How Can The Earth Become A Lifeless Rock In Just 150 Years As The Movie Depicts?

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

Obviously not big enough, therefore it still isn't a good comparison.

It's the closest thing one can compare it too, end of story...

Originally Posted by Spock

No, there are other factors at work too.

Which you fail to mention.

Originally Posted by Spock

No, this is just a ploy by the corporate sector to gain trust and popularity. The switch to renewable resources will come too late, thats of course if it even comes.

OH really now? so what Hybrid cars and windmills and solar power are just ploys and none of this things really generate anything at all? You are sounding like a conspiracy nut right about now.



[

Originally Posted by Spock

Well, you've got your scaling incorrect, WMDs would only have a minor effect.

I think you are underestimating the effects a nuclear exchange would have. We are not just talking about the immediate area of the blast but radiation that would also be carried downwind.

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually no they wouldn't. The biggest nuclear weapon ever detonated only wiped out 100km2.

Again you are discounting radiation or radioactive particles that would linger int eh atmosphere for quite a while and travel with the world wind currents. Not to mention that we are not talking about one or 2 nukes but at the very least a few hundred.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

It's the closest thing one can compare it too, end of story...

Don't compare, describe instead.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Which you fail to mention.

Clearly you didn't read the full extent of my blog then.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

OH really now? so what Hybrid cars and windmills and solar power are just ploys and none of this things really generate anything at all? You are sounding like a conspiracy nut right about now.

No no. Just read between the lines, examine the documents, look at both sides of the story and you'll soon see.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

I think you are underestimating the effects a nuclear exchange would have. We are not just talking about the immediate area of the blast but radiation that would also be carried downwind.

The nuclear arsenal is tiny compared to soviet times. Another thing you are discounting is the unlikelyhood of nuclear exchange, humanity knows the damage that it could do to infrastructure and will not go there.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Again you are discounting radiation or radioactive particles that would linger int eh atmosphere for quite a while and travel with the world wind currents. Not to mention that we are not talking about one or 2 nukes but at the very least a few hundred.

You mean gamma rays? They travel in a straight line but can be blocked out by a few metres of dirt. Again, I think your exagerating the number of large nuclear weapons we possess. ICBM's these days are only a few megaton, nothing compared to the Czar bomb of the 1950's. Plus the megatonnage of the arsenal has been drastically reduced to a point where the effects of nuclear war would be negligable compared to a similar war 40 years ago.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

The nuclear arsenal is tiny compared to soviet times. Another thing you are discounting is the unlikelyhood of nuclear exchange, humanity knows the damage that it could do to infrastructure and will not go there.



You mean gamma rays? They travel in a straight line but can be blocked out by a few metres of dirt. Again, I think your exagerating the number of large nuclear weapons we possess. ICBM's these days are only a few megaton, nothing compared to the Czar bomb of the 1950's. Plus the megatonnage of the arsenal has been drastically reduced to a point where the effects of nuclear war would be negligable compared to a similar war 40 years ago.

No and No actually you should really read ab it more:

Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city, along comes a pesky scientist and points out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate. According to a new paper in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very limited nuclear exchange, using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a full-scale nuclear war, would cause up to 690m tonnes of CO2 to enter the atmosphere – more than UK's annual total.

The upside (kind of) is that the conflict would also generate as much as 313m tonnes of soot. This would stop a great deal of sunlight reaching the earth, creating a significant regional cooling effect in the short and medium terms – just like when a major volcano erupts. Ultimately, though, the CO2 would win out and crank up global temperatures an extra few notches.

The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions of such a conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the fabric of our cities. "Materials have the following carbon contents: plastics, 38–92%; tyres and other rubbers, 59–91%; synthetic fibres, 63–86%; woody biomass, 41–45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05–2%. We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 40–60%."

But why would a Stanford engineer bother calculating such a thing? Given that the nuclear exchange would also kill up to 17 million people, who's going to be thinking about the impact on global warming?

Link here

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

No

Subjective, get out if your going to argue like that.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

and No actually you should really read ab it more:

Link here

This proves nothing, the effects that this article describes would be negligable when compared with what I came up with.

Well, I declare you officially defeated. It was fun.

[Fosus]

My vote goes for Spock's opinion. Very good blogpost btw.

Earth's ecosystem can easily be crashed by humans before 2154..

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Fosus

My vote goes for Spock's opinion. Very good blogpost btw.

Earth's ecosystem can easily be crashed by humans before 2154..

Thankyou. And what you say is entirely accurate.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

This proves nothing, the effects that this article describes would be negligable when compared with what I came up with.

Well, I declare you officially defeated. It was fun.

Not really the timeline you describe for such an event seems way off and if there is the onset of another ice age that would put a damper on your predictions as nearly all human population centers would become uninhabitable not too mention it would cause famine in unimaginable scales. My point is that such a disaster would probably offset your predictions by a far margin as the population would decrease dramatically riots and wars and nuclear exchanges would also come into effect as a result as the nations fight over whatever little is left that would also decrease the populous even more, diseases would run more rampant than ever before as there no longer medical services to take care of even the most common ones. I predict humanity would be long gone before we get to such a point as we see in the movie.

Again the irony of all this is that all we disagree on is how it could take place in that short amount of time without wars, natural and man made disasters as a catalyst and that humanity would still even exist by then given the circumstances.

But then again not so surprising considering you are an avid Marxist and as such sees freedom and Capitalism as the root of the problem and that only through a blessed restoration of world wide soviet union the world is somehow saved. except that the soviet Union and communist China did far more damage than the Capitalist countries ever could.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Not really the timeline you describe for such an event seems way off and if there is the onset of another ice age that would put a damper on your predictions as nearly all human population centers would become uninhabitable not too mention it would cause famine in unimaginable scales. My point is that such a disaster would probably offset your predictions by a far margin as the population would decrease dramatically riots and wars and nuclear exchanges would also come into effect as a result as the nations fight over whatever little is left that would also decrease the populous even more, diseases would run more rampant than ever before as there no longer medical services to take care of even the most common ones. I predict humanity would be long gone before we get to such a point as we see in the movie.

My predictions were an 'educated' guess. I don't see you claiming to have any expertise in the field of biology at all. All of my points are have a logical argument behind them.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Again the irony of all this is that all we disagree on is how it could take place in that short amount of time without wars, natural and man made disasters as a catalyst and that humanity would still even exist by then given the circumstances.

I have outlined natural and man made disasters in my blog. They all have the potential to bring about devastation that could indeed wipe humanity out.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

But then again not so surprising considering you are an avid Marxist and as such sees freedom and Capitalism as the root of the problem and that only through a blessed restoration of world wide soviet union the world is somehow saved. except that the soviet Union and communist China did far more damage than the Capitalist countries ever could.

The USSR and China arne't true communist countries in my eyes, in some senses they are, but if you read through Karl Marxe's manifesto, you'll notice that communism has more conscience behind it than what most people are led to believe, the communist bloc of the 20th century is a poor example of communism.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

My predictions were an 'educated' guess. I don't see you claiming to have any expertise in the field of biology at all. All of my points are have a logical argument behind them.



I have outlined natural and man made disasters in my blog. They all have the potential to bring about devastation that could indeed wipe humanity out.



The USSR and China arne't true communist countries in my eyes, in some senses they are, but if you read through Karl Marxe's manifesto, you'll notice that communism has more conscience behind it than what most people are led to believe, the communist bloc of the 20th century is a poor example of communism.

In theory it looks great in practice it has never worked and it never will. Be it past examples like USSR and China or present Day Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. Those are the facts as is a fact that you placed blame in your blog article squarely on Capitalism which is wrong since as I've explained the communist countries have experienced far more devastating ecological damage.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

In theory it looks great in practice it has never worked and it never will.

True communism has never been put into practice, perhaps briefly after the March, 1917 revolution, but thats it. And the second part is an assumption so I cannot take it as anything more than such.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Be it past examples like USSR and China or present Day Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

Those were never true communist countries, actually Cuba is. Cuba is a wondeful place to live, it has the top ranked healthcare system in the world too.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Those are the facts as is a fact that you placed blame in your blog article squarely on Capitalism which is wrong since as I've explained the communist countries have experienced far more devastating ecological damage.

No, I said Capitalism won't be able to deal with the impending crisis. To me, it matters not whether Communist countries deal more damage to the environment, its the fact that they are so persevering, they would rectify any damage done, before it hits them in the arse so to speak. To me, thats what matters most.

[PunkMaister]

^ Now Spock sorry but you are just full of it!
Cuba a great place to live? Yeah so great people do anything risk life and limb to get off that hellhole! If you like it so much why don't you go live there?



This is what communism has brought Cuba ruined buildings and hunger pains.


And the only good thing commie regimes are good at in "persevering" is at staying in power by any means possible. Oh and trying to hide calamities like Chernobyl 'nuff said...




Ecocide in the USSR

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

^ Now Spock sorry but you are just full of it!
Cuba a great place to live? Yeah so great people do anything risk life and limb to get off that hellhole! If you like it so much why don't you go live there?
[IMG]

Well, I happy in my own country I don't need to go and live in Cuba. And hey, I don't appreciate the Ad Hominem just because you lost the debate. Come again champ.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

http://tommyimages.com/Stock_Photos/Caribbean/Cuba/El_Malecon/slides/Cuba_0032-El_Malecon.jpg[/IMG]


This is what communism has brought Cuba ruined buildings and hunger pains.


And the only good thing commie regimes are good at in "persevering" is at staying in power by any means possible. Oh and trying to hide calamities like Chernobyl 'nuff said...




Ecocide in the USSR

Western states have that too.

Give up, and face that you lost.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

Well, I happy in my own country I don't need to go and live in Cuba. And hey, I don't appreciate the Ad Hominem just because you lost the debate. Come again champ.

Excuse me? You were the one that started with the Ad hominems remember? guess is not so much fun when you are on the receiving end huh? And you were the one that said Cuba is a great place to live not me.

Originally Posted by Spock

Western states have that too.

Really do tell so now there is a Chernobyl like disaster area in every western nation according to you. Yeah right what a load of crap
And no Western nations may have decaying building but not their whole cities decaying like Cuba and now Venezuela does.[/QUOTE]

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Excuse me? You were the one that started with the Ad hominems remember? guess is not so much fun when you are on the receiving end huh? And you were the one that said Cuba is a great place to live not me.

I didn't throw Ad Hominem at you, I simply stated how you consistently misenterpreted me. Yes, Cuba is a perfectly normal country, I see how you've managed to pick out the worst suburbs, plus there are thousands more sub-standard suburbs in the U.S.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Really do tell so now there is a Chernobyl like disaster area in every western nation according to you. Yeah right what a load of crap
And no Western nations may have decaying building but not their whole cities decaying like Cuba and now Venezuela does.

What a silly thing to say. You've got 3 mile Island and many others, all of which the governments have tried covering up. Further, I was mainly refering to the run down areas, but it applied to nuclear accidents too. It all depends on what you call a decaying city, in many different contexts the western cities are alot worse off.

[Woodsprite]

Lol, I've been following this (without commenting; I had my say on page 1).

And, "Let's take this down a notch, shall we?" Things seem to be getting a bit tense. Let's not turn this into anything ugly (a lesson I've learned the hard way from debating for 6 years).