Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Then why do we suddenly get the right to destroy it? The universe was just fine before humans came along. Why are you perfectly happy for your own species to operate in the exact same manner as a virus?
    Destroying it would imply it's utter obliteration.. In reality mining would only affect particular small areas. The universe 99.999999999% of the time is still fine without humans lol. And to say that humans are not like a virus is delusional, we feed of the land, we use the land, we all have needs and they have to be delivered.



    On the side, I also have a question, would you support then Margaret Thatchers closing of the mines for environmental reasons and for ruining landscape?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    of death!
    Well, technically of non life. Death implies there are loads of dead moon aliens on it or something.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I'm sure you're going to inform me.
    On top of the fact that we've barely even explored the Moon so there is almost certainly an incredibly amount of completely undiscovered things there, it's already geologically very important. The moon has been more or less unchanged since a billion years after the formation of the solar system so it gives an excellent and (relatively) accessible insight into the conditions that were around during the earlier years of the solar system. The small number of samples we have managed to collect from the moon have already given us an incredible amount of information but there is still a lot that we don't understand. One area of particular interest is the formation of the moon which is still a partially unresolved area of science, something that relies on the very careful measurement of stable isotope ratios in lunar material. Any kind of industrial activity on the moon could very well have a moon-wide chemical effect and make measurements like these impossible. The level of precision required for these experiments is immense.

    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Destroying it would imply it's utter obliteration.. In reality mining would only affect particular small areas. The universe 99.999999999% of the time is still fine without humans lol. And to say that humans are not like a virus is delusional, we feed of the land, we use the land, we all have needs and they have to be delivered.

    On the side, I also have a question, would you support then Margaret Thatchers closing of the mines for environmental reasons and for ruining landscape?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "Utter obliteration" isn't far off. You don't have to literally physically defile the entire surface to destroy it. The whole value of the moon is that it's an absolutely ancient remnant from the early days of the solar system that has been untouched near then. Even if you've got a minor level of activity on it, you've still made that status irrelevant. A wilderness stops being a wilderness if you build on it, regardless if it's a city or a hamlet.

    And yes, I'd support closing the coalmines. What I don't support is not creating any other kind of business for them to go into. What she did was terrible - closing coalmines is all well and good, but leaving people with no kind of business to go into is not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Well, technically of non life. Death implies there are loads of dead moon aliens on it or something.
    Well, it was more going there without protection would kill you pretty fast
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't really have anything to say to that other than I feel sorry for you. Your life must be pretty miserable if you genuinely don't care about anything.
    A human female pleasured me recently, and another wants to marry me. Can you say the same?

    Average people would be a lot happier if they stopped trying to fix the world. There are already really smart people coming up with solutions vastly superior in scope and solution-power than the hairbrained ideas treehuggers come up with.

    The green manifesto comes across exactly like that. The basic income will become an inevitability, when automation renders human labour irrelevant. But we're at least twenty years off from that. Before we get to the point where we can afford something like that, it is silly to argue for it.

    Mining the moon would result in humanity literally transcending existence as we know it. And you're against it because of what grounds. What? We don't have a right to do what? What does that even mean? Who has the right to do anything? The universe is not governed by rights, but by power. Whoever can take, takes. There is no other law, no universal council that sits in the stars dictating what is just and unjust. Justice itself is a ridiculous idea but we've used it as humans to allow a functioning and productive society.

    People who live in this justice-utopia don't live in the real world. The only law of existence is survival, and whatever guarantees survival will always succeed over what doesn't. When it comes to helium 3 mined on the moon, whoever is stupid enough not to do it will be colonised, dominated and killed. Would it be better for 2/3 of the world to be slaughtered or exploited because they followed green policies while the other 1/3 were smart enough to take what was ripe for the taking, and empower themselves as a result?

    Really, think through the consequences of what you are arguing for. The people who would suffer most from environmentalist policies are the poor in the beautiful nirvana unindustrialised hellholes you want to return most of the world to. Nature is amazing, but nature is not conducive to human survival.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, insisting terrorism is still a crime. It's similar to saying well a few members of the scouts killed a person as 'scout purists' so we will outlaw the scouts. We are blaming the many for crimes of a few.

    Yes there will but their voices will grow weaker over time.
    But I can assure you the public aren't scared about what a few scouts have done. They are more scared about a militant extremist blowing up a airplane with them in it or killing people in a rampage. It's the large amount of people they affect and obscenity of these crimes that is the scary part. I still don't see how legalising to join the organisation and then monitoring it will help in any way in stopping them. If anything, if there were plans that found people & monitored & prevented by the means of being in the organisation I'm sure it would lose trust in many extremists and they would do even more heinous crimes (furthering the disintegration with them in society).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 41b)
    The green manifesto comes across exactly like that. The basic income will become an inevitability, when automation renders human labour irrelevant. But we're at least twenty years off from that. Before we get to the point where we can afford something like that, it is silly to argue for it.
    What has to be said is that people have been predicting this for decades, I suppose actually you could say centuries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What has to be said is that people have been predicting this for decades, I suppose actually you could say centuries.
    Absolutely. And we have mostly upskilled and maintained employment. It does seem like a logical inevitability, though. My point is rather it makes little sense to argue for a basic income in absence of affordability or large-scale necessity. It makes most sense in the context of extremely high productivity and very little employment, in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    On top of the fact that we've barely even explored the Moon so there is almost certainly an incredibly amount of completely undiscovered things there, it's already geologically very important. The moon has been more or less unchanged since a billion years after the formation of the solar system so it gives an excellent and (relatively) accessible insight into the conditions that were around during the earlier years of the solar system. The small number of samples we have managed to collect from the moon have already given us an incredible amount of information but there is still a lot that we don't understand. One area of particular interest is the formation of the moon which is still a partially unresolved area of science, something that relies on the very careful measurement of stable isotope ratios in lunar material. Any kind of industrial activity on the moon could very well have a moon-wide chemical effect and make measurements like these impossible. The level of precision required for these experiments is immense.

    .
    So find out the facts about the moon and then mine it?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    "Utter obliteration" isn't far off. You don't have to literally physically defile the entire surface to destroy it. The whole value of the moon is that it's an absolutely ancient remnant from the early days of the solar system that has been untouched near then. Even if you've got a minor level of activity on it, you've still made that status irrelevant. A wilderness stops being a wilderness if you build on it, regardless if it's a city or a hamlet.

    And yes, I'd support closing the coalmines. What I don't support is not creating any other kind of business for them to go into. What she did was terrible - closing coalmines is all well and good, but leaving people with no kind of business to go into is not.
    Utter obliteration is far off though. As a race we have barely touched the vast majority of the Earth let alone dig through it and harness the resources. I see your point with the age of the moon but surely the answer is to just set limits on where people can mine and where they cannot?

    And yes we have a Green Thatcherite!






    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    But I can assure you the public aren't scared about what a few scouts have done. They are more scared about a militant extremist blowing up a airplane with them in it or killing people in a rampage. It's the large amount of people they affect and obscenity of these crimes that is the scary part. I still don't see how legalising to join the organisation and then monitoring it will help in any way in stopping them. If anything, if there were plans that found people & monitored & prevented by the means of being in the organisation I'm sure it would lose trust in many extremists and they would do even more heinous crimes (furthering the disintegration with them in society).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    so we should make it illegal because people are scared? That's reactionary and uncalled for.
    i don't understand what you said there.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    A human female pleasured me recently, and another wants to marry me. Can you say the same?

    Average people would be a lot happier if they stopped trying to fix the world. There are already really smart people coming up with solutions vastly superior in scope and solution-power than the hairbrained ideas treehuggers come up with.

    The green manifesto comes across exactly like that. The basic income will become an inevitability, when automation renders human labour irrelevant. But we're at least twenty years off from that. Before we get to the point where we can afford something like that, it is silly to argue for it.

    Mining the moon would result in humanity literally transcending existence as we know it. And you're against it because of what grounds. What? We don't have a right to do what? What does that even mean? Who has the right to do anything? The universe is not governed by rights, but by power. Whoever can take, takes. There is no other law, no universal council that sits in the stars dictating what is just and unjust. Justice itself is a ridiculous idea but we've used it as humans to allow a functioning and productive society.

    People who live in this justice-utopia don't live in the real world. The only law of existence is survival, and whatever guarantees survival will always succeed over what doesn't. When it comes to helium 3 mined on the moon, whoever is stupid enough not to do it will be colonised, dominated and killed. Would it be better for 2/3 of the world to be slaughtered or exploited because they followed green policies while the other 1/3 were smart enough to take what was ripe for the taking, and empower themselves as a result?

    Really, think through the consequences of what you are arguing for. The people who would suffer most from environmentalist policies are the poor in the beautiful nirvana unindustrialised hellholes you want to return most of the world to. Nature is amazing, but nature is not conducive to human survival.
    Average people might be a lot happier for a few years, until they realise that a future on a vastly less habitable planet is somewhat less attractive when you and your children are actually having to live on it. "Really smart people" are supporting the exact same ideas you're claiming are coming from "hairbrained treehuggers". Most scientists would absolutely support a total moratorium on industrial activity in Antarctica and the Arctic (which is why we have it) and I am sure a similar thing would go for the moon. There has already been academic opposition for this and calls for international treaties to prevent industrial activity in space.

    I don't understand this cold view of things you have. I think you're forgetting that you're a human. We are an altruistic species that used to care for other people and for the environment before we got addicted by consumerism, capitalism and globalisation. We have completely forgotten our link with the planet and that is going to end in disaster. I can tell that you're a kind of futurist - it's not me that's not living in the real world, it's you. We are simply animals living on the surface of the planet that happen to have intelligence. We are not Gods, your perspective is totally wrong. It would simply take a body a kilometre across or so to wipe our species out of existence, or a volcanic eruption of the kind that happens every few million years. We are reliant on the planet, not the other way round. Anyone who gets this relationship mixed up is living with a very serious delusion.

    People believe in this fallacy because they've lost their connection to nature. We live in artificial cities and in artificial societies and most people, like you, are totally ignorant of the fact that we are still completely vulnerable to nature. We are not in control of the Earth and we never will be. We are already in the process of rendering the planet less habitable and once we've done that, there's nothing we can do about it. There is no geoengineering fix that will solve that. Technology is a wonderful thing but only when it's used responsibly. What you are advocating is some God-fantasy that is just going to end in disaster. I think it's incredibly sad that you have absolutely no appreciation for nature. That sentimental link exists there for a reason - the love for the natural is a basic product of evolution.

    And you are totally wrong in thinking that environmentalist policies would devastate the poor. The developing countries are going to gain the most from this. They have the unique chance of building up a completely sustainable infrastructure from the ground up, without having to reverse the momentum of an unsustainable system. If you think environmentalist policies are going to hurt the poor, you don't understand what these policies are. They will hurt the wealthy, absolutely. But not the poor.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    so we should make it illegal because people are scared? That's reactionary and uncalled for.
    i don't understand what you said there.
    Yes we should, because most people find it completely incompatible with our way of life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent post


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Utter obliteration is far off though. As a race we have barely touched the vast majority of the Earth let alone dig through it and harness the resources. I see your point with the age of the moon but surely the answer is to just set limits on where people can mine and where they cannot?

    And yes we have a Green Thatcherite!
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Please tell me you don't actually mean the text in bold. We have affected the entire surface of the planet. Just think - we've literally altered the composition of the atmosphere, and that's just for starters. There is an anthropogenic geochemical symbol that exists across the entire planet. We have sufficiently changed the surface of the planet that the ICS is considering designating a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. The anthropogenic effect on the planet will still be visible 100 million years in the future, and it is almost certain that evidence of us will remain for the rest of the Earth's existence. We have completely changed the planet - not necessarily in ways that are visible to the naked eye (although even if you do look at things at face value, humans have directly developed over half of the Earth's land area so the statement is totally wrong whatever way you look at it. And that statistic ignores the ocean which has been totally transformed by humans).

    And no, it doesn't set limits. Mining has devastating environmental implications. Any kind of large scale industrial activity is going to affect the entire surface of the moon, unless it was literally done under the surface in a hole, which would probably not be economically viable. And actually, that's not even true because you'd still need surface activity for transportation. For cost savings, things would inevitably be discarded on the lunar surface. You'd turn it into a massive rubbish heap.

    Agreeing with one aspect of someone's policy does not mean you support them.

    (Original post by KingStannis)
    So find out the facts about the moon and then mine it?
    Science isn't a process that just stops. You don't "just find out facts", you gather information, generate new hypotheses and gather more information. It's an eternal process, that's why science is so beautiful. Discoveries generate new ideas, that's precisely why we need to preserve the moon. We have no idea what there is left to learn. There could be a discovery from the moon that could revolutionise human lives, we have no idea. Most of the most important discoveries and changes to human society have come from utterly unexpected places.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Yes we should, because most people find it completely incompatible with our way of life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Reaction it's policies never work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Please tell me you don't actually mean the text in bold. We have affected the entire surface of the planet. Just think - we've literally altered the composition of the atmosphere, and that's just for starters. There is an anthropogenic geochemical symbol that exists across the entire planet. We have sufficiently changed the surface of the planet that the ICS is considering designating a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. The anthropogenic effect on the planet will still be visible 100 million years in the future, and it is almost certain that evidence of us will remain for the rest of the Earth's existence. We have completely changed the planet - not necessarily in ways that are visible to the naked eye (although even if you do look at things at face value, humans have directly developed over half of the Earth's land area so the statement is totally wrong whatever way you look at it. And that statistic ignores the ocean which has been totally transformed by humans).

    And no, it doesn't set limits. Mining has devastating environmental implications. Any kind of large scale industrial activity is going to affect the entire surface of the moon, unless it was literally done under the surface in a hole, which would probably not be economically viable. And actually, that's not even true because you'd still need surface activity for transportation. For cost savings, things would inevitably be discarded on the lunar surface. You'd turn it into a massive rubbish heap.

    Agreeing with one aspect of someone's policy does not mean you support them.



    Science isn't a process that just stops. You don't "just find out facts", you gather information, generate new hypotheses and gather more information. It's an eternal process, that's why science is so beautiful. Discoveries generate new ideas, that's precisely why we need to preserve the moon. We have no idea what there is left to learn. There could be a discovery from the moon that could revolutionise human lives, we have no idea. Most of the most important discoveries and changes to human society have come from utterly unexpected places.
    It's a lump of rock, so the only thing that we could probably find on it is a new mineral or something...which has to be mined...you see where this is heading?

    I'll give you that it's probably geographically interesting and stuff, to people who like all that jazz. So we should give Scientists the chance to analyse it first; but I couldn't support Scientists just sitting on the rock and stopping it helping so many lives forever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Average people might be a lot happier for a few years, until they realise that a future on a vastly less habitable planet is somewhat less attractive when you and your children are actually having to live on it. "Really smart people" are supporting the exact same ideas you're claiming are coming from "hairbrained treehuggers". Most scientists would absolutely support a total moratorium on industrial activity in Antarctica and the Arctic (which is why we have it) and I am sure a similar thing would go for the moon. There has already been academic opposition for this and calls for international treaties to prevent industrial activity in space.

    I don't understand this cold view of things you have. I think you're forgetting that you're a human. We are an altruistic species that used to care for other people and for the environment before we got addicted by consumerism, capitalism and globalisation. We have completely forgotten our link with the planet and that is going to end in disaster. I can tell that you're a kind of futurist - it's not me that's not living in the real world, it's you. We are simply animals living on the surface of the planet that happen to have intelligence. We are not Gods, your perspective is totally wrong. It would simply take a body a kilometre across or so to wipe our species out of existence, or a volcanic eruption of the kind that happens every few million years. We are reliant on the planet, not the other way round. Anyone who gets this relationship mixed up is living with a very serious delusion.

    People believe in this fallacy because they've lost their connection to nature. We live in artificial cities and in artificial societies and most people, like you, are totally ignorant of the fact that we are still completely vulnerable to nature. We are not in control of the Earth and we never will be. We are already in the process of rendering the planet less habitable and once we've done that, there's nothing we can do about it. There is no geoengineering fix that will solve that. Technology is a wonderful thing but only when it's used responsibly. What you are advocating is some God-fantasy that is just going to end in disaster. I think it's incredibly sad that you have absolutely no appreciation for nature. That sentimental link exists there for a reason - the love for the natural is a basic product of evolution.

    And you are totally wrong in thinking that environmentalist policies would devastate the poor. The developing countries are going to gain the most from this. They have the unique chance of building up a completely sustainable infrastructure from the ground up, without having to reverse the momentum of an unsustainable system. If you think environmentalist policies are going to hurt the poor, you don't understand what these policies are. They will hurt the wealthy, absolutely. But not the poor.
    We lost touch with nature for a reason. Capitalism -cooperative competition - is the law of life.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Please tell me you don't actually mean the text in bold. We have affected the entire surface of the planet. Just think - we've literally altered the composition of the atmosphere, and that's just for starters. There is an anthropogenic geochemical symbol that exists across the entire planet. We have sufficiently changed the surface of the planet that the ICS is considering designating a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. The anthropogenic effect on the planet will still be visible 100 million years in the future, and it is almost certain that evidence of us will remain for the rest of the Earth's existence. We have completely changed the planet - not necessarily in ways that are visible to the naked eye (although even if you do look at things at face value, humans have directly developed over half of the Earth's land area so the statement is totally wrong whatever way you look at it. And that statistic ignores the ocean which has been totally transformed by humans).

    And no, it doesn't set limits. Mining has devastating environmental implications. Any kind of large scale industrial activity is going to affect the entire surface of the moon, unless it was literally done under the surface in a hole, which would probably not be economically viable. And actually, that's not even true because you'd still need surface activity for transportation. For cost savings, things would inevitably be discarded on the lunar surface. You'd turn it into a massive rubbish heap.

    Agreeing with one aspect of someone's policy does not mean you support them.



    Science isn't a process that just stops. You don't "just find out facts", you gather information, generate new hypotheses and gather more information. It's an eternal process, that's why science is so beautiful. Discoveries generate new ideas, that's precisely why we need to preserve the moon. We have no idea what there is left to learn. There could be a discovery from the moon that could revolutionise human lives, we have no idea. Most of the most important discoveries and changes to human society have come from utterly unexpected places.
    Well, he's actually right, consider how big the earth is, we've just made scratches in it, we have hardly used any of the earths hidden resources. we've only dug a few km deep, the earth is thousands of km in radius.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    It's a lump of rock, so the only thing that we could probably find on it is a new mineral or something...which has to be mined...you see where this is heading?

    I'll give you that it's probably geographically interesting and stuff, to people who like all that jazz. So we should give Scientists the chance to analyse it first; but I couldn't support Scientists just sitting on the rock and stopping it helping so many lives forever.
    Are you serious?! I just wrote an entire paragraph about the scientific value of the moon and you're saying that? I mean, apart from the fact that most minerals are of absolutely no economic interest whatsoever which makes it nonsense anyway, there is so much more scientific value than "just minerals".

    It's not just interesting to geographers, they're probably one of the least interested groups. It's interesting to astrophysicists, geochemists, geophysicists, paleobiologists, planetary scientists, atmospheric physicists, physicists and chemists in general and probably a whole host of other academic disciplines. You can't set a time slot for scientific investigation. The moment you start industrial activity, you've caused irreparable damage.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.