There are times when people tick the passion I have cultivated most of my life. I used to resort to a verbal brawl every time I encounter irrationality. But today, today is different. I'm calm as a cucumber.bwahaha I might have made some mistakes with the "commentversation" below, but I thought I have said what I needed to say. Mind not the grammatical mistakes. This is raw and unedited. :P
MY FRIEND'S POST Is reading articles about gobal warming.. I have two points: First, so overrated. Second, We live in a hostie environment. The earth is unpredicatable and we need not fathom it. We existed not because we are deemed to exist but because we are fateful. So, shut the f*ck up about telling us to conserve energy, water, and do recycling! 2 hours ago · Unlike · Comment
AKO Kasabot ko kay wala man kay gi worry nga anak nimo na mu inherit sa earth in the future...hehe about an hour ago · Like
(I understand because you do not plan to have any children who will inherit the earth in the future.)
MY FRIEND @chong2: uu na Mr. Biologist.. samok lang ang global warming.. until wat point man tah mag conserve? until what generation man kelanagn mag sacrifice? dinosaur man gali na extinct ra sila nikaon ug grass.. about an hour ago · Like
(yes Mr. Biologist. It's just that global warming is annoying. Until what point should we conserve? Until what generation needs to sacrifice? Even dinosaurs went extinct eating grass.)
MY FRIEND ***insert 'igo' between extinct and ra.. about an hour ago · Like
(***insert 'just by' between extinct and eating.)
AKO hoi, asteroid tong ni cause sa ilang extinction..dili global warming..hahaha actually, its more on sustainable development. defintion: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future generations..this is not about you after all...hehe so ikaw nay bahala, ug ma konsenxa ka sa uban, not yourself...hehehe about an hour ago · Like
(Hey, it was an asteroid that caused their extinction, not global warming...hahaha Actually, it's more on sustainable development. Definition: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future generations..This is not about you after all.. hehe So it's up to you, if you have conscience for others, not yourself..hehehe)
MY FRIEND chong: sustainale development is very vague and ambiguous idea. You tell us to balance economic development with environemntal protection yet you fail to secure sensitivty to social and cultural attributes of sustainable developent.. about an hour ago · Like
AKO it is. the goal is clear. im not telling anybody anything..i fail? who are we talking about? this isnt coming from one person or one group, this is your conscience speaking.. you do not have to understand the dynamics of economic development and environmental protection to recycle, to save water, etc. they are completely different concepts with completely different sets of goals. its easy enough to understand why you should be doing things. unless of course you do not value human life which you, arguably do not..:P about an hour ago · Like
MY FRIEND chong: you have set the bar. what your telling is to do sustainable development, what your after is the quantity of years human generation can outlive.. what im after here is the quality of life. I also care about the future generations, but the quality of our existence should also be put into consideration and until when should we compromise our way of life? until when should we tighten our belts to save earth? can our efforts sustain human existence until forever? if yes, then I concede.. if no, then reconsider your idea.. :) about an hour ago · Like
AKO we are not after how long humans can live. that there is soo not sustainability. that there is selfishness.. so if that is your measure of concession, then you're, i daresay selfish..we are only after giving a decent enough life for the NEXT generation. then it will be there problem after that. You do not need to make it your problem to save for 100 generations if that's what you mean which is absurd. well, now here is where media and culture comes in. you probably have a very skewed view of what quality is. sustainable development doesnt mean you have to cut everything you do in half and sacrifice your own good. why would you even tighten your belts? sustainability is also convenience. how hard is it to bring along a reusable bag everytime you go shopping? unsa xa, usa ka kilo kabug-ata? living below your means. now that's saving the earth.. about an hour ago · Like
MY FRIEND rhetoric wont save you by saying, '.. then it will be there problem after that.You do not need to make it your problem to save for 100 generations..' Isnt that too selfish to hear? And so if it is, then why would I care about sustainable development if it would only benefit the NEXT generation so to speak.. perhaps you are too tightly conjured with your advocacy that every effort in upholding it shoudl be pushed and what you think is the right way to do.. the example of reusing plastic is just the austere measure to sustainale development, but can it really curb the main issue? now put into consideration axing out electricity for one day for at least once a week in an effort to sustainable development, now that part is where hassle comes in.. :) about an hour ago · Like
AKO It has a snowball effect. unless of course you really want to save 100 generations. By all means, do so, and kill yourself, that way, you will no longer be burdened with the little nuances of conservation and your would be consumption of earth's resources will be cut. nobody is forcing or in your own terms, "pushing" anybody to do things. it is up to your volition to do so. as i have been mentioning, it is all up to your conscience. of course reusing plastic will curb the issue. no consumers, no plastic. is that so hard? well, that is why nobody is axing, and by axing, you mean intentional, electricity for one day once a week for the sake of sustainability..:D 46 minutes ago · Like
MY FRIEND "pushing" i say is a more prudent word to use with how much you defend sustainable development. By saying "it is all up to your volition" is a sugar coating of politically correct language to 'pushed' for your advocacy in a very deplorable manner.. your analogy of no consumers, no plastic which equates to not axing electricity which i regard as very fallible without substantial fact to prove your argument. Perhaps, you just like many proponents of substantial development is using another enticement to consider an issue which in the first should have not exist. No accurate data have not been provided to prove your claim, but rather a well stage managed proposition have.. Just like you and the many others, you have been lured.. As much as I would not like to rest my case, the night is old. Goodnight! 22 minutes ago · Like
AKO needless to say, that is why there are words with specific meanings in the dictionary to convey what is needed to convey. if this is your way of understanding things, extracting completely different thoughts out of what the context only says, it only means one thing. you care enough to try and convince yourself everything about conservation is not true. how does not using plastic equate to not axing electricity? now here is a problem. the substantial fact is all around you. you often post complaints here in fb why its too hot. i dont think you'd be happy seeing plastic around you on the sidewalks. or would you? the accurate data you are looking for is right under your nose. the problem is, you think it's not accurate because there are varying results.well, science after all, is dynamic. and those results all still point to one thing. global climate change. this proposition is well staged in the first place because it ought to be. it is a pressing issue. i dont see why meetings of the worlds highest officials would consider even talking about things like climate change if it all were fake. next time, expound your claims of fallacy and irrationality. you might just be on to something.:) night to you too!
THE NEXT DAY:
MY FRIEND Mr. AKO, i understand your vehement stand on this issue because you have been acculturated to it. But understand, I am accustomed in a different view point. I have perceived life to be lived as the way people should live it, with quality of life as an emphasis. By quality of life means living life the way you want it to be. Yes, it goes with the responsibilty of taking into account cleanliness by your surroudning, but not to the point of being too obsessive of preventing evry perceived threat to it. What i have been pointing out from the very beginning is that quality of life must be lived without the hassle of managing resources beyond the austere measures you have given. The austere measures you have discussed is not enough to curb the current status. If you want your offsprings to still inherit the earth beyond 2012 then, drastic measures should be done by now. The mere recylcling of pastic is not enough.
With regard to your eco-myth point,to which you were lured, consider Al Gore's example of Mt. Kilomajaro, he assumed that the ice caps of the mountain were melting caused by global warming, yet he failed to see that the mountain is a volcano. Next, NASA have provided evidences that our temperature is actually decreasing, Now maybe we should start to burn every single fuel in the planet to address this. Furthermore, environmentalist have provided funny facts that cow dung heavily contributes to increased CO2 equating to global warming, I pity those cows because they were dragged to this issue innocently which in fact they have existed longer that we are, and if so then global warming should hae started long before us and probably we are living on a dead earth..
i have to say, good research. i am by no means an expert on geology, but based on what you have found out, the ice caps are melting on Mt. Kilimanjaro. but suffice to say, ice caps melt every year, owing to seasonal changes. what al gore pointed out was the period of time the ice caps existed in a year, comparing it to the period of time year's before. NASA could be right, but i don't know, it seems like they're making things up all the time. read up on the recent arsenic-eating bacterias they claim to have discovered. that fact, funny it may seem, is actually true. cows do contribute methane, not CO2, significantly, and yes, they could have existed long before humans, but get this: life before the pre-industrial revolution was sustainable. cows could produce all the gas they want, and global climate change still wouldnt happen. here we come, extracting fossil fuels and burning them up, making nonbiodegradable plastic. the question: what now?
0 comments:
Post a Comment