Jeff, on 10 August 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:
Why would they just ride out the storm so to speak? Why not do things to make sure this kind of thing never happens again?
Because greedy bastards don't give a crap about anything but themselves. Not even their own children. Hardly any money-maker with power out there is thinking at all about the future, because it's a future they don't have to deal with. Sure you've got some who care... but most probably fall into one of three categories of thought:
#1: "The second coming of the almighty is going to happen soon, so it doesn't matter if I screw things up." So basically, they don't worry about denting the car because they're expecting a higher power to come incinerate it.
#2: "I won't be here when the shit hits the fan, so whatever." They're hoping the Earth will manage to maintain its stability until they die, so it just ends up being someone else's problem.
#3: "There's plenty of time to fix this, IF it's even a problem. Why the rush for change?" They think they can keep going with business as usual (at least long enough to retire with millions) or they think environmental change is just a bunch of propaganda made up by people with their own agendas.
Quote
And how do you suppose we get countries like China to comply with that? What do we do, declare war when a country refuses to shut down its coal plants? I don't think so. In the past they said the US should serve as an example and they will follow. It didn't happen. Environmentalism is important, but has totally lost the intended goals years ago in place of politics. I love how Obama keeps saying Republicans want dirty air and water,
among many other lies.
I was wondering about this question a lot after the BP oil spill got taken care of. It got me wondering how long the nations of the world would've allowed that to continue if the leak wasn't stopped. I wondered if at some point, as the problem worsened, someone had enough and said, "Either plug that up now or we'll do it for you", and then the U.K. and/or BP refused to resign control of the situation. That would leave another nation no choice but to forcefully remove them from the area so that total obliteration of Earth's oceans could be prevented.
Wit that in mind, preytell, if something gets to the extreme point of, "Crap we are all royally screwed", why the heck shouldn't war be declared on countries that refuse to stop poisoning the world? If humanity doesn't wake up, someone's going to end up declaring an "eco war" sooner or later, not for the sake of being an ass, but because there's no other choice. Look at it another way... suicide in America is currently illegal. Shooting oneself in the head is classified as suicide. But chain-smoking isn't considered suicide, even though If something else didn't kill you first, chain-smoking would lead to death
eventually.
No let's look at the same thing on a global scale. Launching a nuclear attack would be considered an act of war. But slowly increasing the poison in the air we breathe? Perfectly acceptable. Both will ultimately lead to an apocalypse, but only the former type of act is considered malicious and merits a response.
As for Obama... for the millionth time, shut up about Obama. You hate Obama. We know. We now know it better than we know that the Energizer batteries keep going. I'm going to start thinking that you and Obama were classmates in grade school, and that he regularly raped you behind the playground. We're talking about the potential end of complex life on Earth and you're trying to sneak in jabs at Obama again. Get over it.
Jeff, on 10 August 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:
We vote in politicians to make decisions for us, but why not have something where the people of the country make the decisions instead of politicians? I think some of us might do a better job than the politicians. There's a lot of smart people out there who aren't politicians, but have some pretty smart ideas on how to fix things, economic or otherwise.
I've felt for a long time that what we should be voting for shouldn't technically be representatives. We can vote in the "idea" people,, who propose bills and such, but at the end of the day, when it comes time to vote on those bills, WE do it, rather than have the reps do it for us.