the PEARL DROPS TOOTH POLISH commercials from the '70s. Oy, can someone embed? How much sexy is too much sexy?
This thread....
Cave Shmuck I: Look, it's raining.
Cave Shmuck II: A god has given this to us!
Cave Shmuck I: I was afraid of that...
...the business with Adam, Eve and the snake. :)
Quote from: The LordWhich word didn't you understand?
Guy in bondo beater drives by (slowly, because he is an attention whore man-boy)
Vibration from bondo beater's 58" subwoofer triggers car alarm in nearby car.
So now we have not only bondo beater, but also the $89 Circuit City car alarm with the eight different sound effects going simulataneously:
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!
AAA! AAA! AAA!! EEEEOOO! EEEEEOOOO! EEEEOOOOO! OOOAAAH! OOOAAAAH! OOOAAAAH! ...
Boris Yellnikoff in Woody Allen's 'Whatever Works": "The human race. They've had to install automatic toilets in public restrooms, because people can't be entrusted to flush a toilet."
Quote from: karlhenning on July 24, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Which word didn't you understand?
No, I'm good, "Lord", it's just that I don't fully get the part about how it's easier for a raisin to pass through the Thames Estuary than for 72 virgins to give birth to (sun gods? godsons?) well....
anything, really. I'm still working on it, and I can tell it's Gold, Jerry, pure Gold!
The widely agreed upon "lowest point in human history was" in 1980, with the release of Heaven's Gate.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on July 24, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
The widely agreed upon "lowest point in human history was" in 1980, with the release of Heaven's Gate.
But......Isabelle Huppert!!!
1963 -- Cap'n Crunch cereal was introduced
Quote from: Moonfish on July 24, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
1963 -- Cap'n Crunch cereal was introduced
As a child I was quite the addict! Several boxes per week were not unusual, though my brother helped. Opium of the breakfast table. It's off the menu now, of course, but still have fond memories of the Cap'n.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/ABBA_-_TopPop_1974_5.png)
This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrw_UnlRII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrw_UnlRII)
Just kidding.
The invention of the combustion engine combined with the "one-car-per-person" mentality
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00980/car-exhaust-460_980077c.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 25, 2015, 12:17:18 PM
The invention of the combustion engine
I presume you gave up driving long time ago and switched to walking, biking or riding... ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2015, 12:23:05 PM
I presume you gave up driving long time ago and switched to walking, biking or riding... ;D ;D ;D
The culture is built around the concept.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 25, 2015, 01:11:08 PM
The culture is built around the concept.
Which culture?
Quote from: Moonfish on July 25, 2015, 06:36:18 PM
The oil culture....
Ah, yes, the one that makes modern life possible. Bless it.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEeDJiBUUAILEiY.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 25, 2015, 06:36:18 PM
The oil culture....
Holy crap. Where would we be without the long playing record?
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2015, 07:14:15 PM
Ah, yes, the one that makes modern life possible. Bless it.
Modern life?
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 01:25:49 AM
Modern life?
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
Quote from: North Star on July 26, 2015, 02:37:55 AM
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 03:41:12 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry)
Well I know a a good deal about the biological and environmental effects of petroleum drilling and petrochemical industry, but you questioned Todd's point about petroleum industry 'making modern life possible'. One might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.
Quote from: North Star on July 26, 2015, 04:39:39 AMOne might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.
Never underestimate the sanctimonious wishful thinking of environmental ideologues.
Quote from: North Star on July 26, 2015, 04:39:39 AM
Well I know a a good deal about the biological and environmental effects of petroleum drilling and petrochemical industry, but you questioned Todd's point about petroleum industry 'making modern life possible'. One might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.
You misunderstand Karlo. I didn't question Todd's point, but rather the definition of modern life. One should never question Todd!
Modern life can be interpreted in many ways depending on location and socioeconomic status. Most of the world is poor. Besides, aren't we postmodern at this point in time? :P
Quote from: Todd on July 26, 2015, 05:17:01 AM
Never underestimate the sanctimonious wishful thinking of environmental ideologues.
Nor the sacred posturing of conservative demagogues.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html)
China transitioning to "modern" life?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/31/17/2728DD0100000578-0-Sea_of_metal_An_aerial_view_of_a_junkyard_in_Hangzhou_city_Zheji-a-59_1427818769586.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 05:55:07 AMModern life can be interpreted in many ways depending on location and socioeconomic status.
This is one of those faux intellectual types of responses. You are communicating using a quintessential modern method, and mentioning, even as a joke, a ridiculous modern concept (post-modernism). Yes, you know what is meant by the phrase modern life, as it is typically used, especially on the internet. And of course, many, but by no means all, of the world's poor aspire to acquire at least some of the accoutrements of modern life as lived by wealthier people. They're smart.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 06:23:46 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html)
China transitioning to "modern" life?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/31/17/2728DD0100000578-0-Sea_of_metal_An_aerial_view_of_a_junkyard_in_Hangzhou_city_Zheji-a-59_1427818769586.jpg)
I do love how the headline includes the word "stunning" to describe photos of a junkyard. Perhaps some people do find the banal stunning.
Quote from: Todd on July 26, 2015, 06:47:33 AM
I do love how the headline includes the word "stunning" to describe photos of a junkyard. Perhaps some people do find the banal stunning.
It's just clickbait.
(Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but I thought it belonged nicely with the rest of the thread).
Isn't the article an example of a consequence of "modern" life? Or more specifically one result of the "oil" culture?
Your response to the the problem the article is pointing to is indeed stunning. Your logic is typical for many in the tier of conservative archetypes wishing that the problem did not exist, so they simply deny its existence. This perspective places them in a category beyond the naive and ignorant: the irresponsible.
The pictures do not bother you at all? Incredulous!
.
(http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/MarianaMap_88058_89661.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 11:58:46 AMYour response to the the problem the article is pointing to is indeed stunning. Your logic is typical for many in the tier of conservative archetypes wishing that the problem did not exist, so they simply deny its existence.
Really, you are
stunned? You must lead a rather sheltered life. Or you are addicted to hyperbole. Or both.
And you also very clearly prefer to respond to things you wish were true or written rather than things that are true or were written. First, the implication of what you write is that I do not believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring or is a problem. The thing is, I have never written any such thing. (Please, direct me to posts where I have denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change or its consequences.) Second, you apparently missed the main point of the article with the pictures you find so bothersome, and that I find not the least bit bothersome: the large junkyard is the result of China adopting tighter emissions standards. The large junkyard is a
good thing. You should be glad to see it, to see the adoption of actions that will reduce pollution in China, especially when paired with a reduction in the number of registrations allowed. Based on your posts here, you appear to react with nearly uncontrollable emotion to something as mundane as photos of a junkyard.
Colonialism!
[asin] 0618001905[/asin]
Quote from: Moonfish on July 25, 2015, 12:17:18 PM
The invention of the combustion engine combined with the "one-car-per-person" mentality
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00980/car-exhaust-460_980077c.jpg)
+1
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:00:54 AM
+1
May I suggest that you and Moonfish cancel all your current CD orders and never place another one again? At every stage of their manufacturing and distribution internal combustion engines are heavily involved.
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 08:03:34 AM
May I suggest that you and Moonfish cancel all your current CD orders and never place another one again? At every stage of their manufacturing and distribution internal combustion engines are heavily involved.
You know, I wasn't condemning the entire petroleum products industry; nor was Moonfish; merely the predominance of the internal combustion engine and the mentality that allows for a majority of cars transporting only a single person.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:17:47 AM
the predominance of the internal combustion engine
A predominance that has literally saved many hundreds of millions of lives just because the ambulance or the firefighters came in time.
A predominance that has made possible for you to visit far away places and buy the CDs and books, or the food and wine, you enjoy.
A predominance that brought about the greatest freedom and easiness of movement the mankind has ever known.
All in all, a predominance which has made possible, and sustained, the highest standard of living the mankind has ever known and of which you are a major beneficiary.
How highly educated and intelligent people can call this "the lowest point in human history" is really beyond my power of comprehension.
And besides, predominance over what? What were the viable alternatives that the internal combustion engine destroyed?
Quote
the mentality that allows for a majority of cars transporting only a single person.
Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 11:04:52 AM
Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?
Just observation of the daily commute into Boston, e.g.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2015, 11:17:02 AM
Just observation of the daily commute into Boston, e.g.
What do you use for that?
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 11:04:52 AM
Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?
The empirical proof is everywhere, dude!! Even when I'm on my bike! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 11:21:33 AM
What do you use for that?
My eyes, chiefly 0:) As I ride the bus, I am at liberty to watch the traffic around me.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2015, 11:23:45 AM
My eyes, chiefly 0:) As I ride the bus, I am at liberty to watch the traffic around me.
I was refering to what you use for commuting. :D
What is, in your opinion, the explanation of the fact that people prefer using their cars rather than public transportation?
For the last few miles of I-93 southbound into Boston, there is a special lane for vehicles with two persons or more. When I am lazy, I simply rely on all the people who fail to avail themselves of that faster, to indicate to me how much of the traffic is a matter of one person in the car.
Must be nice to have the option of bus service.
(though I probably wouldn't rely on the bus, still) :P
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 11:26:24 AM
I was refering to what you use for commuting. :D
What is, in your opinion, the explanation of the fact that people prefer using their cars rather than public transportation?
Rather a mobile of factors.
Is there not a way for the MBTA to get me to work and back in less time and with less bother than driving myself? Do I have affordable parking at my workplace? If not, do I just make enough money that I nonetheless consider it worth the cost to park in the city? Am I traveling elsewhere, rather than simply back home, after my workday?
Quote from: Greg on July 27, 2015, 11:27:14 AM
Must be nice to have the option of bus service.
(though I probably wouldn't rely on the bus, still) :P
Much occasion as we have to complain about the MBTA (and, yes, its service and reliability ought to be better), I do realize that Boston has a better public transportation network than many another city in the US.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2015, 11:30:10 AM
Is there not a way for the MBTA to get me to work and back in less time and with less bother than driving myself?
Well, is it?
Sea Slaves
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/world/outlaw-ocean-thailand-fishing-sea-slaves-pets.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/world/outlaw-ocean-thailand-fishing-sea-slaves-pets.html)
Life among the sea slaves (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/life-among-the-sea-slaves/?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article)
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/08/world/OCEANS-SLAVES-01/OCEANS-SLAVES-01-articleLarge-v2.jpg)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:17:47 AM
You know, I wasn't condemning the entire petroleum products industry; nor was Moonfish; merely the predominance of the internal combustion engine and the mentality that allows for a majority of cars transporting only a single person.
+1
Stalin's death camps....
[asin] 1400034094[/asin]
Hmm, sounds like people are sensitive about the "oil culture"! Is that because we live within it and have to defend our way of life? I don't think the public in general considers the cost of the oil consumption (its retrieval, transport, combustion) leading to pollution of air, water, soil, climate, human health problems as well as destruction of habitat/species as we so happily/gingerly consume the excess of what the fossil energy brings "civilization". I am obviously aware of my own impact on these matters, but strive towards reduction. If we do not find an alternative source of energy we are heading for major problems. In terms of the single issue of climate change it appears as if the nations of the world are so arthritic that nothing will happen except symbolic meetings.
This is a low point for sure...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-the-world-has-never-heard-of-climate-change/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-the-world-has-never-heard-of-climate-change/)
(http://www.nps.gov/sama/planyourvisit/images/You-Control-Climate-Change-773583_1.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 26, 2015, 08:48:09 PM
Colonialism!
[asin] 0618001905[/asin]
I read that more than eight million people died in the Belgian Congo due to King Leopold's policies...!!!! Isn't colonialism and the culture of superiority of the colonizers another low point of human history?
Quote from: Moonfish on July 27, 2015, 12:52:25 PM
I read that more than eight million people died in the Belgian Congo due to King Leopold's policies...!!!! Isn't colonialism and the culture of superiority of the colonizers another low point of human history?
Yes.
And for the record, I have not owned an automobile for 19 years now. I get around by public transit--which is still internal combustion for the most part, or electricity derived from burning coal, but still more efficient than lots of people driving a car with no other passengers--bicycle, and foot. My "carbon footprint" is not zero, but not far from it. 8)
Yet the oil in the ground is not limitless. Now is the time to look for alternative methods of producing energy and the other benefits we get from petrochemicals. And it can't happen too soon!
Jonathan Glover's book provides interesting perspectives of humanity...
Reviewed in NYT by Steven Pinker: https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/10/29/reviews/001029.29pinkert.html (https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/10/29/reviews/001029.29pinkert.html)
[asin] 0300186401[/asin]
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 02:42:04 PMYet the oil in the ground is not limitless.
Not limitless, but there is still a whole lot to extract. Per the US EIA, there are more proven reserves now than in 2011, for instance. (http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6) Increased exploration in the Artic will doubtless yield even more.
One of the greatest energy issues over the next few decades will be the increasing coal consumption (especially in India and China) leading to further environmental consequences. After all, most nations in the world strive towards the level of US per capita energy consumption.
The recent access to more fossil fuel is likely to have strong consequences for "green energy" research and development.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/new-era-of-cheap-oil-will-destroy-green-revolution-9922217.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/new-era-of-cheap-oil-will-destroy-green-revolution-9922217.html)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 02:42:04 PM
My "carbon footprint" is not zero, but not far from it. 8)
Really?
I suppose you live in a home which has electric lighting and power, running water, sewage and, depending on where you live, heating or airconditioning or possibly both. All these imply.... yes, you´re right: internal combustion engines (not to mention coal burning).
I suppose you don´t grow your own food and make your own beverages but buy them on the market. This implies... yes, you´re right: internal combustion engines (not to mention coal burning).
I suppose you don´t make your own clothes and shoes and furniture and carpets etc but buy them on the market. This implies... yes, you´re right: internal combustion engines (not to mention coal burning).
I also suppose you have lots of books and CDs and plan to buy more in the future. The manufacturing, distribution and sales of CDs and books imply... yes, you´re right: internal combustion engines (not to mention coal burning).
Need I go on?
So you see, even if you personally don´t drive a car, the production and supply of your very basic necessities of life and the little things that make it enjoyable involve at practically every stage other people driving cars.
Unless you are prepared and willing to live in a home with no power and electricity, no running water, no sewage, no heating and no airconditioning, to grow your own food and make your own beverages, your own clothes, shoes, furniture etc without using any form of energy supply other than the sunrays, the wind and the natural-running water, to stop buying CDs and books and whatever else is manufactured and sold on the market --- unless you do that your carbon footprint is very far from being zero, and believing otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Quote
lots of people driving a car with no other passengers
Have you ever thought about the fact that there are lots of people for whom traveling across the city (and even beyond it) multiple times a day is actually a job description? Engineers, lawyers, insurance brokers, sales representatives, suppliers, contractors, plumbers and other types of technicians etc etc etc --- all these people need to travel, and travel fast, because time is money for them, too, just like for everybody else who works. There is really no way for them other than driving cars.
I suspect that Jochanaan is well aware of what he consumes in his life. I viewed his post as thoughts about reducing one's carbon footprint in terms of transportation - not as not having one. Obviously we all have a "footprint". Regardless, cellular respiration qualifies us by default. 0:)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
I suspect that Jochanaan is well aware of what he consumes in his life. I viewed his post as thoughts about reducing one's carbon footprint in terms of transportation - not as not having one. Obviously we all have a "footprint". Regardless, cellular respiration qualifies us by default. 0:)
Methane is even worse than CO2. Some of us have "fartprints".
Yep, even the humble earthworm! :P
Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan ;)) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita. After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?
Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:06:35 AM
Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan ;)) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita. After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?
Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751)
The question in itself is proof that the problem is not the internal combustion engine
per se. Thus, you might want to reconsider the lowest point in human history as being the founding of the US... ;D
Seriously now, the answer has got to do with a combination of factors.
First of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is
ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.
Secondly, in all those countries public transportation is (more or less) widespread, reliable and comfortable, allowing most people with sedentary jobs to give up driving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the public transportation in the US, with few exceptions, is a disaster.
Thirdly, although I don't have any statistics at hand right now, from my own observation I suspect that in all those countries the norm is one car per family, while in the US the norm is one car per family member.
Fourthly, in all those countries many people live within walking distance from greengrocers, bakeries, markets, pubs, caffes, restaurants and other such conveniences. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this is far from being the case in the US.
These are some of the factors that came up in my mind right now. I'm sure there are others more.
Now, let's talk specifically about Romania. Almost 40 % of the people live in rural areas and of these only a rather small fraction own cars. Many homes are still heated by burning firewood and many of them lack even running water or sewage, although their number has been decreasing. Public transportation in Bucharest? The fastest and most comfortable is the subway. If one is lucky enough to dwell and work within walking distance to and from a subway station then this is one's best option --- but unfortunately the network does not cover the whole city. There are also trams, trolleybuses and buses but they have severe drawbacks, such as (1) few of the buses and none of the trams and trolleybuses have airconditioning, in a city where temperatures during summer frequently reach 37 degrees Celsius and higher for extended periods of time, (2) except partially in the city center, they have no dedicated lanes, and (3) there are not enough of them to transport on time all the people who would use them. To quote a driver interviewed exactly on this topic: "You have two options: to stand an hour in a cauldron fullpacked with people who loudly curse their fate and the management of the Bucharest public transportation, while delighting in the accompanying odour, or to drive about the same amount of time a car with airconditiong (or at least an effective natural ventilation) while listening to music or even reading newspapers or a book during traffic jams. Honestly, which is the no-brainer?"
So there.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:06:35 AM
Why does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)?
Too cheap petrol, and hence too many gas-guzzling cars, and citys designed for car use.
Quote from: Florestan on July 28, 2015, 03:16:34 AM
Secondly, in all those countries public transportation is (more or less) widespread, reliable and comfortable, allowing most people with sedentary jobs to give up driving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the public transportation in the US, with few exceptions, is a disaster.
Part of the problem is simply, geographical scale, of course. And numerous collateral considerations . . . .
Quote from: FlorestanThirdly, although I don't have any statistics at hand right now, from my own observation I suspect that in all those countries the norm is one car per family, while in the US the norm is one car per family member.
"One car per family member" as a norm is an impossible exaggeration, of course. Having said that, though, I certainly know families of whom it is true.
Quote from: FlorestanFourthly, in all those countries many people live within walking distance from greengrocers, bakeries, markets, pubs, caffes, restaurants and other such conveniences. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this is far from being the case in the US.
Yes, see "question of scale," above :)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 28, 2015, 03:22:33 AM
Part of the problem is simply, geographical scale, of course. And numerous collateral considerations . . . .
"One car per family member" as a norm is an impossible exaggeration, of course. Having said that, though, I certainly know families of whom it is true.
Yes, see "question of scale," above :)
All true.
Honestly, to compare the US to Denmark in this respect is meaningless.
EDIT One car per family member is of course exaggerated, but one car for husband and one for wife is not, I think, especially if they work in different and distant part of the city.
Quote from: Florestan on July 28, 2015, 03:25:08 AM
All true.
Honestly, to compare the US to Denmark in this respect is meaningless.
EDIT One car per family member is of course exaggerated, but one car for husband and one for wife is not, I think, especially if they work in different and distant part of the city.
Yes, we're a family of three, and we do have two cars. Use of the second is quite light, but there
are times when we simply cannot manage with just one; and there is a not-unreasonable procession thence to elective-but-not-excessive use of the resource :)
One car family, we. We're unique among all we know here in the Midwest for this. Many's the time when one or t'other takes a very inconvenient bus or just doesn't do what he or she wanted to. But aside from the environment, our $ savings are huge and makes the trouble well worth it.
This video gives you an excellent idea about Bucharest, its scale and car traffic level.
https://youtu.be/RR2SdvUTcNs (https://youtu.be/RR2SdvUTcNs)
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on July 28, 2015, 03:56:13 AM
One car family, we. We're unique among all we know here in the Midwest for this. Many's the time when one or t'other takes a very inconvenient bus or just doesn't do what he or she wanted to. But aside from the environment, our $ savings are huge and makes the trouble well worth it.
The Middle West is a challenge for car-free living!
Quote from: Florestan on July 28, 2015, 03:16:34 AMFirst of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.
The CO
2 emissions were in metric tonnes
per capita.
Quote from: Florestan on July 28, 2015, 03:16:34 AM
First of all, the most populous country of those you cited is Germany, which at about 81,000,000 inhabitants is still 4 times less populated than the US. Romania, at about 20,000,000 inhabitants is 16 times less populated than the US, while Denmark, at about 6,000,000 inhabitants is 50 times less populated than the US. Energy consumption is ipso facto considerably smaller in those countries than in the US, and so is the number of cars.
I just wanted to remind you that the numbers were
per capita (per person) and
not total footprint per nation. I guess one could include the space factor (per person) but that makes it a bit more complex as one considers the vast unoccupied spaces in some of the western states of the US. Infrastructure and city planning are definitely part of the reasons, but I think one needs to consider factors beyond transportation to explain the numbers (e.g. heating, electricity, food production and production/consumption of products).
It is interesting to track the changes in the CO2 release per capita over the indicated time span. E.g. China shows a drastic change between 2007-2011 as part of their rapid industrialization and rising per capita consumption levels. Many European nations have lowered their releases slightly over these years. Many developing nations have doubled their releases (still a small number compared to developed nations). Viet Nam has a six times higher release per person. The future likely holds a scenario in which developed nations stabilize or reduce 10-20% of their releases, while most developing nations will drastically increase the release of CO2. The overall global total output is steadily increasing.
per capita
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 04:53:39 AM
I think one needs to consider factors beyond transportation to explain the numbers (e.g. heating, electricity, food production and production/consumption of products).
Of course.
EDIT: I think you and
Jochanaan would just love this article: http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/CarCult.htm (http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/CarCult.htm)
QuoteMuch of the reason why suburbs look the way they do is because of zoning laws. [...] The main premise behind our current zoning codes is the complete and distanced separation of homes and jobs [...] Corner stores are not allowed in most suburban residential neighborhoods, nor are apartments allowed above shops and restaurants.
Is this really true?
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:06:35 AMWhy does the US have 1.5-3 times the carbon footprint per capita compared to industrialized nations in northern Europe (e.g. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark)? Romania's footprint (especially for you Florestan ;)) is more than 4x lower that the US per capita. After all, the standard of living is extremely high in all of these nations. Why is the footprint twice as big in the US?
The US has, and will continue to have, a more carbon intensive economy, which includes all aspects of activity. It should also be pointed out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries, especially the larger European countries (eg, Luxembourg and Norway don't really matter when it comes to big issues), so one can see a correlation between a measure of comparative income and carbon emissions. It should also be pointed out, that per the US CDIAC and UN, the top three producers greenhouse gases are China, the US, and the EU as a whole, in that order. And buried in this reality is the fact that the global emissions figures are skewed to reflect the massive shift of more emissions-intensive activities like manufacturing from the rich world (ie, the US and EU) to the middle income world (mainly China). Going for finer details sees that some countries have adopted different policies for energy production, like France, which derives most electricity from nuclear power, driving down both aggregate and per capita emissions. That is not an option for the entire world based solely on available fuel. Transportation plays a big role, too, of course, but not the defining one, and it masks other issues.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on July 24, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
The widely agreed upon "lowest point in human history was" in 1980, with the release of Heaven's Gate.
This was more along the lines of the answer I was shooting for... Humour Thread Fail... waaaaah!!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 28, 2015, 01:18:04 PM
This was more along the lines of the answer I was shooting for... Humour Thread Fail... waaaaah!!
In that case, the answer to your question is the early 70s. To whit:
(http://cdn.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--eZi6-CJR--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/772388211200540197.jpg)
Sarge
The 1950s - the golden "brain washing" era of consumer products!!!!!
(http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/vintageads10.jpg)
and especially as a role models for girls...
(http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/targeting_women/lets_smoke_girls/large/lets_smoke_girls_5.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2015, 05:46:50 AM
The US has, and will continue to have, a more carbon intensive economy, which includes all aspects of activity. It should also be pointed out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries, especially the larger European countries (eg, Luxembourg and Norway don't really matter when it comes to big issues), so one can see a correlation between a measure of comparative income and carbon emissions. It should also be pointed out, that per the US CDIAC and UN, the top three producers greenhouse gases are China, the US, and the EU as a whole, in that order. And buried in this reality is the fact that the global emissions figures are skewed to reflect the massive shift of more emissions-intensive activities like manufacturing from the rich world (ie, the US and EU) to the middle income world (mainly China). Going for finer details sees that some countries have adopted different policies for energy production, like France, which derives most electricity from nuclear power, driving down both aggregate and per capita emissions. That is not an option for the entire world based solely on available fuel. Transportation plays a big role, too, of course, but not the defining one, and it masks other issues.
The lowest point in human history is you saying Norway doesn't matter!
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:00:54 AM
+1
Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. ::)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 01:51:04 PM
The 1950s - the golden "brain washing" era of consumer products!!!!!
(http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/vintageads10.jpg)
You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Carpet_beater.JPG)
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:15:25 PM
You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?
But as a Christmas gift to the wife it definitely is a dealbreaker!
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. ::)
Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood
still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. ::)
Poop? What about doing a little research on the amount of human waste generated by a modern metropolis? Is the human population of 7.2 billion (predicted to rise to about 9-10 billion by 2050) level an issue? China is planning to expand Beijing to a 130 million metropolis. Just think about the amount of feces generated by such a city...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/asia/in-china-a-supercity-rises-around-beijing.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/asia/in-china-a-supercity-rises-around-beijing.html?_r=0)
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/18/world/asia/XXXX-SUPERCITY-slide-JNCX/XXXX-SUPERCITY-slide-JNCX-jumbo.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/v/Y0UarU0h_VA
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:18:43 PM
Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.
And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:18:43 PM
Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.
Hmm, what about alcohol related deaths relative to firewood related ones?
(http://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2011/ksyyt_2011_2012-12-21_kat_001_en_001.gif)
http://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2011/ksyyt_2011_2012-12-21_kat_001_en.html (http://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2011/ksyyt_2011_2012-12-21_kat_001_en.html)
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:18:43 PM
Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.
My neighbors (inveterate winter woodburners, annoyingly) wished they died several years ago. They didn't think to question the ivy winding about some of their firewood and - you guessed it -
inhaled the poison ivy smoke and their trachea, lungs, and points in-between suffered the consequences. Didn't teach them anything, however.
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:21:25 PM
And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.
True. Air pollution in London was worse in the past than today. However, that is
not an argument for ignoring aspects of air pollution causing harm to the environment or human health. It simply indicates that our society overall has become more efficient at handling air pollution issues (e.g. catalytic converters in cars, scrubbers in smokestacks etc). Air pollution is still a severe issue across the world and will of course take on different aspects depending on the geographic location and different nations' infrastructure. Many megacities (e.g. Beijing, Mexico City, Los Angeles) struggle with air pollution.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:20:29 PM
Poop? What about doing a little research on the amount of human waste generated by a modern metropolis? Is the human population of 7.2 billion (predicted to rise to about 9-10 billion by 2050) level an issue? China is planning to expand Beijing to a 130 million metropolis. Just think about the amount of feces generated by such a city...
But the waste management in modern, developed countries is rather more, well,
developed than it was a few hundred years ago.
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:21:25 PM
And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.
Yes indeed. Not that there isn't plenty of e.g. photochemical smog these days.
Quote from: The new erato on July 28, 2015, 02:16:52 PM
But as a Christmas gift to the wife it definitely is a dealbreaker!
I bet that's wrong. In say 1953 people were a lot poorer. Especially young couples. A vacuum cleaner would be a big chunk of the budget, and so that big a chunk dedicated to making the wife's life easier would be appreciated.
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:30:04 PM
But the waste management in modern, developed countries is rather more, well, developed than it was a few hundred years ago.
Yes indeed. Not that there isn't plenty of e.g. photochemical smog these days.
It is indeed, but the amount of human waste is considerable. The issue is more problematic in developing nations (e.g. India).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html)
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/07/11/world/asia/20140712SANITATION-slide-YN8E/20140712SANITATION-slide-YN8E-jumbo.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:15:25 PM
You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?
Ahh, do you want one, Ken? ;)
Air pollution in the US 2013: California has issues with a number of cities relative to federal guidelines.
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html (http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html)
.
(http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pennsalt.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:25:16 PM
[Figure 1. Leading causes of death among men aged 15 to 64 in 2011 (54-group classification)]
Hmm, what about alcohol related deaths relative to firewood related ones?
There now, it's a bit misleading to copy that graph without naming it, as people might think it's the causes of death of the whole population, and not of working age men. And do note that I didn't mean that firewood burning is a serious threat to the population nowadays, but if it was the only means of heating, it would cause a lot more health issues and deaths.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on July 28, 2015, 02:29:39 PM
My neighbors (inveterate winter woodburners, annoyingly) wished they died several years ago. They didn't think to question the ivy winding about some of their firewood and - you guessed it - inhaled the poison ivy smoke and their trachea, lungs, and points in-between suffered the consequences. Didn't teach them anything, however.
The people living next door to my parents' neighbours are also inveterate woodburners. There's nothing wrong with it in parts of world that aren't as crammed up as the largest cities, as long as you burn the wood properly, generating more heat and practically no harmful emissions (apart from the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water - but then, trees cause more CO
2 emissions alive than when burned).
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:41:13 PM
.
(http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pennsalt.jpg)
Well, this is a good nomination. :laugh:
I first saw this in an environmental chemistry class. Still cracks me up, and certainly helps to understand all the paranoia towards food and medical industries in the US.
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:44:33 PM
There now, it's a bit misleading to copy that graph without naming it, as people might think it's the causes of death of the whole population, and not of working age men. And do note that I didn't mean that firewood burning is a serious threat to the population nowadays, but if it was the only means of heating, it would cause a lot more health issues and deaths.
The people living next door to my parents' neighbours are also inveterate woodburners. There's nothing wrong with it in parts of world that aren't as crammed up as the largest cities, as long as you burn the wood properly, generating more heat and practically no harmful emissions (apart from the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water - but then, trees cause more CO2 emissions alive than when burned).
I do notice a severe change in air pollution around Thanksgiving and Christmas when everybody decides to haul home a box of firewood to provide the annual ambience of a hot sparkling fireplace. The air literally gets thick with smoke depending on the weather. Have you seen the "fake" fireplaces on DVDs? :D
https://www.youtube.com/v/5Wb58oSSXUY
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:47:33 PM
Well, this is a good nomination. :laugh:
I first saw this in an environmental chemistry class. Still cracks me up, and certainly helps to understand all the paranoia towards food and medical industries in the US.
It scares me that it was completely embraced by society at the time and marketed in this fashion. Granted that protection against malaria was an important aspects in parts of the world, but it makes me wonder what inventions/gadgets/chemicals/techniques we embrace today that will be looked at by future generations as a menace to mankind and the environment?
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
It scares me that it was completely embraced by society at the time and marketed in this fashion. Granted that protection against malaria was an important aspects in parts of the world, but it makes me wonder what inventions/gadgets/chemicals/techniques we embrace today that will be looked at by future generations as a menace to mankind and the environment?
https://www.youtube.com/v/YSWIhBO7Jc4
I would say the lowest points in human history are Hitler and Stalin. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2015, 02:47:33 PM
Well, this is a good nomination. :laugh:
I first saw this in an environmental chemistry class. Still cracks me up, and certainly helps to understand all the paranoia towards food and medical industries in the US.
DDT is less damaging than the banners claimed, and malaria more dangerous. Banning DDT might have made the rich temperate nations marginally healthier, but it has been quite bad for poor humid ones.
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 07:24:15 PM
DDT is less damaging than the banners claimed, and malaria more dangerous. Banning DDT might have made the rich temperate nations marginally healthier, but it has been quite bad for poor humid ones.
Do you refer to human health or environmental health? DDT is still being used when deemed necessary, but it is illegal in many nations for obvious reasons. Are you suggesting that the compound should be freely used as back in the 1950s?
http://www.panna.org/issues/persistent-poisons/the-ddt-story (http://www.panna.org/issues/persistent-poisons/the-ddt-story)
https://www.youtube.com/v/mX6fQLrueW0
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 02:20:29 PM
China is planning to expand Beijing to a 130 million metropolis. Just think about the amount of feces generated by such a city...
Don't worry! The Party will decree that, under the penalty of death, no Chinese shall defecate more than once a week, more than 1 oz a week.
But there is something that indeed worries me no end: first cars, then vacuum cleaners and now the Chinese drowning the planet in a deluge of poop --- with all these calamities around, do you still manage to sleep over night?
Quote from: Florestan on July 28, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
Don't worry! The Party will decree that, under the penalty of death, no Chinese shall defecate more than once a week, more than 1 oz a week.
But there is something that indeed worries me no end: first cars, then vacuum cleaners and now the Chinese drowning the planet in a deluge of poop --- with all these calamities around, do you still manage to sleep over night?
No, I stay up all night sorting my Stockhausen cds while drinking laxative teas...
.
https://www.youtube.com/v/8I3Z05lC9i8
Quote from: Moonfish on July 28, 2015, 11:25:52 PM
No, I stay up all night sorting my Stockhausen cds while drinking laxative teas...
I somehow knew that Stockhausen and Hitler were going to come up in this thread eventually.
Quote from: The new erato on July 28, 2015, 11:31:51 PM
I somehow knew that Stockhausen and Hitler were going to come up in this thread eventually.
???
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 28, 2015, 01:31:55 PM
In that case, the answer to your question is the early 70s. To whit:
(http://cdn.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--eZi6-CJR--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/772388211200540197.jpg)
Sarge wins!
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 01:34:22 AM
Sarge wins!
Yeah - I find it hard to believe that even events connected to the survival of the human race could displace those monstrosities of fashion. Gotta be careful lighting a match around them too...
snypsss didn't start the thread with The Problems of the World in mind. Going all Idi Amin is contrary to the OP's intent . . . .
Despite the grand measure of atrocities, environmental degradation, and lapses in taste, we can all rest assured that the best (worst) is yet to...
Quote from: H.L. MenckenNo one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/07/28/dfa4a82e-6e40-4582-aead-598e96b1c6f5/thumbnail/620x350/3c8a34a2461d758b7f3f7343afebbd20/en0728patta.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 03:57:25 AM
So, what you're saying is that the lowest point hasn't yet been reached, or that we can always go even lower, and simultaneously make the pie higher. 0:)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/comic-riffs/StandingArt/culdesacpiehigher.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 02:56:44 AM
snypsss didn't start the thread with The Problems of the World in mind. Going all Idi Amin is contrary to the OP's intent . . . .
How do you know? Can you read his mind? Perhaps Snypsss is stressed?
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/522/848/1600/LIH-Stress.jpg)
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 04:16:19 AM
(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/07/28/dfa4a82e-6e40-4582-aead-598e96b1c6f5/thumbnail/620x350/3c8a34a2461d758b7f3f7343afebbd20/en0728patta.jpg)
I heard about this story and it absolutely infuriates me. Such cruelty and he's got a special place in hell.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 29, 2015, 07:11:47 AM
I heard about this story and it absolutely infuriates me. Such cruelty and he's got a special place in hell.
What´s the story behind that picture?
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 07:15:41 AM
What´s the story behind that picture?
Here's one of many articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/28/minnesota-dentist-walter-james-palmer-cecil-lion-africa/30785881/
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 29, 2015, 07:11:47 AM
I heard about this story and it absolutely infuriates me. Such cruelty and he's got a special place in hell.
Yeah, To my way of thinking, people who
kill animals for recreation suffer from a particularly ugly soul sickness.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 07:15:41 AM
What´s the story behind that picture?
Another one with lots of pics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11767119/Cecil-the-lions-killer-revealed-as-American-dentist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11767119/Cecil-the-lions-killer-revealed-as-American-dentist.html)
WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/29/how-the-death-of-cecil-the-lion-at-the-hands-of-american-walter-palmer-has-shed-light-on-the-big-business-of-big-game/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/29/how-the-death-of-cecil-the-lion-at-the-hands-of-american-walter-palmer-has-shed-light-on-the-big-business-of-big-game/)
NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/world/africa/american-hunter-is-accused-of-killing-cecil-a-beloved-lion-in-zimbabwe.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/world/africa/american-hunter-is-accused-of-killing-cecil-a-beloved-lion-in-zimbabwe.html?_r=0)
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 07:19:09 AM
Yeah, To my way of thinking, people who kill animals for recreation suffer from a particularly ugly soul sickness.
Exactly. This guy deserves everything he gets.
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/ (http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/)
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 07:19:09 AM
Yeah, To my way of thinking, people who kill animals for recreation suffer from a particularly ugly soul sickness.
Well, hunting has been around for millenia, and it has even inspired famous works of art, musical works included. To say that all people who hunt for recreation are sick is an exaggeration, but in this case it is a very apt description. It is one thing to shoot a few partridges or hares every now and then and quite another to actively hunt endangered species just for the sake of parading a trophy.
The killing of a lion such as Cecil (the lion which this dentist was responsible for) will affect the pride in which this lion protects. Now, this lion's cubs are vulnerable to other male lions and god knows what else thanks to this soulless, spineless coward who gets thrills out of big game hunts. He can point the finger any which way he wants. The guy is guilty. He's as much to blame as his tour guides. I'd like to see this asshole fight Cecil with no weaponry whatsoever and let's see who wins the fight.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 07:33:33 AM
Well, hunting has been around for millenia, and it has even inspired famous works of art, musical works included. To say that all people who hunt for recreation are sick is an exaggeration, but in this case it is a very apt description. It is one thing to shoot a few partridges or hares every now and then and quite another to actively hunt endangered species just for the sake of parading a trophy.
And paying $50,000 for the pleasure of doing so......!!!!
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 07:33:33 AM
Well, hunting has been around for millenia, and it has even inspired famous works of art, musical works included. To say that all people who hunt for recreation are sick is an exaggeration, but in this case it is a very apt description. It is one thing to shoot a few partridges or hares every now and then and quite another to actively hunt endangered species just for the sake of parading a trophy.
Hunting for sustenance has been around for millennia - but hunting for fun is a particularly obnoxious hobby found in "western developed societies". It is absolutely sick to kill for entertainment, in any amount, IMO.
Unfortunately, large wildlife across the globe is suffering from these types of issues. Often more due to commercial aspects (such as rhino horn retrieval or ivory from elephant tusks) rather than narcissistic hunting as was the case with the lion. Capitalism. Market-demand principles. The wildlife trade has been awful over the last decade. >:(
https://intlrhinofoundation.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/a-shameful-record-offical-2013-south-african-rhino-poaching-stats/ (https://intlrhinofoundation.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/a-shameful-record-offical-2013-south-african-rhino-poaching-stats/)
(https://intlrhinofoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/poaching-numbers.jpg)
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 07:45:40 AM
hunting for fun is a particularly obnoxious hobby found in "western developed societies". It is absolutely sick to kill for entertainment, in any amount, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches)
Was Turgenev absolutely sick, or living in a "western developed society"?
https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false (https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false)
"For recreation Haydn indulged in hunting and fishing". Was Haydn absolutely sick, or livingin a "western developed society"?
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 08:37:37 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches)
Was Turgenev absolutely sick, or living in a "western developed society"?
https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false (https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false)
"For recreation Haydn indulged in hunting and fishing". Was Haydn absolutely sick, or livingin a "western developed society"?
Yes; yes. I am surprised that you simply cannot see how sick it is to be cruel to animals, of which killing them for fun is the most egregious example.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 08:37:37 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches)
Was Turgenev absolutely sick, or living in a "western developed society"?
https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false (https://books.google.ro/books?id=Ds7liZjJA_MC&pg=PA863&lpg=PA863&dq=joseph+haydn+recreation+hunting&source=bl&ots=fuXv1yJ4rP&sig=Zd6mujrm6MQxYuy6S0D26DYP174&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBGoVChMI7-SMzuKAxwIVpWjbCh0YOAZP#v=onepage&q=joseph%20haydn%20recreation%20hunting&f=false)
"For recreation Haydn indulged in hunting and fishing". Was Haydn absolutely sick, or livingin a "western developed society"?
Consider the ratio between the human population (<1 billion) versus the extent of natural habitats and size of the wildlife populations at the time compared to the present era.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 29, 2015, 09:20:48 AM
Consider the ratio between the human population (<1 billion) versus the extent of natural habitats and size of the wildlife populations at the time compared to the present era.
Yes, on the whole, I see
Andrei as calling for a degree of nuance, here. (Also, the problematic nature of judging a personality from a past epoch by the understandings and mores of our day.)
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 08:47:15 AM
Yes; yes.
Okay.
Quote
I am surprised that you simply cannot see how sick it is to be cruel to animals, of which killing them for fun is the most egregious example.
Now, this kind of sentimentalism is indeed and really a product of "western developed societies".
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 09:27:49 AM
Yes, on the whole, I see Andrei as calling for a degree of nuance, here. (Also, the problematic nature of judging a personality from a past epoch by the understandings and mores of our day.)
Exactly.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 09:29:53 AM
Okay.
Now, this kind of sentimentalism is indeed and really a product of "western developed societies".
Not really; the idea of cruelty to animals is in the Bible and prohibiting it is one of the Seven Laws of Noah.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 09:27:49 AM
Yes, on the whole, I see Andrei as calling for a degree of nuance, here. (Also, the problematic nature of judging a personality from a past epoch by the understandings and mores of our day.)
What kind of nuance would allow for the recreational killing of animals? I can think of none.
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 09:32:28 AM
What kind of nuance would allow for the recreational killing of animals? I can think of none.
In our day, I cannot. But on a time, it was not simply a binary switch from "necessity hunting" to "recreational hunting."
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 09:32:28 AM
Not really; the idea of cruelty to animals is in the Bible and prohibiting it is one of the Seven Laws of Noah.
The earliest recorded of the seven laws can be found in the Tosefta here they are listed as follows.[17]
Seven commandments were commanded of the sons of Noah:
concerning adjudication (denim)
concerning idolatry (avodah zarah)
concerning blasphemy (qilelat ha-shem)
concerning sexual immorality (gilui arayot)
concerning blood-shed (shefikhut damim)
concerning robbery (ha-gezel)
concerning a limb torn from a living animal (eber min ha-hayy)
What has torning a limb from a living animal got to do with hunting?
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 09:39:28 AM
The earliest recorded of the seven laws can be found in the Tosefta here they are listed as follows.[17]
Seven commandments were commanded of the sons of Noah:
concerning adjudication (denim)
concerning idolatry (avodah zarah)
concerning blasphemy (qilelat ha-shem)
concerning sexual immorality (gilui arayot)
concerning blood-shed (shefikhut damim)
concerning robbery (ha-gezel)
concerning a limb torn from a living animal (eber min ha-hayy)
What has torning a limb from a living animal got to do with hunting?
The Laws of Noah originate in the Bible, as the conclusion of the story of the Flood; the Tosefta is a companion to the Mishna, the earliest code of Jewish law, which includes the codification of laws from the Torah (Bible). Tearing a limb from an animal is a specific example of cruelty, and the actual prohibition is against cruelty to animals in general.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 09:38:15 AM
In our day, I cannot. But on a time, it was not simply a binary switch from "necessity hunting" to "recreational hunting."
Indeed. Ever see films of subsistence bands hunting? They seem to enjoy it. Folk tales, eg of Native Americans, evince a pleasure in hunting too. Lascaux paintings anyone?
Quote from: sanantonio on July 29, 2015, 09:44:59 AM
Tearing a limb from an animal is a specific example of cruelty, and the actual prohibition is against cruelty to animals in general.
Cruelty to animals is indeed reprehensible, but hunting per se does not qualify.
Quote from: Moonfish on July 29, 2015, 09:20:48 AM
Consider the ratio between the human population (<1 billion) versus the extent of natural habitats and size of the wildlife populations at the time compared to the present era.
Yes, I fully agree this is a strong argument against recreational hunting, or at least for restraint in engaging in it --- today. But to say that all people who in the past practiced it were "absolutely sick" and engaged in "cruelty to animals" is a gross exaggeration. And, as Ken points out and I also did, hunting and its representation and symbolism is part and parcel of mankind´s cultural heritage in its various historical incarnations.
For the record, I have never hunted and I never will.
I have fished, but never really took to it.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2015, 11:16:16 AM
Cruelty to animals is indeed reprehensible, but hunting per se does not qualify.
Killing an animal for fun does not fit your definition of cruel?
QuoteYes, I fully agree this is a strong argument against recreational hunting, or at least for restraint in engaging in it --- today. But to say that all people who in the past practiced it were "absolutely sick" and engaged in "cruelty to animals" is a gross exaggeration. And, as Ken points out and I also did, hunting and its representation and symbolism is part and parcel of mankind´s cultural heritage in its various historical incarnations.
I do not think it matters when it occurred, hunting for recreation is morally wrong, IMO.
Tell me this hasn't become the "It's OK for aborted baby parts to be haggled over, but cute lion killing is not OK" Thread.
When I was a child, I gleefully butchered a frog with a rake, and then immediately ran screaming, knowing I was a murderer. :( :-[ :-\
I also kicked the dog a few times. I'm sorry. :-\
Oh... I also played the magnifying glass and ants game.... that's probably the one we all relished the most... all that glorious burning death, such childish fun!! Sorry, ants,... you still kinda are a pest though, but, hey, sorry for the astanic glee in your death,... at the time,... uh....
I certainly have never lingered gleefully over a future squahed bug, though,... oh, the horrors of the creeping world,... brrrrrr.....
carry on,
Quote from: snyprrr on July 29, 2015, 01:11:20 PM
Tell me this hasn't become the "It's OK for aborted baby parts to be haggled over, but cute lion killing is not OK" Thread.
When I was a child, I gleefully butchered a frog with a rake, and then immediately ran screaming, knowing I was a murderer. :( :-[ :-\
I also kicked the dog a few times. I'm sorry. :-\
Oh... I also played the magnifying glass and ants game.... that's probably the one we all relished the most... all that glorious burning death, such childish fun!! Sorry, ants,... you still kinda are a pest though, but, hey, sorry for the astanic glee in your death,... at the time,... uh....
I certainly have never lingered gleefully over a future squahed bug, though,... oh, the horrors of the creeping world,... brrrrrr.....
carry on,
(http://www.zverina.com/bestbooks/images/groening-hell.gif)
Perspective is important. Although for accuracy, the first line should not have limited itself to Christian.
(Found on Facebook, spelling error and all)
I think that Facebook thing is just moronic and doesn't warrant any kind of comparison with what this dentist has done. Both are horrible and equally immoral, but what I'm opposed to is hunting for sport. If it makes you feel like a man to blow Bambi's head off, then knock yourself out. There's a special place in hell for you. The same theory applies to this lion. This lion wasn't hurting anyone and it was minding it's own business, but here comes along 'Mr. Bow and Arrow" to shoot an arrow into the lion to slow it down and then finally finish killing it off so he can cut it's head off and skin it from top to bottom all so he can hang it on his wall as if killing this animal was some daunting task and a matter of survival. This dentist makes great money, but apparently this isn't good enough and heaven forbid he get some kind of real hobby like skiing, swimming, or scuba diving. If the lion was coming at him and about to maul him and he acted out of self-defense that's a whole other issue, but what this guy has done is just plain sickening. Call me an animal rights nut, call me what you will, but it's just not right and goes against what I personally believe in, which is if something isn't bothering or going to harm you, then you have no right to bother or harm it.
I wonder what lion meat tastes like, though.
Quote from: Greg on July 29, 2015, 08:04:28 PM
I wonder what lion meat tastes like, though.
Why don't you go to Africa and let us know?
Perspective: There are 7.2 billion humans in the world, but only about 30,000 African lions.....
(That is 7,200,000,000 vs 30,000)
" Nearly a century ago, there were as many as 200,000 lions living in the wild in Africa. Today, the most recent surveys estimate that there are fewer than 30,000 lions living in the wild in Africa today." [Panthera.org]
http://www.panthera.org/species/lion (http://www.panthera.org/species/lion)
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/animalcrossing/images/e/e3/Lion-013-2048x2048.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130406213028)
(http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/themes/panthera/images/rangemaps/lion.jpg)
Beautifully said, Peter. Now that's what I call some perspective. This deserves a round of...
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/applause.gif#applause%20300x225)
Nothing wrong with hunting (as in for food or for management purposes), but hunting purely for sport is totally reprehensible.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 29, 2015, 01:11:20 PM
Tell me this hasn't become the "It's OK for [the charge for clinical operations to recover the costs for providing tissue from] aborted baby fetus parts to be haggled over, but cute lion killing is not OK" Thread.
Are the parts from the aborted fetuses being mounted as trophies? Was the lion legally killed, and his parts used legally for medical research?
Quote from: Wendell_E on July 30, 2015, 03:53:08 AM
Are the parts from the aborted fetuses being mounted as trophies? Was the lion legally killed, and his parts used legally for medical research?
As for real hunting, some animal populations need to be controlled, and sometimes people need to eat. No reason not to enjoy it, if it's gotta be done. The processes used to raise and kill the meat we buy in supermarkets are arguably even worse.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 28, 2015, 03:02:24 PM
I would say the lowest points in human history are Hitler and Stalin. 'Nuff said.
What about Mao? At least around 30-45 million ended up dead not only because of his ruthlessness but also because of his incompetence.
Quote from: Wendell_E on July 30, 2015, 03:53:08 AM
Are the parts from the aborted fetuses being mounted as trophies? Was the lion legally killed, and his parts used legally for medical research?
Thank you for acknowledging that abortion is legal killing.
Quote from: The new erato on July 29, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
Nothing wrong with hunting (as in for food or for management purposes), but hunting purely for sport is totally reprehensible.
Well, much sport hunting is done as part of herd management. So where does that fall?
And while righteous indignation over Cecil becoming a wall trophy rages on, today in abortion clinics all across America, living human babies will be viciously yanked from the womb and discarded like pieces of garbage. (http://clashdaily.com/2015/07/save-lions-kill-babies-the-moral-dilemma-of-a-dead-lion/)
But...
(https://mydbagprincipal.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/poultry-processing-factory-work-chicken.jpg)
Quote from: Moonfish on July 30, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
But...
(https://mydbagprincipal.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/poultry-processing-factory-work-chicken.jpg)
So many delicious birds. I assume that's your point.
.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8062/8200801191_0bf6d04255_z.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2015, 06:51:14 PM
So many delicious birds. I assume that's your point.
They may be delicious, but they were likely raised in factory boxes that hardly allowed them room to wiggle. Think of being in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison from birth to execution day...
Quote from: jochanaan on July 31, 2015, 07:24:16 AMThey may be delicious, but they were likely raised in factory boxes that hardly allowed them room to wiggle. Think of being in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison from birth to execution day...
This is a false equivalence, of course.
Quote"Why are the Americans more concerned than us?" said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. "We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange."
QuoteNo results found for "villager eaten by lions" site:http://www.good-music-guide.com/
If the red-mawed lions posted selfies on Facebook, it would be different.
Surely, the Lowest Point in Human History Was.... sending the Winter Olympics to "a rather dry, monsoon-influenced humid continental climate":
QuoteWhen Oslo, Norway, and Krakow, Poland, and Stockholm all pull out of the bidding for reasons similar to Boston's; when voters in St. Moritz, Switzerland, and Munich reject proposed Olympic bids for reasons similar to Boston's; and when no one in North America bothers to apply, you end up with – Beijing.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0731/Why-choice-of-Beijing-to-host-2022-Winter-Olympics-worries-even-IOC
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2015, 10:17:43 AM
Surely, the Lowest Point in Human History Was.... sending the Winter Olympics to "a rather dry, monsoon-influenced humid continental climate":
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0731/Why-choice-of-Beijing-to-host-2022-Winter-Olympics-worries-even-IOC
If they don't reform, they'll eventually end up in even lower places. Good riddance IMO.
Winter Olympics in Houston!
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2015, 05:13:26 PM
Houston, Alaska, yes?
No. That's for the summer olympics!
This Thread has taken its own course, it answers to no one, haha!!
Quote from: snyprrr on August 01, 2015, 02:05:57 PM
This Thread has taken its own course, it answers to no one, haha!!
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpz4sitkKy1qfth27o1_500.png)
The lowest point in human history? That's easy: Jim and Tammy Bakker.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PsNcHpvcoKI/TeiYEeQeaqI/AAAAAAAAAS8/VlncXsYcLGk/s1600/BAKKER-JIM_TAMMY+FAYE.jpg)
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 01, 2015, 08:40:33 PM
The lowest point in human history? That's easy: Jim and Tammy Bakker.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PsNcHpvcoKI/TeiYEeQeaqI/AAAAAAAAAS8/VlncXsYcLGk/s1600/BAKKER-JIM_TAMMY+FAYE.jpg)
Her eye makeup alone is a good candidate, even without Jim.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 01, 2015, 08:40:33 PM
The lowest point in human history? That's easy: Jim and Tammy Bakker.
Jim and Tammy who? Never heard of them. ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on August 02, 2015, 05:09:36 AM
Jim and Tammy who? Never heard of them. ::)
The inspiration for:
http://www.youtube.com/v/-79uI_u9Src
Quote from: karlhenning on August 02, 2015, 05:24:37 AM
The inspiration for:
http://www.youtube.com/v/-79uI_u9Src
OK; that's at least one point in their favor.
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2015, 10:33:28 PM
Her eye makeup alone is a good candidate, even without Jim.
:P
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2015, 08:24:00 AM
This is a false equivalence, of course.
Equivalence, no. Similarity, yes.
Quote from: jochanaan on August 05, 2015, 08:49:49 AMSimilarity, yes.
Not really. Not at all, in fact. Chickens are livestock.