Please fix FedCom's entry
Moderator: Staff
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Nifty map. Of course, it sucks that it marks New York out as uninhabitable.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Excellent. I haven't either, but every scientist who reviewed all said it was a load of crock. It's nothing but a scaremongering tactic, designed to rile up the bumpkins on main street in Jerkwater USA.dr-spangle wrote:I have never seen Al Gore's film...
I read peer reviewed science journals.
It's absolutely despicable that that political kiss-ass swindled himself a Nobel Prize. He should have gotten an Ig Nobel Prize for his comedy.
Which only leads to stronger and better forms of life. The only species that will die are those who can't adapt to the changing environment. If you ask me, that's exactly how it should be. Changes like this are what drives evolution.dr-spangle wrote:After mass extinctions you get mass flourishments as nature evolves to fill the newly open niches
If you took every human being on Earth and moved them all to one city, you would get a city with a density similar to New York City, but it would cover an area of the Earth smaller than the State of Texas.dr-spangle wrote:We're too small to have an effect? there are over 6 billion of us and we terraform our surroundings to make our life better, it's understandable that things will change while we're changing them
We're not as numerous as you think.
I've got a map too. Feast your eyes on a lush, verdant, tropical paradise world:dr-spangle wrote:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ntury.htmlFedCom wrote:Malatora (our name for FedCom's homeland) is already a tropical paradise, and since tropical regions have stable temperatures and consistent weather patterns, our world will not change. Rather than fear global warming or engage in scaremongering, as you westerners do, we embrace the idea; we're convinced that the world will be better off with a climate like that of the Eocene.
seems a great world eh?
here's a map for you
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images ... 971701.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Global.jpg
That's what the world looked like during the Eocene, and if Global warming created that, it can do so again.
Good outcome... Bad outcome... We will adapt. FedCom will accept whatever changes occur, and we will adapt. Our nation is already tropical, so the only way temperatures would change is if the land became a desert, which is unlikely for our location (tropical regions are marked by stabilized year-round temperatures and climates). Even if the oceans rise by 100 meters, we won't lose much land, and we have endless sources of water from the oceans. We're not in the path of any typhoon or tropical storm (the planet's rotation pushes them away from us), and we're cooled by the neighboring Atlantic ocean. We've got a pretty safe seat to watch this crisis unfold.
You could say our nation takes the stance of the author of the article you cite, but is more optimistic. Rather than waste time and energy urging everyone else to cut their carbon emissions (which they're not going to do anyway), we just focus on making our nation as efficient and sustainable as possible. Our nation is characterized by extensive long-range strategic planning, and we have plans to neutralize any negative impact of a global climate shift. By the time any of this happens, our nation will have been independent and strong for decades.
That's why we're not as concerned about global warming as the west is. We don't have nearly as much to lose.
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Yeah, it's a bit shitty that he got a nobel prize, but sometimes when we're likely to change the planet in ways that haven't been seen before, it almost seems best to exaggerate, so maybe people will slow down a tad.... I've heard of the Ig Nobel Prizes, newscientist runs the results of them every year in the Feedback sectionFedCom wrote:Excellent. I haven't either, but every scientist who reviewed all said it was a load of crock. It's nothing but a scaremongering tactic, designed to rile up the bumpkins on main street in Jerkwater USA.dr-spangle wrote:I have never seen Al Gore's film...
I read peer reviewed science journals.
It's absolutely despicable that that political kiss-ass swindled himself a Nobel Prize. He should have gotten an Ig Nobel Prize for his comedy.
There is that view, we will get better species, but we will be destroying the species that exist now, is it right to kill the below average people so that all people in the future are above average?FedCom wrote:Which only leads to stronger and better forms of life. The only species that will die are those who can't adapt to the changing environment. If you ask me, that's exactly how it should be. Changes like this are what drives evolution.dr-spangle wrote:After mass extinctions you get mass flourishments as nature evolves to fill the newly open niches
Well, using british standards for the minimum living area of 1 person, 9 billion people would fit in canada easily but the fact is we can still have a difference even if we don't cover the earth, a cancer can kill someone without their body being totally saturated in it (Wow, that put a very scary image in my head...)FedCom wrote:If you took every human being on Earth and moved them all to one city, you would get a city with a density similar to New York City, but it would cover an area of the Earth smaller than the State of Texas.dr-spangle wrote:We're too small to have an effect? there are over 6 billion of us and we terraform our surroundings to make our life better, it's understandable that things will change while we're changing them
We're not as numerous as you think.
Yes the world will be better in places, Britain will become a lush tropical paradise, that's brilliant and lovely however, not lovely is the fact that sea levels will rise by 2m and our capital is in a flood plain and a storm funnel. and it won't be lovely for the billions of people who have to relocate as desertification spreads out of africa, around the Mediterranean, through India and China etc. Those people will not be very happy...FedCom wrote:I've got a map too. Feast your eyes on a lush, verdant, tropical paradise world:dr-spangle wrote:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ntury.htmlFedCom wrote:Malatora (our name for FedCom's homeland) is already a tropical paradise, and since tropical regions have stable temperatures and consistent weather patterns, our world will not change. Rather than fear global warming or engage in scaremongering, as you westerners do, we embrace the idea; we're convinced that the world will be better off with a climate like that of the Eocene.
seems a great world eh?
here's a map for you
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images ... 971701.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Global.jpg
That's what the world looked like during the Eocene, and if Global warming created that, it can do so again.
Good outcome... Bad outcome... We will adapt. FedCom will accept whatever changes occur, and we will adapt. Our nation is already tropical, so the only way temperatures would change is if the land became a desert, which is unlikely for our location (tropical regions are marked by stabilized year-round temperatures and climates). Even if the oceans rise by 100 meters, we won't lose much land, and we have endless sources of water from the oceans. We're not in the path of any typhoon or tropical storm (the planet's rotation pushes them away from us), and we're cooled by the neighboring Atlantic ocean. We've got a pretty safe seat to watch this crisis unfold.
You could say our nation takes the stance of the author of the article you cite, but is more optimistic. Rather than waste time and energy urging everyone else to cut their carbon emissions (which they're not going to do anyway), we just focus on making our nation as efficient and sustainable as possible. Our nation is characterized by extensive long-range strategic planning, and we have plans to neutralize any negative impact of a global climate shift. By the time any of this happens, our nation will have been independent and strong for decades.
That's why we're not as concerned about global warming as the west is. We don't have nearly as much to lose.
The oceans will not rise 100m unless the whole of antarctica melted, that is very unlikely (luckily for us all)
Tropical storms will wipe across the nations, UK will be hit by more (hopefully we won't have weather men saying they will not hit )
The Atlantic ocean will acidify slightly, not like "oh my god it burns, the goggles do nothing!" kind of acid, but enough to wipe out molluscs and plankton (plankton, who absorb 2/3 of the world's carbon dioxide)
You didn't read the article much did you? He also suggests destroying nations, removing the political boundaries that will slow our survival and focusing more on the scarce resources we will have left.
either way, with most species wiped out, that means it's more likely than a coin flip that bees will die. Life will be fun without bees won't it Are you going to manually fertilize the crops?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
I'd say it was, being that it's a continent (albeit ice-covered)dr-spangle wrote:the whole of antarctica melted, that is very unlikely
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Yes, I was maining talking about the ice, but when the ice melts there'd only be a few peaks sticking out the water, it would be a pretty suckish continent, like if you considered the islands of oceania without australia mainland as a continent...
but on the definition of continental plates it would still be classed a continent
but on the definition of continental plates it would still be classed a continent
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Now we're getting a little off topic...
But since you ask, no, it's not right to exterminate people with poor genetic material. That's the form of eugenics the Nazis tried, and while FedCom supports some eugenics ideals, eugenics must not be allowed to violate ethical standards. Eugenics, like any tool, should be used to repair: we believe it should be used to undo the damage that causes genetic diseases. This can be accomplished through a passive technique that emphasizes prenatal tests and corrective gene therapy: force need not be applied to steer evolutionary processes, and even the severely handicapped can contribute to a civilized society.
I've personally experienced two hurricanes and gotten close to five tornadoes. They're awesome forces of nature, but readily survivable with the proper knowledge and a well-designed shelter.
Of course, there is always the possibility (and likelihood, judging by human history) that such globalism will result in a tyrannical hegemony. It is for this reason more specifically, that my nation is not interested in joining the UN or the AU, and will do whatever it takes to defend our right to act unilaterally as a sovereign state.
Beesides ( ), there are many species of insect that pollinate flowers, and many plants we depend on have other means of reproduction (like potatoes and corn). The loss of all bees would be a major blow, but would it be fatal? Extremely unlikely. In any case, with a little planning and a touch of foresight, we could resurrect any species through cloning; we could bring them back.
You are confusing animals and people. Both may be made of flesh, but with the exception of perhaps one or two other species on this planet, animals do not posses the meta-cognition that categorizes humanity.dr-spangle wrote:There is that view, we will get better species, but we will be destroying the species that exist now, is it right to kill the below average people so that all people in the future are above average?FedCom wrote:Which only leads to stronger and better forms of life. The only species that will die are those who can't adapt to the changing environment. If you ask me, that's exactly how it should be. Changes like this are what drives evolution.dr-spangle wrote:After mass extinctions you get mass flourishments as nature evolves to fill the newly open niches
But since you ask, no, it's not right to exterminate people with poor genetic material. That's the form of eugenics the Nazis tried, and while FedCom supports some eugenics ideals, eugenics must not be allowed to violate ethical standards. Eugenics, like any tool, should be used to repair: we believe it should be used to undo the damage that causes genetic diseases. This can be accomplished through a passive technique that emphasizes prenatal tests and corrective gene therapy: force need not be applied to steer evolutionary processes, and even the severely handicapped can contribute to a civilized society.
It's not my fault they chose to build their houses upon the sand.dr-spangle wrote:Yes the world will be better in places, Britain will become a lush tropical paradise, that's brilliant and lovely however, not lovely is the fact that sea levels will rise by 2m and our capital is in a flood plain and a storm funnel. and it won't be lovely for the billions of people who have to relocate as desertification spreads out of Africa, around the Mediterranean, through India and China etc. Those people will not be very happy...FedCom wrote:Good outcome... Bad outcome... We will adapt. FedCom will accept whatever changes occur, and we will adapt. Our nation is already tropical, so the only way temperatures would change is if the land became a desert, which is unlikely for our location (tropical regions are marked by stabilized year-round temperatures and climates). Even if the oceans rise by 100 meters, we won't lose much land, and we have endless sources of water from the oceans. We're not in the path of any typhoon or tropical storm (the planet's rotation pushes them away from us), and we're cooled by the neighboring Atlantic ocean. We've got a pretty safe seat to watch this crisis unfold.
You could say our nation takes the stance of the author of the article you cite, but is more optimistic. Rather than waste time and energy urging everyone else to cut their carbon emissions (which they're not going to do anyway), we just focus on making our nation as efficient and sustainable as possible. Our nation is characterized by extensive long-range strategic planning, and we have plans to neutralize any negative impact of a global climate shift. By the time any of this happens, our nation will have been independent and strong for decades.
That's why we're not as concerned about global warming as the west is. We don't have nearly as much to lose.
Of course. That is the maximum estimated rise of the sea if all ice melted, all fresh water was dumped into the oceans, and accounting for thermal expansion of the warmer water and the weight of that water pressing down on the tectonic plates. There's just not enough water on the planet to make the seas rise higher.dr-spangle wrote:The oceans will not rise 100m unless the whole of Antarctica melted, that is very unlikely (luckily for us all)
Lucky for my nation that we are far from the path of such storms... not that they're particularly dangerous, to the well prepared.dr-spangle wrote:Tropical storms will wipe across the nations, UK will be hit by more (hopefully we won't have weather men saying they will not hit )
I've personally experienced two hurricanes and gotten close to five tornadoes. They're awesome forces of nature, but readily survivable with the proper knowledge and a well-designed shelter.
I must say this is utter nonsense, and nothing but political scaremongering; and the geologic record supports me. Plankton has survived far worst catastrophes over the billions of years prior, and will continue to survive long after our civilization has crumbled to dust and our bones have fossilized. Plankton is in less danger from global warming than we are.dr-spangle wrote:The Atlantic ocean will acidify slightly, not like "oh my god it burns, the goggles do nothing!" kind of acid, but enough to wipe out molluscs and plankton (plankton, who absorb 2/3 of the world's carbon dioxide)
Oh, I read every page, but that's the opinion of supporters of globalism. We in FedCom ignore their rants, as it seems far more likely the world will continue the present pattern of fracturing into smaller and smaller nations, which is quite the opposite from what the globalists want. Global trade may increase, but the will to remain politically separate remains as strong as ever.dr-spangle wrote:You didn't read the article much did you? He also suggests destroying nations, removing the political boundaries that will slow our survival and focusing more on the scarce resources we will have left.
Of course, there is always the possibility (and likelihood, judging by human history) that such globalism will result in a tyrannical hegemony. It is for this reason more specifically, that my nation is not interested in joining the UN or the AU, and will do whatever it takes to defend our right to act unilaterally as a sovereign state.
Now now, if you've studied bees at all, you should know full well that while some varieties are dying out, others are thriving. Africanized bees continue to push north and south through the Americas, and as they are well adapted to tropical climates, they would likely supplant their more docile European counterparts. They may not produce much honey, but they do the same pollination job, and they're certainly not dying off anytime soon.dr-spangle wrote:either way, with most species wiped out, that means it's more likely than a coin flip that bees will die. Life will be fun without bees won't it Are you going to manually fertilize the crops?
Beesides ( ), there are many species of insect that pollinate flowers, and many plants we depend on have other means of reproduction (like potatoes and corn). The loss of all bees would be a major blow, but would it be fatal? Extremely unlikely. In any case, with a little planning and a touch of foresight, we could resurrect any species through cloning; we could bring them back.
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Humans are merely animals like the rest, we all evolved from the same original LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) if primates can evolve into a species which has "intelligence" (enough intelligence to destroy the only habitat we have ) then why not other animals, such as molluscs which will be wiped out by the acidic seas?FedCom wrote:Now we're getting a little off topic...You are confusing animals and people. Both may be made of flesh, but with the exception of perhaps one or two other species on this planet, animals do not posses the meta-cognition that categorizes humanity.dr-spangle wrote:There is that view, we will get better species, but we will be destroying the species that exist now, is it right to kill the below average people so that all people in the future are above average?FedCom wrote:Which only leads to stronger and better forms of life. The only species that will die are those who can't adapt to the changing environment. If you ask me, that's exactly how it should be. Changes like this are what drives evolution.
But since you ask, no, it's not right to exterminate people with poor genetic material. That's the form of eugenics the Nazis tried, and while FedCom supports some eugenics ideals, eugenics must not be allowed to violate ethical standards. Eugenics, like any tool, should be used to repair: we believe it should be used to undo the damage that causes genetic diseases. This can be accomplished through a passive technique that emphasizes prenatal tests and corrective gene therapy: force need not be applied to steer evolutionary processes, and even the severely handicapped can contribute to a civilized society.
I don't think they chose freely to live where they do, but then, if you think that it is their fault for living there, you could let the whole of china immigrate into your micronation or even the macronation in which you currently reside...FedCom wrote:It's not my fault they chose to build their houses upon the sand.dr-spangle wrote:Yes the world will be better in places, Britain will become a lush tropical paradise, that's brilliant and lovely however, not lovely is the fact that sea levels will rise by 2m and our capital is in a flood plain and a storm funnel. and it won't be lovely for the billions of people who have to relocate as desertification spreads out of Africa, around the Mediterranean, through India and China etc. Those people will not be very happy...FedCom wrote:Good outcome... Bad outcome... We will adapt. FedCom will accept whatever changes occur, and we will adapt. Our nation is already tropical, so the only way temperatures would change is if the land became a desert, which is unlikely for our location (tropical regions are marked by stabilized year-round temperatures and climates). Even if the oceans rise by 100 meters, we won't lose much land, and we have endless sources of water from the oceans. We're not in the path of any typhoon or tropical storm (the planet's rotation pushes them away from us), and we're cooled by the neighboring Atlantic ocean. We've got a pretty safe seat to watch this crisis unfold.
You could say our nation takes the stance of the author of the article you cite, but is more optimistic. Rather than waste time and energy urging everyone else to cut their carbon emissions (which they're not going to do anyway), we just focus on making our nation as efficient and sustainable as possible. Our nation is characterized by extensive long-range strategic planning, and we have plans to neutralize any negative impact of a global climate shift. By the time any of this happens, our nation will have been independent and strong for decades.
That's why we're not as concerned about global warming as the west is. We don't have nearly as much to lose.
yes, that is what I said but with more random crap thrown in, but still a rise of 2m decimates capital cities across the globe, london, new york, etc.FedCom wrote:Of course. That is the maximum estimated rise of the sea if all ice melted, all fresh water was dumped into the oceans, and accounting for thermal expansion of the warmer water and the weight of that water pressing down on the tectonic plates. There's just not enough water on the planet to make the seas rise higher.dr-spangle wrote:The oceans will not rise 100m unless the whole of Antarctica melted, that is very unlikely (luckily for us all)
Have you never heard of economics? sometimes it's not viable to make every shed to skyscraper able to withstand category 5 (or even the newly appearing 6) hurricanes, either way it causes billions of dollars worth of damage... you can't afford to keep shelling out billions of dollars every year to hurricanesFedCom wrote:Lucky for my nation that we are far from the path of such storms... not that they're particularly dangerous, to the well prepared.dr-spangle wrote:Tropical storms will wipe across the nations, UK will be hit by more (hopefully we won't have weather men saying they will not hit )
I've personally experienced two hurricanes and gotten close to five tornadoes. They're awesome forces of nature, but readily survivable with the proper knowledge and a well-designed shelter.
If it cannot make it's calcite exoskeleton it will certainly have a hard time, and it's a fact that CO2 dissolved in water (Obviously the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, otherwise fish would have a damn hard time breathing ) makes it acidic, Carbonic acid to be precise, such as in fizzy drinks... but obviously not as much CO2 per litre as in fizzy drinks...FedCom wrote:I must say this is utter nonsense, and nothing but political scaremongering; and the geologic record supports me. Plankton has survived far worst catastrophes over the billions of years prior, and will continue to survive long after our civilization has crumbled to dust and our bones have fossilized. Plankton is in less danger from global warming than we are.dr-spangle wrote:The Atlantic ocean will acidify slightly, not like "oh my god it burns, the goggles do nothing!" kind of acid, but enough to wipe out molluscs and plankton (plankton, who absorb 2/3 of the world's carbon dioxide)
[cough]Failing it[/cough]FedCom wrote:Oh, I read every page, but that's the opinion of supporters of globalism. We in FedCom ignore their rants, as it seems far more likely the world will continue the present pattern of fracturing into smaller and smaller nations, which is quite the opposite from what the globalists want. Global trade may increase, but the will to remain politically separate remains as strong as ever.dr-spangle wrote:You didn't read the article much did you? He also suggests destroying nations, removing the political boundaries that will slow our survival and focusing more on the scarce resources we will have left.
Of course, there is always the possibility (and likelihood, judging by human history) that such globalism will result in a tyrannical hegemony. It is for this reason more specifically, that my nation is not interested in joining the UN or the AU, and will do whatever it takes to defend our right to act unilaterally as a sovereign state.
Bees pollinate over 2/3 of the world's crops, currently there are not enough crops to feed everyone on earth, let's cut it down to a third eh? it won't workFedCom wrote:Now now, if you've studied bees at all, you should know full well that while some varieties are dying out, others are thriving. Africanized bees continue to push north and south through the Americas, and as they are well adapted to tropical climates, they would likely supplant their more docile European counterparts. They may not produce much honey, but they do the same pollination job, and they're certainly not dying off anytime soon.dr-spangle wrote:either way, with most species wiped out, that means it's more likely than a coin flip that bees will die. Life will be fun without bees won't it Are you going to manually fertilize the crops?
Beesides ( ), there are many species of insect that pollinate flowers, and many plants we depend on have other means of reproduction (like potatoes and corn). The loss of all bees would be a major blow, but would it be fatal? Extremely unlikely. In any case, with a little planning and a touch of foresight, we could resurrect any species through cloning; we could bring them back.
We could resurrect them as much as we like, if they can't cope in temperatures that high they will die. It's actually their method of keeping intruders out their hive, they crowd onto the intruder until it overheats and dies, and several bees die in the process from the heat.
Potatoes are the shittiest idea for a world crop ever. Please don't suggest it again. Currently we have problems that diseases are striking wheat (one of the current major crops) and the wheat is so genetically similar that the disease can wipe out nations worth of it. So, let's replace that with a crop that reproduces VIA CLONING? that'll be enough genetic diversity to keep the crop safe isn't it? is 0 genetic diversity enough? see the potato famines of ireland, when potatoes go down, they go down hard
PS: this 3 embedded quote limit is annoying
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
They didn't, just the desert's growing and reaching their housesFedCom wrote:It's not my fault they chose to build their houses upon the sand.
As the saying goes; lolwut?FedCom wrote:There's just not enough water on the planet to make the seas rise higher.
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Theorizing about the future evolutionary path of any lifeform does not make it happen.dr-spangle wrote:Humans are merely animals like the rest, we all evolved from the same original LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) if primates can evolve into a species which has "intelligence" (enough intelligence to destroy the only habitat we have ) then why not other animals, such as molluscs which will be wiped out by the acidic seas?FedCom wrote:You are confusing animals and people. Both may be made of flesh, but with the exception of perhaps one or two other species on this planet, animals do not posses the meta-cognition that categorizes humanity.
Mollusks survived every extinction level event since the Cambrian. The mollusks of today can handle a pH drop of a few decimal points.
On that subject, technically speaking, the oceans are already alkaline (about 8.1), so a drop in pH only brings them closer to that of ordinary water (7). The oceans have dropped less than 0.08 pH points in the past 250 years, so this is far from a quick or devastating event. Remember, the slower a change occurs, the easier it is for life to adapt. This is not the first dozenth time this has happened, and yet life continues.
Whether they relocate to my nation or inland, they still leave their homes. There are, of course, other solutions...dr-spangle wrote:I don't think they chose freely to live where they do, but then, if you think that it is their fault for living there, you could let the whole of china immigrate into your micronation or even the macronation in which you currently reside...FedCom wrote:It's not my fault they chose to build their houses upon the sand.dr-spangle wrote:Yes the world will be better in places, Britain will become a lush tropical paradise, that's brilliant and lovely however, not lovely is the fact that sea levels will rise by 2m and our capital is in a flood plain and a storm funnel. and it won't be lovely for the billions of people who have to relocate as desertification spreads out of Africa, around the Mediterranean, through India and China etc. Those people will not be very happy...
They can raise their cities up on platforms (using simplified offshore oil derrick technology). They can build watertight cities and allow the oceans to rise above them. They can reduce their population levels through disease or war. They can build floating lilypad cities along the shores and new cities/arcologies further inland.
My point is that the oceans are rising at an excruciatingly slow rate, and we have plenty of time to get out of the way and/or alter our architecture to compensate.
Call me selfish or narrow-minded, but that's not my concern. My responsibility is to my people, so my concern is making sure that global warming (even the worst-case scenario) has as little an impact as possible on my nation. If the other nations of this world believe they caused such a crisis, then they can find their own solutions.dr-spangle wrote:...but still a rise of 2m decimates capital cities across the globe, london, new york, etc.
We're interested in clean and efficient technology not because its "green", but because it's clean and efficient. FedCom didn't cause global warming, and we don't fear it, so we're not going to start running around like Chicken Little yelling "the sky is falling!"
Yes, I am well aware of the basic concepts of traditional capitalist economics. No, we won't "shell out billions of dollars", because your economic model doesn't apply. You assume our nation uses money, and that's understandable because all other nations do, but FedCom is "unique".dr-spangle wrote:Have you never heard of economics? sometimes it's not viable to make every shed to skyscraper able to withstand category 5 (or even the newly appearing 6) hurricanes, either way it causes billions of dollars worth of damage... you can't afford to keep shelling out billions of dollars every year to hurricanesFedCom wrote:I've personally experienced two hurricanes and gotten close to five tornadoes. They're awesome forces of nature, but readily survivable with the proper knowledge and a well-designed shelter.
Frankly, we can "afford" to design and build all structures to withstand anything mother nature throws at us, because our nation is neither filled with capitalist pigs, nor is it covered in poorly constructed cities. Mitigating damage stems first from the prevention of that damage, and there's a reason why monolithic domes are a favorite design in our nation. We have two major advantages: the first is our unique and efficient resource-based economy, and the second is a lack of existing permanent structures. Combined, these pave the way for rapid development of well-built urban centers that can easily withstand the punches of a few tropical storms.
Of course, our position in equatorial west Africa ensures that the worst weather we'll ever see is the occasional severe thunderstorm in the rainy season. The Earth's rotation pushes all tropical storms and cyclones away and across the Atlantic, to the Americas.
As far as plankton goes:dr-spangle wrote:If it cannot make it's calcite exoskeleton it will certainly have a hard time...FedCom wrote:I must say this is utter nonsense, and nothing but political scaremongering; and the geologic record supports me. Plankton has survived far worst catastrophes over the billions of years prior, and will continue to survive long after our civilization has crumbled to dust and our bones have fossilized. Plankton is in less danger from global warming than we are.dr-spangle wrote:The Atlantic ocean will acidify slightly, not like "oh my god it burns, the goggles do nothing!" kind of acid, but enough to wipe out molluscs and plankton (plankton, who absorb 2/3 of the world's carbon dioxide)
1) Only coccolithophore phytoplankton would be affected by any such changes. The impact on a single minor unicellular order of species in a complex biome does not equal its total collapse. There are plentiful other forms of phytoplankton to step in and take it's place.
2) The theory that such phytoplankton would be affected negatively is just that: a theory. Another theory suggests that these same plants would flourish in a high CO2 environment. We just don't have enough information to make the call either way, and ignoring one outcome because the other supports a theory you happen to like is not science, it's faith.
Please clarify.dr-spangle wrote:[cough]Failing it[/cough]FedCom wrote:Oh, I read every page, but that's the opinion of supporters of globalism. We in FedCom ignore their rants, as it seems far more likely the world will continue the present pattern of fracturing into smaller and smaller nations, which is quite the opposite from what the globalists want. Global trade may increase, but the will to remain politically separate remains as strong as ever.
Of course, there is always the possibility (and likelihood, judging by human history) that such globalism will result in a tyrannical hegemony. It is for this reason more specifically, that my nation is not interested in joining the UN or the AU, and will do whatever it takes to defend our right to act unilaterally as a sovereign state.
Yes, I know about their wasp defense system, but I think you a little case of tunnel vision.dr-spangle wrote:We could resurrect them as much as we like, if they can't cope in temperatures that high they will die. It's actually their method of keeping intruders out their hive, they crowd onto the intruder until it overheats and dies, and several bees die in the process from the heat.FedCom wrote:Now now, if you've studied bees at all, you should know full well that while some varieties are dying out, others are thriving. Africanized bees continue to push north and south through the Americas, and as they are well adapted to tropical climates, they would likely supplant their more docile European counterparts. They may not produce much honey, but they do the same pollination job, and they're certainly not dying off anytime soon.dr-spangle wrote:either way, with most species wiped out, that means it's more likely than a coin flip that bees will die. Life will be fun without bees won't it Are you going to manually fertilize the crops?
Beesides ( ), there are many species of insect that pollinate flowers, and many plants we depend on have other means of reproduction (like potatoes and corn). The loss of all bees would be a major blow, but would it be fatal? Extremely unlikely. In any case, with a little planning and a touch of foresight, we could resurrect any species through cloning; we could bring them back.
First of all, if your beloved European bees might have little heat strokes. The Africanized ones would keep kicking, as they're quite happy with the tropics. They're a little more temperamental, but the apiarists in Brazil handle them just fine.
Secondly, you claim that we don't have enough food for everyone. This is not true: we have plenty of food. People around the world suffer from malnutrition because they don't have access to food, not because there's a shortage. The distribution system needs improvement, not the means of production.
Third, let's think outside the box for a minute. What are the threats to bees and crops? Heat, drought, and disease. Are these problems indoors? Don't laugh: I'm being serious here. Have you ever heard of vertical agriculture? Food for at least 50,000 people from a single city block. Your bees would feel right at home inside such facilities.
It wasn't an idea: it was only used as an example crop that everyone is familiar with. I didn't think Moringa oleifera would strike the same familiarity note, so I didn't mention it.dr-spangle wrote:Potatoes are the shittiest idea for a world crop ever. Please don't suggest it again.
Bananas are all genetically identical: to make a little banana tree, you snip a piece off a bigger banana tree; that's an ancient form of cloning. Banana farmers keep their crops quarantined and watch them like a hawk: why? Because there is a disease that could wipe out all bananas, worldwide, within a year.dr-spangle wrote:Currently we have problems that diseases are striking wheat (one of the current major crops) and the wheat is so genetically similar that the disease can wipe out nations worth of it. So, let's replace that with a crop that reproduces VIA CLONING? that'll be enough genetic diversity to keep the crop safe isn't it? is 0 genetic diversity enough?
No, cloning isn't the penultimate solution, but look at the alternative for a minute: cloning, or extinction? Pick one, because that's what it might come down to.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Selfish, narrow-minded and naïveFedCom wrote:Call me selfish or narrow-minded, but that's not my concern.dr-spangle wrote:...but still a rise of 2m decimates capital cities across the globe, london, new york, etc.
If, for whatever reason, your micronation actually gains recognised independence, you're gonna have to work with other nations to combat any climate change. It isn't just like "oh, we don't make pollutants so our land isn't allowed to be affected", nature doesn't work like that...
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
A small change can easily kill a species... see the dodo, we ONLY added rats and dogs to the island and bam, gone...FedCom wrote:Theorizing about the future evolutionary path of any lifeform does not make it happen.dr-spangle wrote:Humans are merely animals like the rest, we all evolved from the same original LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) if primates can evolve into a species which has "intelligence" (enough intelligence to destroy the only habitat we have ) then why not other animals, such as molluscs which will be wiped out by the acidic seas?FedCom wrote:You are confusing animals and people. Both may be made of flesh, but with the exception of perhaps one or two other species on this planet, animals do not posses the meta-cognition that categorizes humanity.
Mollusks survived every extinction level event since the Cambrian. The mollusks of today can handle a pH drop of a few decimal points.
On that subject, technically speaking, the oceans are already alkaline (about 8.1), so a drop in pH only brings them closer to that of ordinary water (7). The oceans have dropped less than 0.08 pH points in the past 250 years, so this is far from a quick or devastating event. Remember, the slower a change occurs, the easier it is for life to adapt. This is not the first dozenth time this has happened, and yet life continues.
the yangtze river dolphin, we only added pollutants and a major shipping route.
Oh yeah why didn't we think of this already, we'll get building it right now, it obviously wouldn't cost THOUSANDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and we're obviously not in a global recession...FedCom wrote:Whether they relocate to my nation or inland, they still leave their homes. There are, of course, other solutions...dr-spangle wrote:I don't think they chose freely to live where they do, but then, if you think that it is their fault for living there, you could let the whole of china immigrate into your micronation or even the macronation in which you currently reside...FedCom wrote:It's not my fault they chose to build their houses upon the sand.
They can raise their cities up on platforms (using simplified offshore oil derrick technology). They can build watertight cities and allow the oceans to rise above them. They can reduce their population levels through disease or war. They can build floating lilypad cities along the shores and new cities/arcologies further inland.
My point is that the oceans are rising at an excruciatingly slow rate, and we have plenty of time to get out of the way and/or alter our architecture to compensate.
See Craitman's post, A world climate problem is the world's climate problem So, what land does FedCom claim? I can't load your site, but do you actually have a proper claim over the land and do your citizens actually live there, otherwise it might be a problemFedCom wrote:Call me selfish or narrow-minded, but that's not my concern. My responsibility is to my people, so my concern is making sure that global warming (even the worst-case scenario) has as little an impact as possible on my nation. If the other nations of this world believe they caused such a crisis, then they can find their own solutions.dr-spangle wrote:...but still a rise of 2m decimates capital cities across the globe, london, new york, etc.
We're interested in clean and efficient technology not because its "green", but because it's clean and efficient. FedCom didn't cause global warming, and we don't fear it, so we're not going to start running around like Chicken Little yelling "the sky is falling!"
So, do you live in your territory? how many monolithic domes have you built there?FedCom wrote:Yes, I am well aware of the basic concepts of traditional capitalist economics. No, we won't "shell out billions of dollars", because your economic model doesn't apply. You assume our nation uses money, and that's understandable because all other nations do, but FedCom is "unique".dr-spangle wrote:Have you never heard of economics? sometimes it's not viable to make every shed to skyscraper able to withstand category 5 (or even the newly appearing 6) hurricanes, either way it causes billions of dollars worth of damage... you can't afford to keep shelling out billions of dollars every year to hurricanesFedCom wrote:I've personally experienced two hurricanes and gotten close to five tornadoes. They're awesome forces of nature, but readily survivable with the proper knowledge and a well-designed shelter.
Frankly, we can "afford" to design and build all structures to withstand anything mother nature throws at us, because our nation is neither filled with capitalist pigs, nor is it covered in poorly constructed cities. Mitigating damage stems first from the prevention of that damage, and there's a reason why monolithic domes are a favorite design in our nation. We have two major advantages: the first is our unique and efficient resource-based economy, and the second is a lack of existing permanent structures. Combined, these pave the way for rapid development of well-built urban centers that can easily withstand the punches of a few tropical storms.
Of course, our position in equatorial west Africa ensures that the worst weather we'll ever see is the occasional severe thunderstorm in the rainy season. The Earth's rotation pushes all tropical storms and cyclones away and across the Atlantic, to the Americas.
and another great point of what can only be called stupidity, you might not give a crap about money but funnily enough, over 173 nations on the earth do and you might find it hard to find processed rebar, premade concrete and foam in your nation without you build an infrastructure first, which costs money in international trade...
I would like to draw particular attention to "The theory that such phytoplankton would be affected negatively is just that: a theory" You didn't tell me you're a young earth creationist! your god will save you then.FedCom wrote:As far as plankton goes:dr-spangle wrote:If it cannot make it's calcite exoskeleton it will certainly have a hard time...FedCom wrote:I must say this is utter nonsense, and nothing but political scaremongering; and the geologic record supports me. Plankton has survived far worst catastrophes over the billions of years prior, and will continue to survive long after our civilization has crumbled to dust and our bones have fossilized. Plankton is in less danger from global warming than we are.
1) Only coccolithophore phytoplankton would be affected by any such changes. The impact on a single minor unicellular order of species in a complex biome does not equal its total collapse. There are plentiful other forms of phytoplankton to step in and take it's place.
2) The theory that such phytoplankton would be affected negatively is just that: a theory. Another theory suggests that these same plants would flourish in a high CO2 environment. We just don't have enough information to make the call either way, and ignoring one outcome because the other supports a theory you happen to like is not science, it's faith.
Or you fail to understand the world theory.
Theory means it is supported by every single piece of reliable evidence and have made predictions that have been confirmed either inside or outside the lab. You obviously do not follow science...
The ongoing and never ending search for sovereignty can only be less likely to succeed if you do not believe in the UN or money...FedCom wrote:Please clarify.dr-spangle wrote:[cough]Failing it[/cough]FedCom wrote:Oh, I read every page, but that's the opinion of supporters of globalism. We in FedCom ignore their rants, as it seems far more likely the world will continue the present pattern of fracturing into smaller and smaller nations, which is quite the opposite from what the globalists want. Global trade may increase, but the will to remain politically separate remains as strong as ever.
Of course, there is always the possibility (and likelihood, judging by human history) that such globalism will result in a tyrannical hegemony. It is for this reason more specifically, that my nation is not interested in joining the UN or the AU, and will do whatever it takes to defend our right to act unilaterally as a sovereign state.
Africanized bees, otherwise known as killer bees, have problems though, partially the problems are that they get irate very quickly and kill anything nearby... that would be considered a problem for farmers who wish to have their crop pollinated and not die...FedCom wrote:Yes, I know about their wasp defense system, but I think you a little case of tunnel vision.dr-spangle wrote:We could resurrect them as much as we like, if they can't cope in temperatures that high they will die. It's actually their method of keeping intruders out their hive, they crowd onto the intruder until it overheats and dies, and several bees die in the process from the heat.FedCom wrote:Now now, if you've studied bees at all, you should know full well that while some varieties are dying out, others are thriving. Africanized bees continue to push north and south through the Americas, and as they are well adapted to tropical climates, they would likely supplant their more docile European counterparts. They may not produce much honey, but they do the same pollination job, and they're certainly not dying off anytime soon.
Beesides ( ), there are many species of insect that pollinate flowers, and many plants we depend on have other means of reproduction (like potatoes and corn). The loss of all bees would be a major blow, but would it be fatal? Extremely unlikely. In any case, with a little planning and a touch of foresight, we could resurrect any species through cloning; we could bring them back.
First of all, if your beloved European bees might have little heat strokes. The Africanized ones would keep kicking, as they're quite happy with the tropics. They're a little more temperamental, but the apiarists in Brazil handle them just fine.
Secondly, you claim that we don't have enough food for everyone. This is not true: we have plenty of food. People around the world suffer from malnutrition because they don't have access to food, not because there's a shortage. The distribution system needs improvement, not the means of production.
Third, let's think outside the box for a minute. What are the threats to bees and crops? Heat, drought, and disease. Are these problems indoors? Don't laugh: I'm being serious here. Have you ever heard of vertical agriculture? Food for at least 50,000 people from a single city block. Your bees would feel right at home inside such facilities.
You fail to see the fact of the matter there, we might have enough food now at a push, but population is growing currently, and if the starving of the world are fed, population can only grow faster and hence need more resources etc etc etc. for everyone to live like the UK, the world can support 2 billion people, for everyone to live like USA, the world can support 1.2billion people, for everyone to live like various african states, the world can support 9 billion people, we are predicted at the current rate to have 9billion people at the end of this century... votes for living like africans? funny, I see no hands.
I have heard of vertical agriculture and the several people thinking that it's how science will save them from themselves as they breed and eat and destroy more and more, it's another one of the great "oh, don't worry, science will save us" things that is hardly economically viable, especially for science, which doesn't receive enough funding to advance, reverse global warming, reorganise the world infrastructure, destroy the cities and replace them with new sea level tolerant ones, and fix the global economic crisis...
Moringa Oleifera would be better for growing in the deserts that remain in the placements of africa, america and china but why let it get that far, why not fix the problems now or at least slow them as much as is possible...FedCom wrote:It wasn't an idea: it was only used as an example crop that everyone is familiar with. I didn't think Moringa oleifera would strike the same familiarity note, so I didn't mention it.dr-spangle wrote:Potatoes are the shittiest idea for a world crop ever. Please don't suggest it again.
I know about the bananas and brown rot, read about it in new scientist years ago, but the fact is that bananas do not supply most the world's food and have never been suggested to do so because they are so vulnerable to disease, like potatoes. Let them continue cloning but don't try and use them as a major food source for most the world... I never said that potatoes were a bad idea off the bat as food fullstop, I said that they're a bad idea to supply most the world's food, another fact of mine you agree with.FedCom wrote:Bananas are all genetically identical: to make a little banana tree, you snip a piece off a bigger banana tree; that's an ancient form of cloning. Banana farmers keep their crops quarantined and watch them like a hawk: why? Because there is a disease that could wipe out all bananas, worldwide, within a year.dr-spangle wrote:Currently we have problems that diseases are striking wheat (one of the current major crops) and the wheat is so genetically similar that the disease can wipe out nations worth of it. So, let's replace that with a crop that reproduces VIA CLONING? that'll be enough genetic diversity to keep the crop safe isn't it? is 0 genetic diversity enough?
No, cloning isn't the penultimate solution, but look at the alternative for a minute: cloning, or extinction? Pick one, because that's what it might come down to.
Also, it's our fault bananas are in the state they're in, we have genetically engineered them through selective breeding (sure it's genetic engineering, just slower and less efficient and therefore favoured by hippies who know nothing about the Earth) to remove the seeds as we didn't want the inconvenience of a couple seeds, another place where humanity has fucked over other species just for our personal gain...
The Earth and all the species in it are one huge society, and it just so happens that one of the major definitions of evil is doing something that is very bad for the society but good for you, welcome to the most evil species to walk the earth
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
I've gotten two main points out of this recent discussion:
1) be extremely careful arguing with Spangle, because he sure as hell knows what he's talking about.
2) FedCom may be the dumbest micronation I've ever heard of. "unique and efficient resource-based economy" indeed. The anciet world called; they want their barter system back. Even ignoring all the extremely good reasons we switched over from barter to currency, it's extremely naive to think that just because the government doesn't care about money the people living there wouldn't. Unless you think everyone would enjoy living in a survival society with wacky monolithic domes that you're going to build despite not having anything to trade for the required materials.
1) be extremely careful arguing with Spangle, because he sure as hell knows what he's talking about.
2) FedCom may be the dumbest micronation I've ever heard of. "unique and efficient resource-based economy" indeed. The anciet world called; they want their barter system back. Even ignoring all the extremely good reasons we switched over from barter to currency, it's extremely naive to think that just because the government doesn't care about money the people living there wouldn't. Unless you think everyone would enjoy living in a survival society with wacky monolithic domes that you're going to build despite not having anything to trade for the required materials.
Re: Please fix FedCom's entry
Neither is a good counter-argument, as both constitute major changes that occurred over a relatively short period of time. I'm talking about a gradual change over a time span of centuries, and you're countering with something that happened in the space of a decade or two.dr-spangle wrote:A small change can easily kill a species... see the dodo, we ONLY added rats and dogs to the island and bam, gone...
the yangtze river dolphin, we only added pollutants and a major shipping route.
That's your problem ("you", as in the Western world, not you personally ). Nobody said it had to happen overnight, either. It is perfectly feasible to stretch out such plans over the course of a century, but judging from the history of modern governments, they only have enough foresight to envision their next income tax report.dr-spangle wrote:Oh yeah why didn't we think of this already, we'll get building it right now, it obviously wouldn't cost THOUSANDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and we're obviously not in a global recession...
Our land claim is classified: it's knowledge restricted to our citizens. This is for our protection; as Niccolò Machiavelli once said: "No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution." Our enemies include anyone who doesn't want us to succeed, and especially the unwitting "host" nation we are going to split apart.dr-spangle wrote:So, what land does FedCom claim? I can't load your site, but do you actually have a proper claim over the land and do your citizens actually live there, otherwise it might be a problem
If by "proper claim" you mean "we paid for it and hold the deeds", then no; if you mean "spiritual homeland", then yes.
Our citizens currently reside overseas while they collect the resources and materials we need, but we'll be going home soon.
You honestly don't think we're aware of this? Or that such things haven't been factored into our plans?dr-spangle wrote:and another great point of what can only be called stupidity, you might not give a crap about money but funnily enough, over 173 nations on the earth do and you might find it hard to find processed rebar, premade concrete and foam in your nation without you build an infrastructure first, which costs money in international trade...
Please, stop assuming FedCom is full of idiots, or that we're completely ignorant of the outside world, because you couldn't be further from the truth.
You and I are both intelligent people, so let's refrain from making baseless accusations and assumptions on incomplete data and a marginal understanding of what the the other is talking about, shall we? Thank you.
Wrong on all counts. Stop insulting me.dr-spangle wrote:You didn't tell me you're a young earth creationist! your god will save you then.
Or you fail to understand the world theory.
. . . You obviously do not follow science...
Respectfully, you're completely wrong.dr-spangle wrote:The ongoing and never ending search for sovereignty can only be less likely to succeed if you do not believe in the UN or money...
There is another path to freedom; one which doesn't involve massive quantities of cash and membership in an international elitist club.
As I've said several times already, the Brazilian apiarists have no problems with so-called "killer" bees. The hysteria over killer bees is a product of the American media's lie-machine. Exercise the proper caution when handling these bees, and they won't hurt you. They are not "out for blood".dr-spangle wrote:Africanized bees, otherwise known as killer bees, have problems though, partially the problems are that they get irate very quickly and kill anything nearby... that would be considered a problem for farmers who wish to have their crop pollinated and not die...
Stop assuming I'm an idiot, and don't tell me what I fail to see or not.dr-spangle wrote:You fail to see the fact of the matter there, we might have enough food now at a push, but population is growing currently, and if the starving of the world are fed, population can only grow faster and hence need more resources etc etc etc. for everyone to live like the UK, the world can support 2 billion people, for everyone to live like USA, the world can support 1.2billion people, for everyone to live like various african states, the world can support 9 billion people, we are predicted at the current rate to have 9billion people at the end of this century... votes for living like africans? funny, I see no hands.
No, I did not miss the need for more resources, but your association of lifestyle with resources is fundamentally flawed. The factors you have conveniently ignored are technology, industry, and planning. With the proper planning and development, this planet can easily support 12 billion people, all sharing a lifestyle that is comparable to that of America's upper middle class. Nobody has to life at a third-world slum level, and time will prove it.
Oh, so your solution is to flatten every city with a nuclear explosion, and start from scratch, is it?dr-spangle wrote:I have heard of vertical agriculture and the several people thinking that it's how science will save them from themselves as they breed and eat and destroy more and more, it's another one of the great "oh, don't worry, science will save us" things that is hardly economically viable, especially for science, which doesn't receive enough funding to advance, reverse global warming, reorganise the world infrastructure, destroy the cities and replace them with new sea level tolerant ones, and fix the global economic crisis...
Do you see anyone honestly trying to fix anything in this world? I do, but it's not in the industrialized world.dr-spangle wrote:Moringa Oleifera would be better for growing in the deserts that remain in the placements of africa, america and china but why let it get that far, why not fix the problems now or at least slow them as much as is possible...
Ecologic change begins with social change. A society that tolerates littering and pollution isn't going to make the world a cleaner and better place.
There are many things we can agree on.dr-spangle wrote:...I said that they're a bad idea to supply most the world's food, another fact of mine you agree with.
Now if only we can agree that there will be some things we will disagree on (as we both come from very different cultures), we can make some progress.
Welcome to the world of domestication.dr-spangle wrote:Also, it's our fault bananas are in the state they're in, we have genetically engineered them through selective breeding to remove the seeds as we didn't want the inconvenience of a couple seeds, another place where humanity has fucked over other species just for our personal gain...
AKA "greed" and "capitalism".dr-spangle wrote:...it just so happens that one of the major definitions of evil is doing something that is very bad for the society but good for you...
That kind of petty greed one of the things our new society is trying to change, and why we had no choice but to create a new nation (non-representation by any existing government)...
FedCom can't change the whole world, but we can change at least one small part of it, and then lead by example. There's nothing wrong with that.