Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 103 of 103

Thread: Norway to ban petroluem powered cars?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    we cannot stop using coal in this moment, and we cannot use micro-generation using whatever technology you like. the cost of new implants not based on coal is very high, and so for millions of micro implants. the efficiency you can have in one big implants isn't possible with a smaller one. in bigger implants we can use the heat discharged by smokes to increase the temperature of the water incoming in the implants, for example, it is a technical problems not so easy to solve, i studied it this summer for one of my exams, and right now we cannot simply switch to a new model of creating energy because there isn't an equivalent system, not so big or powerfull. it is a sort of long process, and i think it was supposed to start a long time ago...
    Ah, but again, it's not starting at all at the moment, mostly beacuse it's profitable for many rich energy industry people for it not to. Meanwhile, politicians are busy making all manner of noise about the automobile. It's still not as hard as finding a new place for 100 million people to live, and it's more profitable for the rest of us who would have to figure out how that would happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    then you cannot say "the population has to stop growing". yes, i admit we are too many right now for this planet, but this is the reason why we are not better the animals because we didn't reach a balance with the planet.
    See, that's what I mean, we're too good at what we do for the rest of the world to catch up. We can adapt the environment to do what we need, and we should use that talent to put things right. And yes, the population has to stop growing, and it can. It already has in many western contries, and in some it's actually falling.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    ...maybe mankind is'nt worth to be saved...
    Sure it is! I am at least, and if I have to bring the rest of you along with me that's fine... Honestly, what is worth saving, Pandas? Pandas are the worst animals on the planet; they're an evolutionary backwater, a leftover population evolved from Bears too lazy to go to where the meat was, so they styarted eating rare plants that barely sustain them. Pandas, cute or not, wouldn't exist anymore without people to look after them. It's just crasy talk to sa that people aren't worth saving.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    this discussion could go on for months and all we would say it is something like "we need to change". but not in a forum, this is not where things are going to change, that is way you should be more "relaxed"...matt didn't say nothing wrong, everyone has his opinions and his way of telling them. i agree with a lot of thing he said even about what you said, but even i cannot blame you.
    i think our personal point of view are now clear to who is still reading. we should not make this thread a personal thing.
    I don't want to make it personal, I just don't like being called selfish and delusional... Matt said both of those things and I have a problem with it.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    I don't want to make it personal, I just don't like being called selfish and delusional... Matt said both of those things and I have a problem with it.
    our (me and who?) excuses...
    as panda are not worth to be saved, i agree, even men who polluted (not only with cars, i agree) air and water should not be worth from someone point of view.
    politicians are stupid for their own nature, there's no doubt not me or you should be politicians because we care what we say. so they are not a part of our discussion, even if they are who say what is good to be done and what is not.
    and, because things are based upon interests of a few men, i said again that things shouldn't improve but change at all. banning petrol engine from a country who actually sell petrol ii is not simply an hypocritical idea, it is a way to make money on other countries stupidity in order to enstablish new technology on the first country. it is a way to see it.
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    our (me and who?) excuses...
    as panda are not worth to be saved, i agree, even men who polluted (not only with cars, i agree) air and water should not be worth from someone point of view.
    politicians are stupid for their own nature, there's no doubt not me or you should be politicians because we care what we say. so they are not a part of our discussion, even if they are who say what is good to be done and what is not.
    and, because things are based upon interests of a few men, i said again that things shouldn't improve but change at all. banning petrol engine from a country who actually sell petrol ii is not simply an hypocritical idea, it is a way to make money on other countries stupidity in order to enstablish new technology on the first country. it is a way to see it.
    I'm sorry. I'm honestly having trouble understanding you.
    I do think that this ban would be hypocritical on the part of Norway, but it doesn't really seem like something the're actually about to do.
    It's not just Norwegian poloticians I'm talking about, but in most contries at the moment poloticians stumble over each other to get to the podium first just to pretend that they actually care about climate change. Non of them want to address the problem in any real capacity, they just want to be heard saying something that sounds relevent to the topic.
    So maybe in the end people are better than animals. Politicians, on the other hand, are lower than pond scum...

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    I'm sorry. I'm honestly having trouble understanding you.
    I do think that this ban would be hypocritical on the part of Norway, but it doesn't really seem like something the're actually about to do.
    It's not just Norwegian poloticians I'm talking about, but in most contries at the moment poloticians stumble over each other to get to the podium first just to pretend that they actually care about climate change. Non of them want to address the problem in any real capacity, they just want to be heard saying something that sounds relevent to the topic.
    So maybe in the end people are better than animals. Politicians, on the other hand, are lower than pond scum...
    ok,your words should be ok.
    still i don't understand youe need to say why the better thing ot the planet. it is something you are allowed to think, but, it doesn't change anything. god, this conversation is endless....
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas USA
    Posts
    11,217
    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    I wouldn’t say we’ve done nothing. We may not have done enough, but I’m pretty certain that my car has a catalytic converter on it, and my dad’s car didn’t when he was my age. We’ve done a lot, in many theaters of action to protect the world around us, and we’ve had many successes.
    When we do one thing 30 years ago that is good, and then 100 things that are bad, that's 1 step forward, 100 steps backwards. That is the same thing as doing nothing. For every forward step we've taken, we've taken many backsteps that have made the problem worse. That's not progress. Without progress, we do nothing to fix the problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    Human violence has, on average, everything to do with animal violence. How much animal violence do you think has nothing to do with “dick swinging?” Mates and territory are most of what they fight over; most carnivores don’t so much “fight” for their food, as lay in wait and trap it. I have great respect for nature, as I am part of it. I’m just not blind to the fact that the world is a very violent place, from the bacteria on up the food chain. At worst, we’re just like the animals.
    And by the way, stop putting words in my mouth. I neither seek to dominate nature, nor strip it of all I can take. Just because I don’t sit around deluding myself into thinking that the world is a place full of cute little kangaroo-rats, eating seeds, and doing harm to none, doesn’t mean that I have no desire to see an end to pollution. It seems you have no idea what’s going on in the world past your front door…
    Again, even if on the surface it looks like we are doing the same things as animals, the reasoning behind the whole thing is completely different. Animals fight for mates because they have to further their species. They fight for land to protect their food sources and their population groups. I don't know what the neighborhood you live in is like, but I don't have to do that. We, as humans, control every bit of land on this planet. We don't have to fight for land. We fight for power and control in a political and financial sense; not survival. We don't fight for mates because we need to keep the species alive. We are already overpopulated on this planet. We consume more resources than our planet can sustain on a longterm basis.


    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    Your argument is flawed. Humans are a product of natural selection, as such, whatever we do, is a part of the natural world. We may be able to manipulate nature to our will in some ways, but that can never separate us from the rest of the world. If it could, we’d have nothing to fear from the consequences of human action on this planet. We can dominate many of the natural processes on the planet, at least for a short period of time. We can even wrench open the bonds of the atom; show me a chimp who can do that! We’re very smart, but not always very wise’ we’re inquisitive, and we get ourselves into trouble. In no way though have you addressed my argument that the rest of the animal kingdom goes through this all the time. They breed, and breed, and breed until there is no more room, and then they die. We’re trying not go through that same process, and in so doing, have taken an unprecedented step in the history of life on this planet. Yeah us!
    When I say we are not part of nature, I mean we are no longer part of a natural ecological cycle. We do not put anything anything back into the earth, we only take away. We do not act as a food source for a major food chain. And we also don't eat from a food chain in a way that makes a difference to any ecosystem. We eat from animals we have total control over, so we are not affecting a food chain. You're first thought might be to be proud of this, but it's not a good thing. Food chains, consumption of part of the chain, becoming food for another part of the chain - these things all create the balance that fuels nature. Humans are not good at balance - of any kind.

    Also, as far as not having to fear our actions on this planet. We've lived on this planet for the past 200 years without fearing our actions. We've lived as if we do have total control over nature's cycles. But, we don't. And now we're paying for our arrogance and our ignorance.



    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    Scientists, like the politicians that fund them, have very little knowledge of what the world is going to do. They are by their very nature learners of things, and as such are constantly making new predictions as new knowledge is presented to them. They may be right, I certainly wouldn’t disagree with them, but nothing here takes away from my point.
    Where it should take away from your point is precisely where you keep repeating. We have NOT done enough to give back to this planet in the way we take from it. We have NOT done enough to make change now that we've seen the damage we have caused. We have NOT changed our attitudes - politically, socially, or financially - in a way that will change the way we effect our environment in the future.
    I'm going to eat breakfast. And then I'm going to change the world.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    When we do one thing 30 years ago that is good, and then 100 things that are bad, that's 1 step forward, 100 steps backwards. That is the same thing as doing nothing. For every forward step we've taken, we've taken many backsteps that have made the problem worse. That's not progress. Without progress, we do nothing to fix the problem.
    We have done a lot to fix many of the problems we have caused, and some we haven’t. By the way, a Catalytic Converter isn’t going to anything about Global Warming, in fact it converts some of the more harmful gasses put out by cars INTO CO2. I was simply using that as an example of the many positive steps humans have taken in the last thirty years, that cows have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Again, even if on the surface it looks like we are doing the same things as animals, the reasoning behind the whole thing is completely different. Animals fight for mates because they have to further their species. They fight for land to protect their food sources and their population groups. I don't know what the neighborhood you live in is like, but I don't have to do that. We, as humans, control every bit of land on this planet. We don't have to fight for land. We fight for power and control in a political and financial sense; not survival. We don't fight for mates because we need to keep the species alive. We are already overpopulated on this planet. We consume more resources than our planet can sustain on a longterm basis.
    Thanks for making my point. Yes, we humans fight over resources, the same way “Dick Swinging” animals do. We fight over land, because other humans seek to possess the same pieces of it in order to use it to live on and grow food. Nationalisim is simply an extension of the natural tendency to flock or herd. We fight over mates because we feel the natural imperative to pass on our genetic code; the same way animals do. The difference comes in that we’re better than the animals. We’ve begun to understand that overpopulation is thing that can happen, and that rather than continue to breed until we suddenly die off en-masse, we can stop having as many offspring. We’re not overpopulated quite yet; we have the technology to keep our current population fed, even long-term. But we do need to stop. Hey! See what I did there? I expressed the need to stop having kids at the rate we are! Let’s see you precious Dolphins do that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    When I say we are not part of nature, I mean we are no longer part of a natural ecological cycle. We do not put anything anything back into the earth, we only take away. We do not act as a food source for a major food chain. And we also don't eat from a food chain in a way that makes a difference to any ecosystem. We eat from animals we have total control over, so we are not affecting a food chain. You're first thought might be to be proud of this, but it's not a good thing. Food chains, consumption of part of the chain, becoming food for another part of the chain - these things all create the balance that fuels nature. Humans are not good at balance - of any kind.
    We expand the bounds of the natural cycle, and create our own food chain. Yes I’m proud of this. It’s neither a good, nor a bad thing, just a new thing. A thing that we can do, and a Turnip can’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Also, as far as not having to fear our actions on this planet. We've lived on this planet for the past 200 years without fearing our actions. We've lived as if we do have total control over nature's cycles. But, we don't. And now we're paying for our arrogance and our ignorance.
    We’ve never lived as if we had total control, and I never said we didn’t have fear the consequences of our actions. Read my posts. I do believe that I’ve been stating for quite a bit now that this being better than animals carries with it the responsibility to use our big human brains, or should I say the rest of ours. You, of, course, are no smarter than a chimp…

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Where it should take away from your point is precisely where you keep repeating. We have NOT done enough to give back to this planet in the way we take from it. We have NOT done enough to make change now that we've seen the damage we have caused. We have NOT changed our attitudes - politically, socially, or financially - in a way that will change the way we effect our environment in the future.
    We’ve done more than anything else could have. We’re more than the animals around us, for good or ill, and many people have changed their attitudes. But it’s nice of you to lump us all in with the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas USA
    Posts
    11,217
    There's no point in me arguing anymore with someone who thinks it's some great accomplishment to have a higher brain capacity than a dolphin or a turnip. It's not as if it's something we planned to do, worked to do or had a choice about. It was pure luck. If it makes you happy to walk around looking down upon every other organism in existence, you keep it up. I'll just be sure to cross to the other side of the street when I see you coming.
    I'm going to eat breakfast. And then I'm going to change the world.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    There's no point in me arguing anymore with someone who thinks it's some great accomplishment to have a higher brain capacity than a dolphin or a turnip. It's not as if it's something we planned to do, worked to do or had a choice about. It was pure luck. If it makes you happy to walk around looking down upon every other organism in existence, you keep it up. I'll just be sure to cross to the other side of the street when I see you coming.
    this is what i meant when i said that the way Bruxell expresses himself makes him "annoying".
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    There's no point in me arguing anymore with someone who thinks it's some great accomplishment to have a higher brain capacity than a dolphin or a turnip. It's not as if it's something we planned to do, worked to do or had a choice about. It was pure luck. If it makes you happy to walk around looking down upon every other organism in existence, you keep it up. I'll just be sure to cross to the other side of the street when I see you coming
    Like you ever argued? You never once addressed my point, I think because you totally failed to understand it. I thought at first that you failed to read my posts completely, but now I see that you just don’t understand it. So, last time, here it is.

    "We as humans are gifted with a higher brain capacity, and a potential for thought and understanding that no other animal has had before. Being proud of that is no different than being proud of any other talent. It’s the same thing as an artist or writer being proud of their abilities and enjoying them. We have done more for and against the environment in which we live than any other specie in the history of history, and that in and of itself is an accomplishment.
    But it comes with a responsibility. We need to use the brain that we were given by God, or Evolution, or both, or whatever you believe, to save ourselves from the consequences of our actions. We’ve made mistakes in our rush to unravel the secrets of the world, and use our knowledge, and we need to take steps to correct them. We’ve done some fine work so far, but not enough.
    In many ways the world is safer because of mankind today, and in many, many other ways, less so. None-the-less we’ve done things of which all others around us are totally incapable."

    Except of course you Matt, all you do is sit around and complain about how stupid we all are. We owe you for this, who else would go to the trouble of saving the world by pointing out how pointless the whole idea of going on is?

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    this is what i meant when i said that the way Bruxell expresses himself makes him "annoying".
    The fact that you disagree with my point because you don’t understand it and don’t read my whole post makes me annoying? Fine, I’m annoyingly smarter than you. I express only that we (And I was including the two of you in this at first…) are smarter and more capable of survival than the rest of the animal kingdom, and that we need make no apologies for being successful. It’s how evolution works, survival of the fittest. Maybe you should read The Origin Of The Species; it’s a good book, and it makes the point that our success over other animals is nothing new; this is how it’s always happened. Animals have gone extinct because of being out-competed for resources by other animals; we’re just the latest and most successful. We are however coming to a point where we need to make decisions about the future of ourselves, and the world around us.
    But go ahead, and be annoyed. Reject my point without consideration because it makes a statement you don’t understand, and find threatening. Then you and Matt can go aside and insinuate that I’m some kind of anti-animal Fascist, without ever addressing my point, and take nothing from the discussion but the warm feeling of thinking that you’re doing something for the world by thinking we’re all too stupid to do anything about the problems we experience. Liberals are those who seek the advancement of humanity through progressive thought and action. Let go of your prejudices.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    The fact that you disagree with my point because you don’t understand it and don’t read my whole post makes me annoying?
    it is not what you say but the way you say it.
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    it is not what you say but the way you say it.
    That's a cop-out, I've said it several different ways at this point, and I was being nice until people started implying that I had no conscience and only wanted to take everything I coud for myself...
    By the way, it's not exactly nice to call someone "annoying." It's about as nice as calling them an "Idiot." So in your case, it is what you're saying that's offensive.
    Not that I'd call you an "Idiot" or anything...

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bruxell View Post
    That's a cop-out, I've said it several different ways at this point, and I was being nice until people started implying that I had no conscience and only wanted to take everything I coud for myself...
    By the way, it's not exactly nice to call someone "annoying." It's about as nice as calling them an "Idiot." So in your case, it is what you're saying that's offensive.
    Not that I'd call you an "Idiot" or anything...
    i do not want to offend you, i am sorry.
    reading the whole thread it seems it is difficult to talk between us, meaning me you and matt, because of something that i think is our attitude, even mine. we are no more talking about norway but about ethics, politics, mankind, not some easy arguments, i would like to have more discussions like this but sitting at the same table, this is one of the problems of forums, a lot of people often don't care about others and about their ideas, so discussions degenerate into "fights". not this case anyway.
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    i do not want to offend you, i am sorry.
    reading the whole thread it seems it is difficult to talk between us, meaning me you and matt, because of something that i think is our attitude, even mine. we are no more talking about norway but about ethics, politics, mankind, not some easy arguments, i would like to have more discussions like this but sitting at the same table, this is one of the problems of forums, a lot of people often don't care about others and about their ideas, so discussions degenerate into "fights". not this case anyway.
    I'd be happy to talk to you, Matt though doesn't seem to want to discuss anything or he'd, you know, read what I write before responding to it...

    I don't think I have a bad attitude, I just want my point recognised BEFORE it's argued with. Again that point is. "We don't have to appologise for being human. Other animals get into environmental crises. We're smarter than anything else on the planet which is how we got into this in the first place, now let's use that fact to help ourselves."

    It's all very simple in the broader scheme. Have a nice day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Exotic Cars The Defining Characteristics
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 08:59 PM
  2. Sultan of Brunei!!
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 05:58 AM
  3. Pixar Cars
    By 90ft in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
  4. RWD diesel powered cars
    By QBridge in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-07-2005, 01:17 AM
  5. "004 best and worst selling cars
    By Mustang in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2004, 06:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •