a cheaper product, but charge the same price and pocket the difference. It's just a means to an end for higher profits, you're not helping the environment by buying into this ****.

Sorry, I seem to have fallen into a rant there at the end. Points to take away from this post: using esoteric words when simple words work fine is silly, the shift in the climate is minor and easily not even man-made, people have bought into bull**** as a result of the over-sensationalization of what is at best a part of the natural cycle of the planet and at worst a minor problem that likely won't truly heavily impact any of us in our lifetimes.

I wouldn't say it's an esoteric word. 'Esoteric' is probably just as elite and uncommon, so please.

Anyone that knows anything about global warming knows what it means, hence its use. Yes, it is a field specific word, but I would use the same technical terminology if I was discussing physics, biology etc. Also, the meaning of this word is relatively easily inferred (Anthro-).


Anyway, to address your points:

The solar activity hypothesis was essentially disproved years ago. Experts in the field have ruled out dozens of other explanations at this point, and there is relatively little doubt about the fact that humans are, by a large factor, the largest contributor to global warming. There are undoubtedly any number of other factors, but the magnitude of the human factor is so great that the others are...irrelevant.

I don't believe that it's our fault that the climate is changing

And thus you become one of the reasons it currently is the biggest problem our species faces, given our ignorant attitude and lack of response. I don't care about what you 'believe', nor does any other scientist - beliefs are nothing - support your claims with evidence. The problem with democracy is non experts can believe anything they want to and it will have weight in the decisions that are being made.


Let me put it this way. The climate on this planet is the way it is because of its composition and the interplay between the climate and other factors here on the planet. It's natures elegant dance of physics in all it's beauty. Do you seriously believe that altering the composition of the very atmosphere we depend on will not have future consequences?


However, I'll agree with you on one point - people are cashing in on the climate problem in some respects. The problem is ...these things don't address the real cause of global warming. Some of the things like the recent 'Earth day' where people turned off their lights, for example, was a joke.

The real problem with addressing global warming is no one wants to do it, because it's inconvenient. It's easy to turn off your lights for an hour, but it's not so easy to completely reshape an industry.

[Afrobean]

the meaning of this word is relatively easily inferred (Anthro-).
lol to be totally honest, i figured it out what it meant just because of that 8)

The solar activity hypothesis was essentially disproved years ago. Experts in the field have ruled out dozens of other explanations at this point, and there is relatively little doubt about the fact that humans are, by a large factor, the largest contributor to global warming.
Contributing doesn't necessarily mean causing. And what say you of the fact that pollutants first began being pumped into the atmosphere in the 1800s, but this global warming is a relatively new phenomena. Hell, back in the 70s, the temperature was going down and doomsayers were proclaiming an ice age was on the way. It's not as though temperatures have been steadily on the increase since we began industrialization, which is what I would expect if we were solely to blame here.

There are undoubtedly any number of other factors, but the magnitude of the human factor is so great that the others are...irrelevant.
Things like distance from the sun and the potency of the sun are irrelevant? I happen to recall from elementary school that it is the distance on the elliptical orbit that causes the difference between summer and winter, and yet you claim these things have that minor affect on this particular issue? What about the fact that the sun causes such drastic differences in climates between the arctic and the tropics? How can you so easily write the power of the Sun off?

How much has the average temperature actually risen? How does this change in climate truly correlate with industrialization? And this change in the climate in the last 30 years or whatever it's been, how much total change has there been? How does this compare to other variances in temperature recorded throughout history?

Let me put it this way. The climate on this planet is the way it is because of its composition and the interplay between the climate and other factors here on the planet. It's natures elegant dance of physics in all it's beauty. Do you seriously believe that altering the composition of the very atmosphere we depend on will not have future consequences?
Altering it can affect it, I'll admit, but if anything what we've done is augment what would be a normal cycle. Even without human interference, the climate is going to shift little by little over time. Sometimes it'll get cooler, sometimes it'll get warmer. Just in this case, it got hotter, probably hotter than it would have otherwise, and people with a bug up their butt grabbed on the opportunity to push agendas.

Our action on the planet isn't helping the planet get any cooler, but I think you overestimate the pull we have over this rock we inhabit.

The real problem with addressing global warming is no one wants to do it, because it's inconvenient. It's easy to turn off your lights for an hour, but it's not so easy to completely reshape an industry.
I think another problem aside from the fact that its not economically feasible to do what needs to be done to fix the pollution situation is that while the temperatures have been empirically proven to be increasing in recent years, causation has not and cannot be definitively applied. You say "pollution caused it", but I just think back to the fact that history says the temperature was heading down from the 40s to the 70s, and there was plenty of curb stomping for the environment back then too. This is a case where you can only point to correlation and hope you have the cause, but frankly, because of all the variables, it'd be impossible to pin this on one thing.

ps oh i just remembered something. You said something about correlations with solar activity having been disproven...? This is something I would be interested in seeing, particularly when it makes a lot more sense for me to hear "solar activity cycles and it's on a high cycle lately" than "even though industrialization began a long time ago, pollution only just began causing global warming in the past 30 years and now it is a global catastrophe!"

pps they used the word "esoteric" on family guy, so it's not that esoteric, buddy

edit: oh crap please dont rip this post apart because i honestly dont think i could will myself into giving a serious reply back

edit: lol was stumbling around the wikipedia article for "global cooling" (lol) and came across a chart that I think is pretty funny:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

In other words, it's about ONE HALF degree celsius warmer now than it was in 1940. Yes, one half degree increase over 70 years prior is SUPER URGENT haha.

[devonin]

L2biology, Afro. There are whole swaths of plant and animal life that find even a 1 degree increase in the average to make life pretty unsustainable. There are reef areas where the entire ecosystem has basically died off because the water got about 1 degree warmer on average over the whole year.

The biggest worry isn't that there's change, it's that if it's going to take adaptation and evolution to deal with an increase of even 1 degree, 2 degrees, the fact that it's .5 degrees in 60 years means if the growth remains linear, it's 1 degree in 120 years, and 10 degrees in 1200 years. This is not urgent for -you- but on Earth Time, that's pretty damn fast, certainly a lot faster than many species are going to be able to easily adapt.

[qqwref]

On the other hand, devonin, you could argue that if a species can't deal with a one-degree increase or decrease in temperature, it "deserves" to be extinct (in a Darwininan sense). Considering that an ice age - a perfectly natural and periodic quirk of Earth's weather - can affect temperatures by something like 9 degrees Celsius, I would have to say that any species that dies out because of a tenth of this is just really bad at adapting to new environments. I don't want more species to die out, but I also don't think that it's fair to expect humans to protect such fragile species from extinction when nature would give us no such sympathy if we were in trouble.

[Reach]

Contributing doesn't necessarily mean causing. And what say you of the fact that pollutants first began being pumped into the atmosphere in the 1800s, but this global warming is a relatively new phenomena. Hell, back in the 70s, the temperature was going down and doomsayers were proclaiming an ice age was on the way. It's not as though temperatures have been steadily on the increase since we began industrialization, which is what I would expect if we were solely to blame here.

Certainly - the problem with your original claim about Solar radiation was the graph you looked at was fraudulent. There was a documentary going around a few years ago (Great global warming swindle was the name, possibly one of the most deceitful documentaries ever aired) that took real data from a scientific paper showing solar radiation could not be a driving factor in warming, and they edited the graph to show a correlation that was nonexistent before =/ There are numerous papers published on this issue - you can look them up yourself. Be very careful when checking the sources of graphs, though.

Greenhouse gas levels have been going up exponentially since the 1800s. How that effects the temperature can be complicated, but the trend is that it has been rising faster as levels in the atmosphere rise.

You wouldn't expect them to rise linearly with industrialization, there would be a lag. Heating of the planet does not happen instantaneously with the introduction of a greenhouse gas. It takes some time for the heat to build up and raise the temperature.


Things like distance from the sun and the potency of the sun are irrelevant? I happen to recall from elementary school that it is the distance on the elliptical orbit that causes the difference between summer and winter, and yet you claim these things have that minor affect on this particular issue? What about the fact that the sun causes such drastic differences in climates between the arctic and the tropics? How can you so easily write the power of the Sun off?

How much has the average temperature actually risen? How does this change in climate truly correlate with industrialization? And this change in the climate in the last 30 years or whatever it's been, how much total change has there been? How does this compare to other variances in temperature recorded throughout history?

Distance from the sun - absolutely - that changes all the time and has little to no relevance with respect to our current rise in temperatures. Rather, the reason we get seasons is because of the tilt of the Earth. It has nothing to do with the sun itself per say, so you might want to check your facts there. 'Orbital forcing' with respect to Milankovitch cycles can cause variations in the temperature (Ice ages) but this isn't one of them.

With respect to potency, sure, that can have an effect, just not in this scenario, since we've ruled it out. At least as a driving factor. It has probably contributed to some degree - there is some evidence that solar radiation could be contributing to recent global warming, but it is in no way the whole picture.

Extreme models positing upper limits of contribution from solar radiation say about 50% contribution, but even the authors admit that is ridiculous and severely overestimated. At the same time they rule out volcanic factors entirely and most other options. So, there really isn't any evidence that I have seen to suggest that human factors are not, by far, the largest single contributing factor to global warming, which is what I'm arguing.


How much the temperature has actually risen and the predictions for the future can be found in various reports on the internet, IPCC etc. There's a ton of information on this out there.

Altering it can affect it, I'll admit, but if anything what we've done is augment what would be a normal cycle. Even without human interference, the climate is going to shift little by little over time. Sometimes it'll get cooler, sometimes it'll get warmer. Just in this case, it got hotter, probably hotter than it would have otherwise, and people with a bug up their butt grabbed on the opportunity to push agendas.

Our action on the planet isn't helping the planet get any cooler, but I think you overestimate the pull we have over this rock we inhabit.

Normal cycles don't occur at this speed. The planet has never seen anything of this magnitude before, and rightfully so given we're the first species to alter the composition of the atmosphere directly.

Sometimes it does get cooler, and sometimes it does get hotter. I think what you're failing to take into account here is that when this happens species go extinct.

And you might think I'm overestimating it, but there isn't a lot of published scientific research that suggests anyone is 'overestimating' anything - rather, most IPCC etc reports are incredibly conservative and the trend has been, if anything, that new research continues to predict more and more extreme future outcomes.

Usually when data is collected there are what are called 'confidence intervals', which express statistically how confident we are in the outcome being somewhere between a value x and y. There is a lot of pressure to present in public announcements the value on the lower end of that confidence interval, but that doesn't necessarily reflect reality, as changes are continuing to happen faster than these lower bound estimates predict.


causation has not and cannot be definitively applied. You say "pollution caused it"

When you've ruled out essentially every other factor that could be the driving force in this problem, yes, causation can be applied. No scientists studying this problem are debating this. It is very, very clear, and debating this reminds me of evolution vs creationism. Misinformation can go a long way.

Also, our behavior is amplifying all of the other factors you continue to mention, hence my use of the word 'driving force'. Greenhouse gas effects everything.

(When I say causation, I'm applying the word causation to being the cause of the driving force - There are probably other factors contributing to global warming other than us, but we're certainly the main one and the cause for our future problems, and as such I'll use the word causation.


it's about ONE HALF degree celsius warmer now than it was in 1940

You underestimate the balance of nature. One half a degree celsius is a large change, but ok, assuming it is irrelevant when it isn't, predicted changes for the next century are several degrees in magnitude.

pps they used the word "esoteric" on family guy, so it's not that esoteric, buddy

lol. Probably, but I think I've only seen it a few times, ever, in written published work, and usually by old fart scientists with pompous vocabularies. It's a pretty uncommon word, but whatever, obviously we both have larger than average vocabularies so this is a non issue ;p


if a species can't deal with a one-degree increase or decrease in temperature, it "deserves" to be extinct

Lol, I suppose, but the problem is it's going to be every species on this planet eventually if this trend continues, and that includes us (Well, to be fair extremophilic bacteria and viruses probably aren't going anywhere, but still).

Things aren't just going to magically stabilize if we continue to pump larger and larger and larger amounts of green house gas, among pollutants etc into the atmosphere. It's not just going to be a few species dying off, we're talking about mass amounts of extinction, and don't think for a minute humans are exempt from this. We depend on this planet for resources just like everything else - we are just as much a product of evolution as any other animal, and we only get what the planet gives us.

[kommisar[os]]

should the average citizen be concerned about every single specie going extinct? probably not all of them, but it's happened before and nobody really seems to care as it has no short term effect on humanity. its not like the food we raise and cultivate is going extinct since they're under controlled environments. people aren't aware however of the importance of some species going extinct; they're simply not educated enough to care.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

I think cell phones are going to destroy humanity, that's my opinion. On another serious note (I'm serious about that first one), our non-renewable resources are going down the crapper, no one's recycling, our ocean is filling up with ****, a meteor is going to rip California a new one, animals are going extinct and no one cares because they don't understand the importance biodiversity, and if a random person read this, he or she wouldn't change anything. Wasting water and electricity is our new job at this point. Global warming is about as serious as H1N1 (swine flu), and from my experience it seems that people who play video games are more likely to be intellectual on these types of subjects. If they're not intellectuals, they're gangsters or wannabe gangsters. If they're something else, it's rare. Currently, cell phones and MTV shows seem to be at the source of most of my problems.

[andy-o24]

We're also saddling future generations with the lack of response on the issue of global warming, but that's another topic entirely.
Not to be a total dick but considering your last 2 posts have been about almost nothing but Global Warming, we can consider the fact that this thread has moved on to that topic.

In seriousness to the topic (not Global Warming) I noticed no one mentioned the advancements in weaponry and other military-based tactics. Those have improved during -our- generation. Maybe not by ourselves but still during our lifetime. Those involve computers which have also improved exponentially. We are now opperating our computers with data chips almost on the microscopic level. Our technological advancements from the first ideas for both the cellular phone and the personal computer have shrunk beyond belief and perform even more functions.

Video games aren't the ruination of modern society as a whole. If anything they improve the hand-eye coordination of children and some adults by some bit. And now with the Wii, an active gaming system, you aren't just sitting around blowing stuff up with laser beams and scoring points, you can stand up and play interactive sports against computer AI's or people around the world.

Trying to tell anyone that society is on a decline is going to spark a debate of some sort, especially if you try to tell them that we have declined in technology just because teleportation and Mars trips and Moon bases haven't been accomplished yet. Society is advancing at an alarming rate and saying that the school kids of this generation are the ones failing is a complete contradiction. We are still learning and will always have more to learn. But until we've at least finished basic schooling, you can't really expect us to develop something amazing. We leave that to professionals and experts in a certain field.

As for your 'txtspk' hatred, well...you can't control everyone can you? If you don't like it, don't use it. It is as simple as that. It doesn't mean we've declined at all or that we've abandoned the English language, it just means we're innovators in finding new ways to express ourselves in a shorter fasion. It's surprisingly simple the more you know.

-o24

[devonin]

Considering that an ice age - a perfectly natural and periodic quirk of Earth's weather - can affect temperatures by something like 9 degrees Celsius, I would have to say that any species that dies out because of a tenth of this is just really bad at adapting to new environments.

We just came out of something called "The Little Ice Age" rather recently, and that lasted about 400-600 years, and had a temperature variance of less than 1 degree. That was enough to classify it as an Ice Age of sorts even if not a full-on Ice Age like earlier in history. So we're looking at 500 years and under 1 degree being enough to qualify significantly, and now wwe've had a 0.5 degree change in -40- years? That sounds pretty significant in terms of severity and speed of change.

The issue isn't whether the species can or cannot adapt to changes, the little ice age fluctuated down and up over 500 years changing less than 1 degree, and we're looking at a linear progression of about 6 degrees over the same timespan. The issue is that the process may be being accelerated by human interactions with the environment, and that things are being sped up -ahead- of the rate at which natural evolution could adapt.

[Sephiroth28]

The real truth about society is that there are more smart people than dumb people but because of the society we are in the dumb ones get the attension so we focus more on them rather than the people who deserve it. So when things in a general standpoint go bad the younger people in the society are blamed they supposedly haven't lived long enough to be intelligent or experienced enough to know right for wrong.

[devonin]

The real truth about society is that there are more smart people than dumb people I respectfully disagree. From my experiences in school, elementary, secondary and post-secondary, as well as working in multiple fields of employment including factory work, retail, and as a teaching assistant, there are MANY MANY more dumb people in the world than there are smart people.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

The issue isn't whether the species can or cannot adapt to changes, the little ice age fluctuated down and up over 500 years changing less than 1 degree, and we're looking at a linear progression of about 6 degrees over the same timespan. The issue is that the process may be being accelerated by human interactions with the environment, and that things are being sped up -ahead- of the rate at which natural evolution could adapt.

Nature doesn't care, that's the only point that should be hitting everyone here. The only problem the earth is having is it's being infested with humans. Our problem is we care too much about humans and not enough about everything else. When we commit crimes we get locked up, when we get sick we have medicine, and since we have religion, thank God for pro-life, just more humans polluting the planet. Everything we do with technology helps humans become less and less likely to die off naturally, and of course all these advancements aren't helping the earth, only the humans. The worst thing that can happen is that humans will die, and the rest of the planet lives; it's actually quite a small sacrifice for nature.

From my experiences in school, elementary, secondary and post-secondary, as well as working in multiple fields of employment including factory work, retail, and as a teaching assistant, there are MANY MANY more dumb people in the world than there are smart people.

I agree with this.

[Afrobean]

;3109372']should the average citizen be concerned about every single specie going extinct?
This is the question here.

Personally, as long as humanity can survive, I don't much care about anything else. Species go extinct all of the time, and while I would be against directly killing them off, indirectly causing their species to be unable to survive doesn't matter to me at all.

our non-renewable resources are going down the crapper,
Our non-renewable resources are just fine and you and I and our children and their children won't have any problems for sure.

no one's recycling,
Recycling is largely a scam. Reasons for recycling are almost completely bunk, and Penn & Teller tells me that aluminum is the only material which is functionally worth recycling. Recycling paper doesn't save trees, trees which are harvested for paper are regrown when they're cut down, so wasting lots paper will actually cause trees to be planted more often 8)

our ocean is filling up with ****,
Not at all true.

a meteor is going to rip California a new one,
Bull****. Prove it.

animals are going extinct and no one cares because they don't understand the importance biodiversity
Biodiversity doesn't mean **** in the world we live in. The ecosystem can fail completely and we'll be fine. Any animals which we need, we can keep alive with technology, everything else doesn't matter.

The issue is that the process may be being accelerated by human interactions with the environment, and that things are being sped up -ahead- of the rate at which natural evolution could adapt.
No matter how slowly a temperature change happens, evolution has no chance of affecting it. Natural selection chooses which species survive and which don't. Natural selection chooses which specific ones of a species survives and which don't. A species doesn't have to evolve to get through a 1 degree temperature shift, just the less adaptable of the species won't make the cut.

Also, I think you said something about the little ice age being a temperature variance of 1 degree. That's not right at all. I can't be assed to find it now, but I think one of the charts I was looking at before said something like 8 degrees average lower during that period than over the average of the rest of recorded history. And 8 degrees still ain't ****. If animals want to die from it being 78 degrees instead of 70 degrees, **** 'em. They deserve to die.

I respectfully disagree. From my experiences in school, elementary, secondary and post-secondary, as well as working in multiple fields of employment including factory work, retail, and as a teaching assistant, there are MANY MANY more dumb people in the world than there are smart people.
Depends on your definition of "dumb". By definition, the "average" person has an IQ of 100. I personally would think that someone with an IQ of 100 is probably dumb. I guess you would too. That would account for roughly half of all people.

And working with someone, even knowing them intimately, you may not be aware of how intelligent they may or may not be. Social interaction is a whole other thing from intelligence and it might just simply never show. For example, I know that I'm at least a little above average, but I don't expect any of my coworkers would realize this.

But that's just it. People of decent intelligence often never show it or it is squandered. For example, I am here posting, throwing words around on a message board, but do I apply my brain to anything useful? Hell no.

ps hi reach i see dat post there but after work i feel ****ty and cannot care enough to even try to actually read it, let alone make a super long, half-serious reply where i throw more words at you.

[Cavernio]

Afro: Don't get into discussions about IQ with Reach. IQ has a nice history to it, and it boils down it being standardized poorly. I sincerely doubt average IQ is 100 now. It's likely much higher, and I don't think they've re-standardized it so that new average is 100 again.

I guess I'll be devil's advocate here, because the OP has been shot down so utterly and completely, and I suppose I do see something he may be getting at in a more general sense. As a society and culture, I think he feels like we're reaching a point where we've got 'enough', and this means that people aren't trying as much. We're reaching a point where we're entertaining ourselves enough. Kinda like our generation (and the one before it I suppose) is spending time and effort creating technological 'soma' instead of actually going out there and living. As a few people have said, as society, we're not actively trying to get to mars or the moon, or do more space exploration. And their excuse is exactly what I think tinman may be getting at: why bother? This is the attitude and culture that's bothering him. (Although I will say that I strongly believe that population and potential drastic global changes are a very, very good reason why we should seriously be considering expanding our horizons into space.)
In order to understand what I *think* his main concern is, pretend that instead of having video games and cell phones, we manufactured pills which make us all feel different, positive emotions, like satisfaction and fulfillment. On the one hand, yeah, that'd be pretty awesome. We could sit here and take pills all day. On the other hand, as a culture, we'd be in total decline. We'd stop trying for goals and desires we used to once have if we could get satisfaction from pills so easily. I think that most people would think that having pills which did that be a very bad thing for our society. He's just seeing cell phones and video games as we'd see pills.
You have to remember though tinman, that 1) people work tirelessly making cell-phones and video games. 2) The funnest video games are socially interactive, and if they're not, I think most people like playing them with friends around, and telling them about how cool something was in it. Instead of creating pills, we've created an alternate, virtual or semi-virtual society, and all the same rules which apply to our actions, emotions, and struggles in them are the same ones which apply as in the 'real world'. They are not pills.

Also, I can't play devil's advocate about you calling people unintelligent. Intelligence has nothing to do with this, if I have indeed caught onto something you were trying to get at. If I have not caught onto it, then you're not doing your job in defining what it is you're upset about. You've simply answered all the posts with 'you don't understand, **** it'. If we do not understand, it is not us who's at fault. You should be trying to get us to understand. You don't have to argue what everyone says personally, especially if they're missing the point.

[operationstrawbarry]

Sorry guys, but you're all wrong. I guess you just don't have the mental capacity to understand my views on this.

There is no right or wrong answer dude. Its like discussing which is a better religion. No one is always going to agree with you. So stating this means that you basically failed because not everyone will share you're point of view. Also to add, you're the one that brought this topic to begin with and to announce this BS and then blatantly calling everyone wrong and BS is just pure retarded.


Global Warming is a hoax, John Kerry is using it to sell you his carbon tax idiot.
You are obviously one of the idiotic people i mentioned above


I wish people would stop calling global warming a hoax like rajdaddy (at least come with evidence). Whether you think its a hoax or not, the fact is, global warming is affecting us. Check the stats and the climate system of the world in the last 10 or so years and then come back and say its a hoax. If you think global warming is a hoax, you must be in some retarded dimension that no one has ever heard of.


lmao did you really need to say "anthropogenic" when you could just as easily have used a word any one could understand


the internet is there for a reason. Look the word up. Here, Ill help you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic

Has the world really come to this? I just used the internet to search a word. People can't be this lazy to use technology if its so fondly praised in this community.


But that said, yeah, bias. I care if it affects me directly and I don't think it'll be happening any time soon.


But it is affecting you. Not just you, but everyone. Look up climate change stats and you will find that temperture and avrage tempertures have been rising. There have been more catastrophic natural disasters because of the influence of climate change whether hotter or colder. You really need to look at some of the matarial out there before you go blatently making statments without knowing anything about is. Human factors play a huge roll in why we have global warming, but to say that it doesn't affect anyone is purely not right when it really is. As a geography major, I urge you to reconsider that this green BS that you claim is properganda because what will you say when Global Warming really starts taking its toll. Its no longer properganda is it? It's ur life. There are islands in the Pacific oceans right now that will dissappear because of global sea level rises. You can't tell me that that's bull**** or a hoax?

1 half celcius is a lot considering life on this planet. take the position of the Earth at its current state. Its the only planet that we know of in the entire universe that has life. Planets such as Venus (Venus might not be a great example for this, but whatever) and mars don't have life because they are either to far or to close to the sun. Imagine if we were venus or Mars. We wouldn't be alive. i think ths same thinking can apply to the 1 half celcius which you apparently think is a joke. Imagine it going higher. What will you say then when we all incinerate. I might be exagerating here, but I dont think the possibility of sky rocketing tempertures because of global warming is an exaggeration escpecially since theres evidence pointing that global conditions have risen to a more concerned height.


Contributing doesn't necessarily mean causing.


Although Chinese is my first language and english being my second, Im pretty sure that I have enough grasp of the english language to dispute this.

If you are contributing, then it means you are part of it, which means in this context what we are talking about, you are cauing the problem. What happened in the 1800s like you said may be something that we had nothing to do with as well as can't do anything about it, but what we can do right now is worry and do what we can now to prevent the current situation from going haywire. In the end, no matter what spectrum of the argument you agree or disagree with, lets just get one thing straight: we are all contribiuting to the global warming problem.

Not to be a total dick but considering your last 2 posts have been about almost nothing but Global Warming, we can consider the fact that this thread has moved on to that topic.


Advancement in technology and global warming should connect with one another. Its factories and industries around the world thats pumping green house gasses in the air which is the reason for global warming. But at the same time, its those industries that create those technologies. Of course its a vicious cycle of reproduction, but both topics connect with one another. The challenge of course is how to reduce carbon emissions from industries that make these so called technologies. Balance is always a tricky thing, but one that must be considered.

Nature doesn't care, that's the only point that should be hitting everyone here. The only problem the earth is having is it's being infested with humans. Our problem is we care too much about humans and not enough about everything else. When we commit crimes we get locked up, when we get sick we have medicine, and since we have religion, thank God for pro-life, just more humans polluting the planet. Everything we do with technology helps humans become less and less likely to die off naturally, and of course all these advancements aren't helping the earth, only the humans. The worst thing that can happen is that humans will die, and the rest of the planet lives; it's actually quite a small sacrifice for nature.


I have the same view as you do which is the reason why spieces, plants etc.... evolve and adapt to the environment. Everything on this planet is expendible and basically we are all extras. Earth couldn't care loss if a giant meteor hits it, annhilated everything on the planet to the point of origin 4.5 billion years ago. The key to survival is to adapt and possibly evolve to compensate with change. If Speices can't do that, they become extinct. This of course wasn't the case for the dinosaurs considering no one could of seen a giant rock hit Earth at that time, but if it didn't dinosaurs would probably still rule the world and humanity would be extinct because of dinosaurs. You can't mess with survival of the fittest.

But ya... seriously, back to the OP (whatever that means). I can concure with this. I have girl friends that are always on their phones. Whats even funnier is that they are texting their friends who they are walking right beside of them. That to me is funny as hell. Instead of reading books, we play video games. Those who rather not play video games, read books. Its basically the same thing when conveying emotions, storylines and entertainment. Its just what we rather do with our time. I for one rather play video games than read books, but that doesn't really make me feel any dumber. The fact is on the wonderbra situation, its easer to create the wonderbra than to create a teleprtation device. For one thing, our society hasn't reached the point where we can understand or even know how to make a teleporting device. We are still at the basics. Even the idea of fusion energy is reletivly new idea. To me, you may be reading to many science fiction books to assume that we are in a stage that we can teleport anywhere we want. Id have to admit, its a cool idea, but in reality, we just haven't gotten to that point.

When it comes to texting, the faster you can text is usually better. Usually when people text, they are outside and on the move. By doing that, you simplify words and make them shorter or text only keywords, but when you put them together, although they might be grammatically incorrect, it still conveys the same message as if it was grammatically correct. Its communications. Basically, even if its incorrect in the formal terms, if someone else can understand whats being said, its mission accomplished. Of course the hope is that people wont use "text" language in school. If thats the case, then we have a serious problem.

Youth is a mess right now, but a hope is that they will evolve into manageble serious people that can handle future problems of the world. We can't guarantee this, but we can sure hope. To be honest though, its not as bad as everyone seems to think it is.

[kommisar[os]]

dodo birds went extinct. why didn't humans? truth is, not all life is essential for another's survival. maybe if say, cows went extinct. that would probably create a much larger issue. instead, people are making a huge deal out of some random species of bird/lizard/whatever going extinct that nobody's even heard of, and if they're going extinct it's probably because nobody cared enough.

now as far as society goes, I wouldn't exactly say it's degrading socially. technology doubles every year and the sci-fi novels' imaginations are coming true more and more. sure there's a dumpload of retards out there but in most cases that would be due to laziness and society's inventions vegetating youth making them think everything will constantly be given to them (and in some cases this is true).

global warming wasn't the main topic back in the 70's; back then it was nuclear winter. now it seems nobody's ever contributing enough to the matter and that we're killing the earth every second. sure there are countless possibilities and disasters that could happen, but the truth is nobody really knows what will happen. people are still gathering data and as long as they still are, we're never really sure how close this disaster is from happening nor the intensity of it. still, people shouldn't bitch and whine about the ozone layer being torn to **** and pollution "killing" mother earth; you're still contributing thus it's still your fault.

[devonin]

dodo birds went extinct. why didn't humans? truth is, not all life is essential for another's survival. maybe if say, cows went extinct. that would probably create a much larger issue. instead, people are making a huge deal out of some random species of bird/lizard/whatever going extinct that nobody's even heard of, and if they're going extinct it's probably because nobody cared enough. I think it's more about the issue of the fact that even though we as humans can -live- without any really high quality of biodiversity, there's at least some feeling from some people some of the time that maybe we ought to actually care about more than -just- the survival of humans, and that maybe the environment and all the various species living in it might be at least worth thinking about.

The whole concept of environmental ethics and the degree to which we should consider the consequences of our actions on non-humans is a comparatively new branch of thought (Or at least, theories that say we -should- give a damn are relatively new, historically speaking) Go read some Peter Singer for some of the more Cogent arguments.

[bubblechamber]

;3111318']maybe if say, cows went extinct. that would probably create a much larger issue. instead, people are making a huge deal out of some random species of bird/lizard/whatever going extinct that nobody's even heard of, and if they're going extinct it's probably because nobody cared enough.

To an extent, this is true; not every species is necessary to the survival of humans. We're probably not going to die out any time soon if the last few marbled murrelets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_Murrelet) bite it. However, even if you're not one for the "we should care" brand of ethics, there are some serious survival-related problems with the "if it doesn't affect us, let it die" mentality. The most dangerous (to humans) thing about species dying out isn't that there won't be any more cute cuddly animals, or awesome large predators, or even cows for eating. We could survive the direct affect of any one of these dying out. The issue is that the ecosystem is intricately connected; the extinction of one species will lead to extinctions or changes in others, and, in the long run, will affect us in some way.

For example, this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601151225.htm) proposes a theory about what happens when mammal and bird species go extinct: a possible effect is that their parasites (which tend to be more resilient) will switch to us as alternative hosts. Although many parasites are specialized for one species of host, researchers have noticed far fewer co-extinctions of host-parasite pairs than expected. In other words, when mammal and bird species go extinct, their parasites are surviving, and moving to other species (possibly including humans). The article then notes that areas where the most new human diseases are emerging coincide with areas with the highest number of endangered mammal and bird species. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly does strengthen the theory, and hints toward the need for caution and more research.

This is only one way in which extinctions of "some random species of bird/lizard/whatever going extinct that nobody's even heard of" can affect humans. Even if nobody cares that the dodo bird is gone, we might be getting sick just a little more often because they are. If that effect is magnified, the consequences could be serious. This doesn't even go into the effects of random insect/bacteria extinctions that could reduce certain plant populations, which could have and even more dire effects. It's true that these thing happen slowly, but if we let things progress without taking action, it might be too late to stop some of the changes later on.

(...first post in Critical Thinking. Hope I didn't make a complete fool of myself).

[bubblechamber]

Also, in response to the OP:

We haven't found a cure for cancer because there are thousands of different types of cancer, caused by thousands of different things, all progressing in different ways. Almost all of them used to be fatal, but nowadays, some of the most common types (e.g. non-melanoma skin cancer (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/ped_7_1_What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Skin_Cancer.asp)) have an over 90% five year survival rate thanks to medical advances. Cancers still are one of the most common causes of death, but it doesn't mean we haven't gotten anywhere with them.

I agree with everyone else who's saying that we have made significant technological advances in the last few decades. TC_Halogen brought up an interesting question about what would happen if all our technology stopped working, though. Maybe that's another way of looking at the OP's proposition about the degradation of society - that we've become so dependent on technology we can't survive without it. I've wondered about that a lot, too. Any ideas?

[Wineandbread]

I don't think it's so much that we can't survive without technology. I would guess that if somehow all technology was ripped from our society, we would revert back to primitive ways and start over again, although in very different conditions. Things certainly wouldn't be the same, but I highly doubt that it would bring about the end of the human race.

I like it how the OP stopped posting.

[LordTyriel]

Since this forum seems to be a pretty thoughtful and intelligent forum, I've decided to share with you my views on what I view as "The Degredation of Society" as a whole and how I, personally, believe that this generation of kids is fast becoming the least intelligence in recent history, thanks to the magic of technology such as Video Games and cell phones.

If you look around you today, what do you see? It's an absolute mess. Teenagers these days can't manage looking up from their tiny cell phone screens to pay attention to the environment around them for more than 10 seconds. In the past decade, you can easily see that we've hit a brick wall in the field of technological and medical advancements.What have our youth created lately, that will help further our civilization? Teleportation? Trips to mars? Moon bases? Cures for cancer. No, we have the wonderbra, and new ways to rapidly increase our weight and decrease our life expectancy. Kids are paying less attention to getting a decent education and more attention to how many space marines they've killed, or when the next binge drinking party is. If humanity continues this trend of decreasing intelligence I fear that we may dig ourselves into a rut that will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get out of!

For example, when cell phones first got text messaging, people thought it was amazing. But the small, difficult way to type messages eventually led to "Textspeak", very grammetically incorrect form of the English language that I am sure you are all familiar with. It's moved from Text messaging to the internet, and within the next few years I believe this trend will be picked up and used by more and more adolescents, eventually overtaking and crippling the English language. It's what I believe to be a very serious problem.

People, if we don't do something soon to radically change the behavior and outlook on our childrens' life, we're going to have a serious decline in general intelligence all over the world. The children are our future, and if we don't do something, we are going to be in deep trouble.

The world is what it is. It grows up from a shell of nothingness to something huge. This is how the world works my friend although not all people believe in the environment around them and not all people believe in a world with peace. I see your points that yes we are getting pretty stupid not just as a society but as a whole world with the growing technological advancements you'd think we would be smarter by now with chips in our heads telling us where to go and what to do and how much faster you can be etc but no, we are warmangers my friend, we fiend for power! And we want it so badly that we lose sight on what exactly we are looking for and what we are doing. The world itself is discrimitory it tells you it will help then the next it spews you out because your not what it wants. Thats how this world works and our society will only get worse with the people we have in this world. Including people like myself I really shouldin't be here but these are my thoughts for your thoughts. Deep down I hope you get the right answers.

All Hail Britannia!
-Lord Tyriel-

[devonin]

Generally, when one comes into a thread that is now 3 pages long, one ought to glance over the general course of the discussion rather than just quote the OP and respond directly to it, ignoring all the discussion that has happened since then.

[LordTyriel]

I don't think it's so much that we can't survive without technology. I would guess that if somehow all technology was ripped from our society, we would revert back to primitive ways and start over again, although in very different conditions. Things certainly wouldn't be the same, but I highly doubt that it would bring about the end of the human race.

I like it how the OP stopped posting.

In our society technology is everything Wineandbread. Do you go outside and not see it? Cell phones, cars, Huge TV's on Buildings, this is what our world has become and hopefully becomes more like because we need technology to be faster, stronger and more efficient. Same with computers, if we didn't have computers we wouldn't't be talking right now. We need technology.
Although your thought about getting technology ripped from society I doubt it would ever happen (if anything it would happen SLOWLY if not EVER). Primitive ways yes indeed, we would be at war trying to figure out how we got ourselves in this mess, we would be wanderers walking on sand and wastelands full of crippled buildings that have fallen thanks to no technology.(I would put it in these words "Bible Times" ah those good'ol times). Bringing the end of the human race, in a way it would kill off most of the population of the earth then maybe some people would try to live knowing what they know and try to rebuild a civilization thus remaking the world although differently. Technology is amazing my friends.

These were my thoughts.
-Tyriel-

[dsliscoo]

Something to keep in mind though. If you saw the movie Knowing. Although it is unlikely that the solar pulse will be that powerful, it is very possible that a pulse can come and blow out our power systems. (transformers all the way up) In the 1700s the Solar Flares actually took out telegraph systems. If a magnetic storm actually hit(say in the year 2012 at solar maximum haha) we would be in for a very abrupt sudden change when every single one of those transformers has to be replaced to get the eletric grids back on line. When it comes to living without technology that is about as bad as it could ever possibly get.

[LordTyriel]

Then let us surly hope to whatever deity is out there that that never happens in my lifetime because our society is built on technology. Take it away we start from scratch if not nothing.