somebody wrote:
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

**From a verifiable standpoint.  You can't prove God exists, and you 
can't prove his nature.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> If oil runs out they'll switch back to paper bags, made out of
> firs and pines, but it looks to me like gas in some form is here to stay,
> since they've figured out how to turn cellulose into sugars with bacterial
> enzymes occurring naturally in geysers. That may be part of the
> reason behind the recent increases in corn and wheat prices lately... 

It's greatly behind it, and in fact is a contributor to global warming.

1) Corn used for fuel now
2) Increased demand for corn, prices go up
3) More corn harvests going to fuel
4) Shortage of corn on foreign markets
5) Local forests in SE Asia and SA slashed to make room for corn fields

Note that I read this in the local paper, so I can't vouch for its 
accuracy, but the statement was made that this is already a real effect.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:27:23 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

No it's not.

>-- 
>...Ben Chambers
>www.pacificwebguy.com
>
>*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
>any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
>that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

Just as likely? Is it not obvious if He, She or It does exist?

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
>> global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...
> 
>   I highly doubt there was ever as many dinosaurs big enough to produce
> as many greenhouse gases as cars (plus people) today.

But there were volcanoes, the natural decay of vegetation, the 
weathering of carbonate rock, and other natural processes.  Those 
processes exist today, as well.  And that's just for carbon dioxide.

The number one greenhouse gas, more potent and existing in far greater 
quantities than anything we make, is water vapor.  Water vapor is 
responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.

It must also be remembered that doubling the concentration of greenhouse 
gases will not double the amount of radiation absorbed and/or scattered 
by the atmosphere; at most frequencies in the IR band absorption and 
scattering by the atmosphere is already at 100%, and no increase in gas 
concentrations will have any effect at those frequencies.

>   The worst case scenario is that we could be facing an ice age, which
> would not be very nice.

The geological data indicates that for most of its history the Earth has 
been about three to five degrees warmer then it presently is now.  There 
was a Little Ice Age that began sometime from 1200 to 1600 and ran until 
about 1850, and it substantially and negatively impacted the quality of 
life in both Europe and North America.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
>> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
>> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?
> 
> no petroleum and precious metals means less greed, at least. :)

It just means that greed will have to focus on other things.

When the natural mines run out, we'll simply turn to mining landfills.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>
> > > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> > > years.
>
> > You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
> > planet?
>
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

I see you're not a parent, just an inconsequential juvenile.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 
> 

I've signed no contract either. However, while I may not have kids, I
see no reason to ruin the world for my friends, family, and their
descendants either.

Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
as well make sure we have a few more chances.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 

I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to 
behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by 
believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or 
e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity. The 
way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't 
steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also 
that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you 
know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested 
in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> >>> years.
> >
> >> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
habitable
> >> planet?
> >
> > No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
way
> > or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
did
> > not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
one's
> > existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
both
> > are religious nonsense.

> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.

I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
you think about it.

> The
> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody, or a
good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
would think is fair? How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
limit whether you get caught or not? We all take what we can get away with,
and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. If I were
brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
from the norm takes extra thought and effort.

Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. Being
caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer in the sky)
is the only reason we act *ethically*. Of course getting caught death is
highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:18 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
>long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
>as well make sure we have a few more chances.

There is also the chance that we may have to come back.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message