Thread: Stop The Environmentalists

It was projected at one time that electricity would be so cheap in this country, because of nuclear energy, that it would not be a burden at all.
But environmentalists get lawyers and sue companies that want to build nuclear power plants, because of their ideas that it would harm the environment. Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production. The environmentalists have caused the cost of building a nuclear power plant to be so high, from law suits, that new plants have not been built for many years. So the electricity bills of Americans continues to be high. [Coal contains traces of uranium; burning coal for electrical power puts more radioactivity in the air then nuclear power plants would.]
Environmentalists, through their law suits, have crippled the US oil industry, by making oil producion in this country too costly. So the US is dependant on Muslim oil, and must bow to the will of the Muslims to get enough oil. Even doing that the price of gas is going up. That would not have happened if the environmentalists would not have taken the oil industry to court, forcing them to pay in court cases against them. Even new oil refineries are hindered from being built because of the environmentalists. The US needs to import gasoline, further driving up the cost of gas.
The government should get a good team of lawyers that will defeat the environmentalists in court to allow the US to become energy efficient with much lower gas and electricity prices.

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests.
According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

And, of course, God can bring any of those species back any time He wants, if He wants to do so.

Please read this link to see how safe nuclear is. If you think after reading this then you're either not reading what it says or you just don't care about life.

http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/

Also on Tchernobyl:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki.../chapter1.html

Ghost has outed himself. He's actually James G Watt, former Secretary of the Interior!

Clearly ghost hasn't taken the time to get that CT scan some of us have suggested.

Also on Chernobyl:

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm

It's dangerous to write off a powerful source of energy based on irrational fear and misinformation.

The next time a jet crashes, research the deaths due to jet crashes over even just a couple of years and decide how worthwhile air travel is. I won't even bring up automobile deaths...

And let's remember: Chernobyl was a shittily designed reactor and was being tested by disregarding several critical safety checks by command from Moscow.

Agreed. A discussion of the possible benefits/risks of nuclear fission generated electricity should not be based on Chernobyl. A discussion of the costs and risks should be based on modern (sane) designs. And the problems with nuclear should also be weighed against what our present energy costs are; a huge military budget, war, and thousands dead in order to ensure a supply of the most important resource at this time.

I agree as well. Tchernobyl shouldn't be taken lightly, but it should not be the deciding factor in such a decision.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

The government should get a good team of lawyers that will defeat the environmentalists in court to allow the US to become energy efficient with much lower gas and electricity prices.

Until we run out? Then what?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort.

Maybe the prophesy will be fulfilled when all think like you and we destroy the earth as we know it, therefore causing the Armageddon without any help from 'greater powers'.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

According to the bible, we are supposed to be caretakers of the species on earth, don't use bible references if you only going to take a little information and distort it for your own gain.


Locke

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests. According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

This is the belief that is ruining our planet, not the environmentalists.

If environmentalists had their way, we would already be independent of foreign oil, and perhaps all oil. Perhaps the (human) world will end someday, but it is increasingly looking like the Dominionist Fundamentalist Neo-Con Christians will be the cause. It's a self-fufilling prophecy. The bible doesn't say that taking care of the Earth is a waste of time!
The real sentiment behind this belief is greed, not piousness.

Now,
Environmentalists are beginning to realize that nuclear power makes no greenhouse gas. Yes, we are realistic enough to revise our opinion now and then! The Cons criticize lawsuits because they want to pack the courts with corporate friendly demons willing to sell all of humanity down the river.

Why do we need energy?

Energy is needed for many purposes today. Withoit it you'd have no water, eletricity, cars, trains, planes etc,.etc., so if you really don't like what you have you can always return to the jungles of Africa or the Amazon to find a place where energy isn't used as yet.

The real question is if you can live without it.

I wouldn't worry that much about the nuclear reactors.. Nucler weapons is much more risky.. if one is stupid enough to push the red button than the the other side could destroy the whole US in their revenge attacks

Although I consider myself an environmentalist, I have to agree with Ghost, nuclear energy is currently the best economically possible energy source available. Chernobyl technology compared to modern nuclear power plants is like comparing a Ford Model T to a Lexus GS. In other words, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do. Modern facilities are safer than safe, the only problem is the radioactive waste, but it is believed that it will be reprocessed once the technology is made available.

Coal and oil power plants on the other hand, create back clouds of toxic dirt. Who knows how many cancer victims are victims of unclean air. Oppose that to the Chernobyl victims.

As to the 'god' and 'preserving nature and species is a waste of time' talk, I must say that I feel very ashamed to be a Christian when I see such spectacular ignorance in my ranks. Nowhere does the bible say such thing. But ghost most likely hasn't even read it anyway.

Whenever people use God to defend certain issues that have nothing to do with faith, I always think of this quote:

'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'

Another quote from Ghost:

'Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production...'

Yes and no, Ghost. It's the cheapest. If we can deal with the waste, it could be the best. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl haven't helped. You should see the actual area now off-limits to humans where Chernobyl once stood. One medium-sized city...and a lot of villages. Hundreds of square miles. The pictures of the city are weird. You have all these reletively tall buildings, and grass and trees just growing unchecked everywhere like a ghost (excuse the pun) town. Google on Chernobyl and you'll find them. They're creepy. Deserted... :?


http://www.discountebooks.net/globalwarmingproject.htm

Make your voice heard... 8) I had to toss that in...(lol) 8)

Originally Posted by Robert M. Blevins

Whenever people use God to defend certain issues that have nothing to do with faith, I always think of this quote:

'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'

Another quote from Ghost:

'Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production...'

Yes and no, Ghost. It's the cheapest. If we can deal with the waste, it could be the best. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl haven't helped. You should see the actual area now off-limits to humans where Chernobyl once stood. One medium-sized city...and a lot of villages. Hundreds of square miles. The pictures of the city are weird. You have all these reletively tall buildings, and grass and trees just growing unchecked everywhere like a ghost (excuse the pun) town. Google on Chernobyl and you'll find them. They're creepy. Deserted... :?

Yes, that was a disaster. BUT, Chernobyl is old technology assembled by poorly trained crews under time pressure. Today's nuclear facilities are so safe, one could crash a boeing 747 onto one and nothing would happen. Also, the amount of nuclear fuel they consume is a fraction of what Chernoby and others consume.

http://www.discountebooks.net/globalwarmingproject.htm

Make your voice heard... 8) I had to toss that in...(lol) 8)

Originally Posted by Robert M. Blevins

http://www.discountebooks.net/globalwarmingproject.htm

Make your voice heard... 8) I had to toss that in...(lol) 8)

Done :wink:

Ghost this is Earths only solution to oil, nuclear and all.
Hello anyone reading,
I doubt if you will agree with the following and I doubt you will reply.
All the Earth's problems from global warming, pollution, wars, shortage
of water and food, housing, even to the care of the elderly could be
solved by huge population reduction.
Total human removal would help all the other species best, but with a
greatly reduced population we could learn to manage the Earth with
greater care.
The human population needs a large reduction, and I do not mean
culling as we sadly do to other forms of life. I would not suggest bringing
about the death of any human being in any of the barbaric ways we
remove other unwanted species of life.
Even though we are the most voracious animals on this planet we do not
need take any human life to do this.
It should be done openly through a world summit to find the best way to
encourage all of human kind to be sterilised if they wish it. Those who would
like a family, let them, the population would still go down.
It should ignore all protest.
The United Nations could do this.
It is our only hope, it is the only chance of humans living with the Earth
and not against it. Science should be able to produce a simple oral tablet
to bring sterility. With education and many outlets for the product, people
would choose to do this voluntarily. Rewards could even be given. This would in a few decades, leave a stable, content reduced population.
A population that can use oil for lubrication, that is what it is best for.
The many species of life, other than the thousands we have made extinct
may then be saved.
If we do not greatly reduce the human population, then in a few decades
we will completely perish and the sad part is we will take with us millions
of other species. When we remove one species, many others may die out
that relied on its existence.
In other words we can only remove so many before it escalates out of
control and then we follow and ghost that includes your bunch of trees.
The extinction of any species by our hands is a crime beyond all other
crimes, as who knows what that species would have developed into in time.
Within a few years it will be too late.
In full sincerity,
David.

Originally Posted by moltoc

Hello anyone reading,
I doubt if you will agree with the following

you are right and over pop IS possibly bad but i know if deer pop get too big all they do is open up deer hunting season, so cant see anything else working.

I think it should be noted that in Chernobyl (I saw it on the history channel! Yay!) the reactor used had a design flaw that aided in the disaster.
They were also stupid enough (the night shift staff composed of mostly juniors) to go through with testing even after the repeated system screw ups (should have waited another day for the senior staff to do it). It's also to blame on the inexperienced staff on duty at the time, but overall it appears a collaborative fault.
Including that of their government overseeing the construction (as I believe they said that the design flaw was fixed in most reactors save for a choice few including that one).

Interesting side note is that there is a *lot* of plutonium down there, and eventually they're going to try and get it back (they're working on it still).

Overall, Nuclear energy can be very safe. Human error, on the other hand, isn't.

Electricity produced from nuclear energy can be cheap. It could be very safe too, but it will always generate waste. There is more than enough Solar power available to feed man's apetite for electricity. I'd rather not see Nuclear used, but in a choice between that and fossil, then it's Nuke-you-lar (the 'Bush' pronounciation) everytime!.

There seem to be endless debates on the causes of climate change.
Some scientists deny that it is happening at all and others claim it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

In light of how unpredictable weather is anyway, why don't we play it safe and use non-polluting means of energy production.

I doubt many people consider this, but there is more than enough energy falling on the planet as sunlight to power the whole of the human race. The problem is, we can't just suck up all the sunlight for ourselves. Plants and other animals need it too. But consider this: Imagine how big the Earth looks from the sun. Now consider how much light goes out into empty space. What we need to do is find a way to harness that energy. As it is, it's really just being wasted. (Don't ask me how I propose to do this though. I'm no good at astrophysics. )

The other big thing we could do is to figure out Nuclear Fusion. It has the potential to generate massive ammounts of energy with only inert, non-greenhouse gasses as the waste. Of course, if we knew how to do this, we would. It's a huge research topic and has been for years. (Perhaps what we could do in this case is to convince the politicians to better fund such research.)

Finally, as far as global warming is concerned, I think most scientists are past the denial stage. Now they just have to convince everyone else. One really sci-fi idea is to export the CO2 to Mars. That way we could cool Earth and warm Mars at the same time. I think this would be a great idea if it was at all practical.

Edit: Oh yeah. I've heard of 'environmentallists' that say it would be wrong to terraform Mars. All I can say is that, unless we take a hundredth look and suddenly find martians, protecting the natural state of a big ball of rock and dust isn't important compared to protecting Earth, the human race and all known examples of life in the universe.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

I doubt many people consider this, but there is more than enough energy falling on the planet as sunlight to power the whole of the human race. The problem is, we can't just suck up all the sunlight for ourselves. Plants and other animals need it too. But consider this: Imagine how big the Earth looks from the sun. Now consider how much light goes out into empty space. What we need to do is find a way to harness that energy. As it is, it's really just being wasted. (Don't ask me how I propose to do this though. I'm no good at astrophysics. )

Yeah...except we'd need an extra 100 years of solar technology to even theink about doing that. Maybe 200. At current levels you might as well say "oh, well, go right next to the sun then bring all of it back!". Energy cost would exceed gain.

Solar energy has it's obvious limits. Instead, a more viable solution would be to harness lightning energy. The only issue is we need a power cell that can STORE it.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

The other big thing we could do is to figure out Nuclear Fusion. It has the potential to generate massive ammounts of energy with only inert, non-greenhouse gasses as the waste. Of course, if we knew how to do this, we would. It's a huge research topic and has been for years. (Perhaps what we could do in this case is to convince the politicians to better fund such research.)

Except...do you have any idea how long it takes for fusion to work? Even in perfect conditions, by the time fusion was complete the building that was used to make it would be dust. If it's solaf fusion, anyway. As for other types: Can you say 100x more unstable than Fission? I don't want the earth blown up *FASTER*.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Finally, as far as global warming is concerned, I think most scientists are past the denial stage. Now they just have to convince everyone else. One really sci-fi idea is to export the CO2 to Mars. That way we could cool Earth and warm Mars at the same time. I think this would be a great idea if it was at all practical.

Cute, but how, exactly, do we get the energy to do that? Current levels of technology make it impossible. By the time we have that level, though, we wont need to export it since it wont be a problem. Haha

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Edit: Oh yeah. I've heard of 'environmentallists' that say it would be wrong to terraform Mars. All I can say is that, unless we take a hundredth look and suddenly find martians, protecting the natural state of a big ball of rock and dust isn't important compared to protecting Earth, the human race and all known examples of life in the universe.

This is just stupid. The only life on mars consists of possible bacteria that hasn't evolved very much at all. As for terraforming mars, again, the energy exceeds the gain with current technology levels. Wait another 100 or so years.

Sorry to butt into the conversation, but I think that it is true that to make up for the gap we leave when we stop burning fossil fuels for our electricity (whenever that may be), nuclear power shall be needed, although we should not leave out other renewable like solar and wind. People are misinformed.

(Maybe I hsould get my gransfather to this forum. Director of EFN Canada. He'll convert some few of you.)

Originally Posted by ghost7584

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests.
According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

And, of course, God can bring any of those species back any time He wants, if He wants to do so.

This is a dangerous (and scary) belief system....

It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once;
"Dear lord, protect me from your followers."
(No offence meant to the rational religous.)

I like the bimper sticker. I'm not sure of the rest...

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

I doubt many people consider this, but there is more than enough energy falling on the planet as sunlight to power the whole of the human race. The problem is, we can't just suck up all the sunlight for ourselves. Plants and other animals need it too. But consider this: Imagine how big the Earth looks from the sun. Now consider how much light goes out into empty space. What we need to do is find a way to harness that energy. As it is, it's really just being wasted. (Don't ask me how I propose to do this though. I'm no good at astrophysics. )

Yeah...except we'd need an extra 100 years of solar technology to even theink about doing that. Maybe 200. At current levels you might as well say "oh, well, go right next to the sun then bring all of it back!". Energy cost would exceed gain.

I do understand that what I was suggesting isn't currently practical, but good ideas don't have to be. (This isn't an original idea BTW.)

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Solar energy has it's obvious limits. Instead, a more viable solution would be to harness lightning energy. The only issue is we need a power cell that can STORE it.

That's not really the issue. Storing it (short term at least) wouldn't be as big of a challenge as collecting it. It tends to vaporize any wires it travels down. (I've heard of plans for a superconducting power-grid [Scientific American] that, among other things, would allow for efficient storage of electricity within the grid, due to lack of resistance.)

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

The other big thing we could do is to figure out Nuclear Fusion. It has the potential to generate massive ammounts of energy with only inert, non-greenhouse gasses as the waste. Of course, if we knew how to do this, we would. It's a huge research topic and has been for years. (Perhaps what we could do in this case is to convince the politicians to better fund such research.)

Except...do you have any idea how long it takes for fusion to work? Even in perfect conditions, by the time fusion was complete the building that was used to make it would be dust. If it's solaf fusion, anyway. As for other types: Can you say 100x more unstable than Fission? I don't want the earth blown up *FASTER*.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know anything about fusion being slow or 100x more unstable than fission. In fission reactors, the chance of the thing actually exploding is beyond remote. What could happen is that it gets too hot and melts the radiation shields, flooding the surrounding area with radiation. In a fusion reactor, a meltdown might destroy the power plant, but it wouldn't irradiate the surrounding areas (at least, no where near as badly).

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Finally, as far as global warming is concerned, I think most scientists are past the denial stage. Now they just have to convince everyone else. One really sci-fi idea is to export the CO2 to Mars. That way we could cool Earth and warm Mars at the same time. I think this would be a great idea if it was at all practical.

Cute, but how, exactly, do we get the energy to do that? Current levels of technology make it impossible. By the time we have that level, though, we wont need to export it since it wont be a problem. Haha

Like I said, it's a sci-fi idea. A work of fiction, at least for the forseeable future. But yeah, I agree. When we can actually pull that off, it'll probably be too late to be usefull.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Edit: Oh yeah. I've heard of 'environmentallists' that say it would be wrong to terraform Mars. All I can say is that, unless we take a hundredth look and suddenly find martians, protecting the natural state of a big ball of rock and dust isn't important compared to protecting Earth, the human race and all known examples of life in the universe.

This is just stupid. The only life on mars consists of possible bacteria that hasn't evolved very much at all. As for terraforming mars, again, the energy exceeds the gain with current technology levels. Wait another 100 or so years.

I didn't say terraforming is practical, or that we should begin right away. (I don't know that we should wait 100 years if we could begin sooner though.) All I was saying is that the environmentallist arguments against it don't hold water.

Can we shoot Greenpeace activists for using all that fuel in their power boats chasing those ships that dump nuclear waste at sea?

Good idea! Where shall we start?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

So the US is dependant on Muslim oil, and must bow to the will of the Muslim to get enough oil.

that made me smile...

Originally Posted by ghost7584

It was projected at one time that electricity would be so cheap in this country, because of nuclear energy, that it would not be a burden at all.
But environmentalists get lawyers and sue companies that want to build nuclear power plants, because of their ideas that it would harm the environment. Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production. The environmentalists have caused the cost of building a nuclear power plant to be so high, from law suits, that new plants have not been built for many years. So the electricity bills of Americans continues to be high. [Coal contains traces of uranium; burning coal for electrical power puts more radioactivity in the air then nuclear power plants would.]
Environmentalists, through their law suits, have crippled the US oil industry, by making oil producion in this country too costly. So the US is dependant on Muslim oil, and must bow to the will of the Muslims to get enough oil. Even doing that the price of gas is going up. That would not have happened if the environmentalists would not have taken the oil industry to court, forcing them to pay in court cases against them. Even new oil refineries are hindered from being built because of the environmentalists. The US needs to import gasoline, further driving up the cost of gas.
The government should get a good team of lawyers that will defeat the environmentalists in court to allow the US to become energy efficient with much lower gas and electricity prices.

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests.
According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

And, of course, God can bring any of those species back any time He wants, if He wants to do so.

are you serious??? jesus christ you need you get your facts straight.

Nuclear power may be cheap, but it get's depleted in around the same speed as the oil. So uranium can't save us..

What's enough?? Wind, water movement, the sun. Problem is... You need room, we ain't got room.

Solution would be a gigantic solar collector on the moon, and a microwave beam that feeds certain points of the planet on certain times. It would save a lot of money in time.

Or, tidal change generators. Or salt/fresh water ionisation mixer power plant. Loads of solutions... why oil or nuclear? (i'm not against nuclear power, just against oil)

second, we have to take care of the animals and plantlife on the planet. We don't want to live in a world with just dogs, rats, mice, roaches, ants and seagulls.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

second, we have to take care of the animals and plantlife on the planet. We don't want to live in a world with just dogs, rats, mice, roaches, ants and seagulls.

And Cloned sheep, cows and chickens :P

Tchernobyl should definintely not be taking lightly. However, is it reasonable to stop building nuclear power plants altogether? While Tchernobyl was a horrible disaster, it was also an event that helps us avoid the same mistakes that occurred from it.

The Space Shuttle Challenger and Colombia exploded in a horrific accidents. Does that meant that we should stop launching shuttles? Or maybe we should learn from those mistakes and apply them to future launches?

I think it is unreasable to throw in the towel for nuclear power (making it too costly to build them) based on the disaster at Tchernobyl.

Originally Posted by Hyeuk

Originally Posted by ghost7584

It was projected at one time that electricity would be so cheap in this country, because of nuclear energy, that it would not be a burden at all.
But environmentalists get lawyers and sue companies that want to build nuclear power plants, because of their ideas that it would harm the environment. Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production. The environmentalists have caused the cost of building a nuclear power plant to be so high, from law suits, that new plants have not been built for many years. So the electricity bills of Americans continues to be high. [Coal contains traces of uranium; burning coal for electrical power puts more radioactivity in the air then nuclear power plants would.]
Environmentalists, through their law suits, have crippled the US oil industry, by making oil producion in this country too costly. So the US is dependant on Muslim oil, and must bow to the will of the Muslims to get enough oil. Even doing that the price of gas is going up. That would not have happened if the environmentalists would not have taken the oil industry to court, forcing them to pay in court cases against them. Even new oil refineries are hindered from being built because of the environmentalists. The US needs to import gasoline, further driving up the cost of gas.
The government should get a good team of lawyers that will defeat the environmentalists in court to allow the US to become energy efficient with much lower gas and electricity prices.

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests.
According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

And, of course, God can bring any of those species back any time He wants, if He wants to do so.

are you serious??? jesus christ you need you get your facts straight.

THIS is THE REASON for most of todays absolute LACK of progress, especially in the USA, of Alternitave energy sources. The russians created Methane, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen powered jet engines and flew them on aircraft in 1989. The Boeing 787, which is STILL TO BE BUILT will be using Oil-Based Jet A1 fuel. Most succesfull jet airliners have a good 20 year run, thus Boeing is committing the world to using Oil Based fuel for aviation untill at least 2028.

Why does the government not do anything to phase in alternitave fuels, energy, etc, or in a larger picture, simply stop ignoring - discrediting or even outright attacking movements to reduce industry's negitave effects on the planet?

Because they're all Christians who believe it is their duty to use as many resources as fast as possible regardless of the effects they have on the earth. Because they don't believe theyre "From this world". They literally believe in a *Magic World* in which God will just press the Reset button on Eden every time humans destroy the planet enough for it to be unlivable. Concequently they don't mind destroying the world, because theyre doing God's good work.

Last I checked, "Destroying the World" was the clique desire of the "Evil Maniac" of cartoons and children's movies. *Sane* morality would agree that "Destroying the Earth" is evil. Apparently a good number of Christian Fundamentalists believe "Destroying the Earth" is somehow God's will. I will leave the logical conclusion to you.

Originally Posted by Kosta

Tchernobyl should definintely not be taking lightly. However, is it reasonable to stop building nuclear power plants altogether? While Tchernobyl was a horrible disaster, it was also an event that helps us avoid the same mistakes that occurred from it.

The Space Shuttle Challenger and Colombia exploded in a horrific accidents. Does that meant that we should stop launching shuttles? Or maybe we should learn from those mistakes and apply them to future launches?

I think it is unreasable to throw in the towel for nuclear power (making it too costly to build them) based on the disaster at Tchernobyl.

Just to set the record straight, The space shuttle challenger did not explode, it was destroyed when the external tank ruptured and it's contents ignited.

Columbia also did not 'explode' it was burnt up on re-entry, the reason given as being a breach of the Thermal protection system.

eniormentalists arent there for the nature but to be in the group. They have no idea how it is in any way. and if they do its out of date data

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Nuclear power is the safest and most environment friendly form of electricity production. [...] Coal contains traces of uranium; burning coal for electrical power puts more radioactivity in the air then nuclear power plants would.

This is correct. I am an environmentalist, and I am for nuclear plants. Especially future plants based on thorium reactors.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Environmentalists, through their law suits, have crippled the US oil industry, by making oil producion in this country too costly.

The reason US oil production has been declining, has nothing to do with environmentalists, it has to do with geological constraints. I.e. that you guys have pumped up most of the stuff.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

According to the bible, at some future time, most of the world is going to be destroyed anyway, before the end, so trying to save a bunch of trees and so called endangered species is a waste of time and effort. When the tribulation period or time of trouble comes, close to armageddon at the end, the world is going to lose many species anyway, and much of the forests.
According to the bible, the environmentalists are wasting their time trying to save the trees and shrubs and endangered species.

And, of course, God can bring any of those species back any time He wants, if He wants to do so.

Putting God into the picture is irrelevant to a forum titled The Science Forum. Please stick to science, and not belief.

Originally Posted by Zelos

eniormentalists arent there for the nature but to be in the group. They have no idea how it is in any way. and if they do its out of date data

That's a nice generalisation. (!)

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

But consider this: Imagine how big the Earth looks from the sun. Now consider how much light goes out into empty space. What we need to do is find a way to harness that energy. As it is, it's really just being wasted. (Don't ask me how I propose to do this though. I'm no good at astrophysics. )

The answer, the way I see it, is to build hundreds of huge Concentrated Solar Power Plants in the deserts of the world. The US has deserts of its own, Europe could place the plants in the deserts of Sahara. The plants would create enough electricity to cover all transportation (conversion to hydrogen) and electricity needs.

Originally Posted by kristian

Originally Posted by Zelos

eniormentalists arent there for the nature but to be in the group. They have no idea how it is in any way. and if they do its out of date data

That's a nice generalisation. (!)

let me summerize the attitude of about 10 tousand eniormentalist on one meeting "STOP DIHYDROGENMOONOXIDE" and all signed to ban it hahahahahahaha do they know anything? no

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by kristian

Originally Posted by Zelos

eniormentalists arent there for the nature but to be in the group. They have no idea how it is in any way. and if they do its out of date data

That's a nice generalisation. (!)

let me summerize the attitude of about 10 tousand eniormentalist on one meeting "STOP DIHYDROGENMOONOXIDE" and all signed to ban it hahahahahahaha do they know anything? no

Again, you're generalising.

1) I am an environmentalist
2) I have extensive knowledge about a wide area of environmental topics

But this does not prove that all environmentalists are wise and full of knowledge.

You can attack views and opinions, but you cannot attack a group called environmentalists. So please stop.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by kristian

Originally Posted by Zelos

eniormentalists arent there for the nature but to be in the group. They have no idea how it is in any way. and if they do its out of date data

That's a nice generalisation. (!)

let me summerize the attitude of about 10 tousand eniormentalist on one meeting "STOP DIHYDROGENMOONOXIDE" and all signed to ban it hahahahahahaha do they know anything? no

I have to disagree with you. Some environmentalists really are kind of nutty and take it too far, sure. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the absolutely real and stone-cold serious realities about the changing environment. Not only are we pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, using up all the fossil fuels at incredible rates and stripping the planet of its forests on a daily basis, but the global environment is such a complex beast that we can't even predict the consequences of these actions. And we all know that most of the time, business takes precedence over the environment because until the doom is impendent the almighty dollar will win out.
Zelos you're a backer of science and logical thought - don't dismiss the real concerns because of the environmentalist nutjobs out there.

I have to disagree with you. Some environmentalists really are kind of nutty and take it too far, sure. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the absolutely real and stone-cold serious realities about the changing environment.

chaning is natural for the planet. what we humans do is insignificant compared to what the planet and things outside of it can do in seconds.

Not only are we pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, using up all the fossil fuels at incredible rates and stripping the planet of its forests on a daily basis, but the global environment is such a complex beast that we can't even predict the consequences of these actions.

woho its getting hotter i hate cold id honestly burn everything on the planet if i knew i could get tropical heat everywhere on the planet

as for the forest thing, id like to see you go to africa and tell those poor people there "sorry but you cant cut that tree youre destroying the planet so go back to your home and starve"

And we all know that most of the time, business takes precedence over the environment because until the doom is impendent the almighty dollar will win out.

it does? well i didnt know the pollution was as bad as in the 1850s

Zelos you're a backer of science and logical thought - don't dismiss the real concerns because of the environmentalist nutjobs out there.

im logical and scientifical yes. thats the main reason im not concerned
what we humans do is insignican, if we were to use all our nuclear bombs we could do some serius stuff but except from that its not much, if we pollute and live like hell itd only take a few if anymore than 1 galactic month before it was all back to the track again and it would be nothing had happened except a coming civilization wont have fossile fuels

Originally Posted by Zelos

chaning is natural for the planet. what we humans do is insignificant compared to what the planet and things outside of it can do in seconds.

This is one argument I've never understood. We are VERY capable of making significant changes to the global environment, even when we aren't trying to! It may be insignificant if you consider the planet as a whole and the adaptive ability of life but we aren't "life" in general, we are humans and our society is predicated on certain things - like having fossil fuels.

woho its getting hotter i hate cold id honestly burn everything on the planet if i knew i could get tropical heat everywhere on the planet

But the consequences are bigger than that, and I'm sure you realize that. Icecaps, glaciers, whatever is melting at a significant rate and it's enough to change the coastlines worldwide. Coastlines where a hell of a lot of major cities currently rest. That's just one minor example off the topic of my head. Even minor changes to the environment can change or destroy climates we depend on for crops, as another example. And, like I said, we don't even fully understand the climate on a global scale and it's so chaotic that you're really playing with fire if you simply think it's "oo boy, a little warmer" and that's it

as for the forest thing, id like to see you go to africa and tell those poor people there "sorry but you cant cut that tree youre destroying the planet so go back to your home and starve"

Huh? It's not the "poor people in Africa" we need to worry about destroying the forests. It's industry.

im logical and scientifical yes. thats the main reason im not concerned
what we humans do is insignican, if we were to use all our nuclear bombs we could do some serius stuff but except from that its not much, if we pollute and live like hell itd only take a few if anymore than 1 galactic month before it was all back to the track again and it would be nothing had happened except a coming civilization wont have fossile fuels

Ok, what the hell is a "galactic month". And you may not care about society-changing events (most would call it catastrophies) but that doesn't mean they're insignificant. Especially to our children, and their children, and so on - the people who have to LIVE with our screw-ups.

This is one argument I've never understood. We are VERY capable of making significant changes to the global environment, even when we aren't trying to! It may be insignificant if you consider the planet as a whole and the adaptive ability of life but we aren't "life" in general, we are humans and our society is predicated on certain things - like having fossil fuels.

the need of oil exist only cause oil exist. when its depleted other need will takes it place

But the consequences are bigger than that, and I'm sure you realize that. Icecaps, glaciers, whatever is melting at a significant rate and it's enough to change the coastlines worldwide. Coastlines where a hell of a lot of major cities currently rest. That's just one minor example off the topic of my head. Even minor changes to the environment can change or destroy climates we depend on for crops, as another example. And, like I said, we don't even fully understand the climate on a global scale and it's so chaotic that you're really playing with fire if you simply think it's "oo boy, a little warmer" and that's it

yeah i do understand that and that is once again of no great importance, a few adaptations from our side and life sides and the new coast lines will be fine.
as for the hot thing its a joke, i live in sweden and its cold, i hate it
climate is chaotic yes but still predictible in some ways. Earth has been a tropical paradice, earth has been covered with ice from pole to pole so it doesnt really matters wich of those 2 it is aslongest its not the one with ice

Huh? It's not the "poor people in Africa" we need to worry about destroying the forests. It's industry.

thats where you are wrong
its africans that destroy the rain forest not industry. industry goes with
100 trees standing one tree down
99 trees standing one tree planted
then later you got 100 again, so buy tree damn it youre making them plant more trees that way

Ok, what the hell is a "galactic month". And you may not care about society-changing events (most would call it catastrophies) but that doesn't mean they're insignificant. Especially to our children, and their children, and so on - the people who have to LIVE with our screw-ups.

a galactic month is 1/12 of the time it takes our sun to complete one lap around the galactic center wich is from head somewhere around 250 million years

yeah they gotta live in our world we create so burn baby burn
as technology increase we get more and more controll over stuff. in the future we could simply extract the CO2 since we will most likly by then have a infinite source of energy. but i still dont see the problem society will adept and such and life goes.

Dont sound so heroic about "our children", what you care about is only your children and it just happen to be so they live at the same time as the rest of the worlds kids

Originally Posted by Zelos

I have to disagree with you. Some environmentalists really are kind of nutty and take it too far, sure. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the absolutely real and stone-cold serious realities about the changing environment.

chaning is natural for the planet. what we humans do is insignificant compared to what the planet and things outside of it can do in seconds.

Well, there's thousands of climate scientists disagreeing with you on this. What's your speciality, since you know something they don't?

Originally Posted by Zelos

Not only are we pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, using up all the fossil fuels at incredible rates and stripping the planet of its forests on a daily basis, but the global environment is such a complex beast that we can't even predict the consequences of these actions.

woho its getting hotter i hate cold id honestly burn everything on the planet if i knew i could get tropical heat everywhere on the planet

I guess you're joking, but I don't see the humour in this.

Take a crack course in ecology, please. And realise that we are currently destroying a lot of ecosystems vital to HUMAN survival. I'm talking fisheries and agriculture just to begin with.

Another thing, I read somewhere that you're Swedish. How would you like a million of climate refugees banging on your door? Climate change will likely force several hundred millions of people to try to relocate, as the ecosystems they live by collapse and the land they live on is flooded.

And, as the recent Stern report argued that the costs of climate change will be 5-10% of total global GDP, it's really nothing to laugh about.

Originally Posted by Zelos

the need of oil exist only cause oil exist. when its depleted other need will takes it place

The demand for oil exists because we were able to utilise stored solar power (coal, oil and gas) to create civilisation. Civilisation demands more, just to be able to continue to exist. When oil is gone, civilisation will be forced to find alternatives, but this will be difficult, due to the HUGE amount of energy we get from fossil sources each year.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Huh? It's not the "poor people in Africa" we need to worry about destroying the forests. It's industry.

thats where you are wrong
its africans that destroy the rain forest not industry. industry goes with
100 trees standing one tree down
99 trees standing one tree planted
then later you got 100 again, so buy tree damn it youre making them plant more trees that way

No, it's you that is wrong.

Why do the farmers burn the forest?
- Because they need land to grow grass and soy beans etc

Why do they need this?
- Because they want to feed cattle and export soy beans etc

Who buys this?
- Western meat industry and increasingly western transportation fuel industry

Who buys the meat and the fuel?
- You and me

Well, there's thousands of climate scientists disagreeing with you on this. What's your speciality, since you know something they don't?

i never said we humans dont do a impact, i just say its rather small compared to what nature can do. + news papers and politics love babbeling about this as in doomsday stuff since they get more peopel reading and more votes

I guess you're joking, but I don't see the humour in this.

the humor is that id acctually do it but since id ont burn i know it wont bring tropical heat here.

Take a crack course in ecology, please. And realise that we are currently destroying a lot of ecosystems vital to HUMAN survival. I'm talking fisheries and agriculture just to begin with.

ive read some and know quite well
humanity depends on things until the thing cease to exist and we get depended on other things. many animals have changed their ways just cause a species goes extinct.

Another thing, I read somewhere that you're Swedish. How would you like a million of climate refugees banging on your door? Climate change will likely force several hundred millions of people to try to relocate, as the ecosystems they live by collapse and the land they live on is flooded.

i wouldnt care, and as i said relocation is something minor. Its nothing special as for sweden id love to be relocated, anywhere more south is better than here.

And, as the recent Stern report argued that the costs of climate change will be 5-10% of total global GDP, it's really nothing to laugh about.

if this was a political report you can bet your sweet ass its to win votes.
i just read in the papers that mobile phones gives 39% increased risk for cancer in your brain wich is a fat lie.

The demand for oil exists because we were able to utilise stored solar power (coal, oil and gas) to create civilisation. Civilisation demands more, just to be able to continue to exist. When oil is gone, civilisation will be forced to find alternatives, but this will be difficult, due to the HUGE amount of energy we get from fossil sources each year.

*HOST* FUSION POWER *HOST* IS BIENG *HOST* DEVELOPED *HOST*

Why do the farmers burn the forest?
- Because they need land to grow grass and soy beans etc

Why do they need this?
- Because they want to feed cattle and export soy beans etc

Who buys this?
- Western meat industry and increasingly western transportation fuel industry

Who buys the meat and the fuel?
- You and me

so? its still their choice of cutting it down to survive in their way. they can quit at anytime and die if they want. we dont go there and begin harvesting the forests

Originally Posted by Zelos

a galactic month is 1/12 of the time it takes our sun to complete one lap around the galactic center wich is from head somewhere around 250 million years

Ok so if we screw things up to the point where it takes the planet 250 million years to recover, that isn't catastrophic in your eyes? :P We'll be extinct by then.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Zelos

a galactic month is 1/12 of the time it takes our sun to complete one lap around the galactic center wich is from head somewhere around 250 million years

Ok so if we screw things up to the point where it takes the planet 250 million years to recover, that isn't catastrophic in your eyes? :P We'll be extinct by then.

no a galactic year is 250 million year, a galactic month is 1/12 of that.
as i said no big deal, 65 million years isnt alot of time

Even 65 million years, we're prolly extinct. For humans, which is what we're talking about, that's an incomprehensibly long time.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Even 65 million years, we're prolly extinct. For humans, which is what we're talking about, that's an incomprehensibly long time.

incomprehensibly for normal people
some people can handle huge numbers

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Even 65 million years, we're prolly extinct. For humans, which is what we're talking about, that's an incomprehensibly long time.

incomprehensibly for normal people
some people can handle huge numbers

Like me, megabrain, Zelos, etc.

However, many theists find it impossible to comprehend long time spans like that. This is the main reason why Evolution is normally failed to be comprehended properly by them, they don't get the time span.

I'd also like to mention that, a lot of "normal" people can comprehend them. It just takes a bit of familiarity with such long time spans, or you can contemplate them until they make sense.

To me, geological time scales sound more accurate than human ones.

Originally Posted by Zelos

i never said we humans dont do a impact, i just say its rather small compared to what nature can do. + news papers and politics love babbeling about this as in doomsday stuff since they get more peopel reading and more votes

Read the IPCC 4th assessment report, due to be published today. It states that the probability of current climate change being anthropogenic is higher than 90%. So stop your statements of belief, and read the SCIENCE about this!

www.ipcc.ch

humanity depends on things until the thing cease to exist and we get depended on other things. many animals have changed their ways just cause a species goes extinct.

Sure, this is true, in principle.

But if your tribe lives by a certain crop, and you're unable to grow that crop because there's no rain, what do you do? You could try to relocate, but when you do, there's men with guns stopping you.

Stop being so promethean, this is a PROBLEM that won't go away just because we want it to!

i wouldnt care, and as i said relocation is something minor. Its nothing special as for sweden id love to be relocated, anywhere more south is better than here.

Huh? This is rather naïve, in my opinion.

if this was a political report you can bet your sweet ass its to win votes. i just read in the papers that mobile phones gives 39% increased risk for cancer in your brain wich is a fat lie.

So, you're a radiologist as well now? I guess you're one of those people that will deny any uncomfortable fact to the grave. And no, this is an economic report, not political.

*HOST* FUSION POWER *HOST* IS BIENG *HOST* DEVELOPED *HOST*

And I sure hope they will succeed. But this is far from a certain venture.

so? its still their choice of cutting it down to survive in their way. they can quit at anytime and die if they want. we dont go there and begin harvesting the forests

Edit: removing a few offending words and sentences.

It states that the probability of current climate change being anthropogenic is higher than 90%

i got no evidence going against you so i cant argue with you on this one but im still not saying that we humans havent caused anything. we most likly as you say have but i still compare it to other things and come to the conclution its like you taking a pee in the ocean and then try to measure the hieght differens. what nature can do is far worse than we can do today

But if your tribe lives by a certain crop, and you're unable to grow that crop because there's no rain, what do you do? You could try to relocate, but when you do, there's men with guns stopping you.

yeah that kinda suck. atleast i hope i had some sex then so my life wasent entirely wasted

Stop being so promethean, this is a PROBLEM that won't go away just because we want it to!

a problem never goes away just cause you look the other way. But you and many others blow it out of propotions. its still insignifican compared to what life have gone throu before us.

Huh? This is rather naïve, in my opinion.

well it doesnt really count now does it?
i hate cold, i want heat

So, you're a radiologist as well now? I guess you're one of those people that will deny any uncomfortable fact to the grave. And no, this is an economic report, not political.

no but ive meet enough scientists and made my own calculations based on QM and other physics and come to the conclution that radiowaves are unable to do it. it doesnt have enough energy

And I sure hope they will succeed. But this is far from a certain venture.

since they already come with the fusion reactor wich can sustain itself with enough energy it looks like it will be done

Edit: removing a few offending words and sentences.

what the?

Zelos, this "debate" is completely fruitless. All you really do is to repeat that "humans can't change the climate as much as nature itself".

This has been refuted again and again, and lastly in the IPCC report published today. So if you won't listen, I won't bother to discuss.

Originally Posted by kristian

Zelos, this "debate" is completely fruitless. All you really do is to repeat that "humans can't change the climate as much as nature itself".

This has been refuted again and again, and lastly in the IPCC report published today. So if you won't listen, I won't bother to discuss.

so we can change the climate more than nature can?
geex id like to see humanity erase all life on the planet in 5 seconds

Originally Posted by kristian

Zelos, this "debate" is completely fruitless. All you really do is to repeat that "humans can't change the climate as much as nature itself".

This has been refuted again and again, and lastly in the IPCC report published today. So if you won't listen, I won't bother to discuss.

ANY debate with Zelos is fruitless. He claims he'll change his mind when he's wrong...the problem is he never admits he's wrong. :?

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by kristian

Zelos, this "debate" is completely fruitless. All you really do is to repeat that "humans can't change the climate as much as nature itself".

This has been refuted again and again, and lastly in the IPCC report published today. So if you won't listen, I won't bother to discuss.

ANY debate with Zelos is fruitless. He claims he'll change his mind when he's wrong...the problem is he never admits he's wrong. :?

thats a lie ive been proven wrong on several occusaions on this forum and ive said i was wrong.
Im stubborn but im not that stubborn.

as you see i DONT say we haveNT made any different in climate, im just saying its insignifican compared to what nature can do

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Even 65 million years, we're prolly extinct. For humans, which is what we're talking about, that's an incomprehensibly long time.

incomprehensibly for normal people
some people can handle huge numbers

Oh gimmee a break. If someone says 65,000,000 years ago, or 300,000,000 years ago, there's really no difference in our heads. Sure numerically there's a difference and we're perfectly capable of dealing with it in that manner. But conceptually we don't get our heads around numbers that large. If you "visualize" the distance to the Sun, or to the next nearest star - what's the difference really? You ain't picturing either very well, the best you can do is lay down some numbers.
5 minutes ago, we have a sense of. 2 days ago, we have a sense of. Millions of years ago, don't even pretend like you do. Intuition is good for experiences our life prepares us for. Geologic time and astronomical distances are not included in that.

No, Zelos is right. In your head you may be able to see a large number, but can you really COMPREHEND how long such a time span is? It takes some thought for most, and is impossible for the rest.

I have seen it credibly calculated the the human mind cannot comprehend numbers larger than about 20,000 this is simply based on the fact that you cannot 'split' your vision into any smaller fragments they just blur like looking close up at your monitor by the time you are far enough away to see the whole thing, the individual dots have merged.
You can only imagine numbers as quantities, 1 one with seven zeroes does not mean you can visualise ten million - just seven digits!

Even if you try to imagine seeing a crowd stretching shoulder to shoulder right to the horizon, you will still only see several thousands. - remember also it is only a small portion of your central vision which has any real resolution anyway.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

No, Zelos is right. In your head you may be able to see a large number, but can you really COMPREHEND how long such a time span is?

Well that's what I'm saying. We can handle the numbers just fine but we have no real appreciation for that kind of time span. You and Zelos included, despite what might be claimed.

It takes some thought for most, and is impossible for the rest.

It's impossible for all.

I'd be very curious to see the type of study Megabrain is talking about. I think it'd be a difficult study to pull off because we can group things very well and then use our intuition on those groupings, rather than on the individuals. For example I've gone to dozens of Ohio State football games here in Columbus, and the crowd is usually around 105,000 people. Based on my knowledge about what "crowd of 105,000" looks like I can probably estimate crowds fairly accurately, in numbers much greater than the 105,000. But that's not because I just see the individuals and estimate how many individuals there are, it's because I know what a grouping of 100,000 looks like and can roughly make guesses based on that, if that makes sense.
But again if we're talking numbers in the millions, billions, and far beyond that kind of technique isn't going to help. 1e56 and 1e58 are vastly different quantities but to you and me the only difference is the digits. If we're talking meters then conceptually we are incapable of differentiating those distances.

Nuetrino,

With great respect I have not mentioned a study, my words were 'I have seen a credible estimate' that is a calculation of the equivalent pixel value of your vision, you cannot, in your mind, if your have normal vision, imagine an image in greater resolution than you can see in reality. Of course in your mind you can imagine zooming in but that is different - you are not seeing the entire contrent of the picture in one instant. You can also imagine walking along a line of people 12 deep for ever and walk past millions.

With your football stadium close you eyes imagine the stadium the whole crowd - place your self where you can see the entire crowd without moving your head or eyes, you will find this will put you so far away you can no longer distinguish between individuals, in your mind you can see the stadium and only a blur where the crowd is.

Ask yourself this, "If I drew this stadium and all the people in it [without counting them ] until it matched my memory, how many people would I actually have drawn ? "

Can you imagine the difference between the image of a crowd of 105,000 people and then the same size of crowd but all who weigh 85 pounds?

You know when your stadium is full and how many it can hold - but this is simply through learning you are not imagining or even seeing [in your mind] every individual]. - you are seeing an oval image of a stadium - with a 'blob' type mass for a crowd - and your brain is giving you a 5 digit sum. if you try to imagine any detail you will only see or be able to create a small portion of the crownd in detail. - Anyway that's off topic but I hope you think about this and not just dismiss it.

this is one area that will be different to different people. in trying to explain a light year in miles can cause nervous breakdowns to most and to others it no different then adding a pair of two's.

in one store i managed we had the jar full of beans, guessing game. people measured the jar and did all kinds of things. i don't remember the actual number, but was around five thousand. there were about 500 entries and most guesses ranged from a few hundred to a couple thousand. as i recall the ones over the total were well over and ten were close, the winner a couple hundred off.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Nuetrino,

With great respect I have not mentioned a study, my words were 'I have seen a credible estimate' that is a calculation of the equivalent pixel value of your vision, you cannot, in your mind, if your have normal vision, imagine an image in greater resolution than you can see in reality. Of course in your mind you can imagine zooming in but that is different - you are not seeing the entire contrent of the picture in one instant. You can also imagine walking along a line of people 12 deep for ever and walk past millions.

With your football stadium close you eyes imagine the stadium the whole crowd - place your self where you can see the entire crowd without moving your head or eyes, you will find this will put you so far away you can no longer distinguish between individuals, in your mind you can see the stadium and only a blur where the crowd is.

Ask yourself this, "If I drew this stadium and all the people in it [without counting them ] until it matched my memory, how many people would I actually have drawn ? "

Can you imagine the difference between the image of a crowd of 105,000 people and then the same size of crowd but all who weigh 85 pounds?

You know when your stadium is full and how many it can hold - but this is simply through learning you are not imagining or even seeing [in your mind] every individual]. - you are seeing an oval image of a stadium - with a 'blob' type mass for a crowd - and your brain is giving you a 5 digit sum. if you try to imagine any detail you will only see or be able to create a small portion of the crownd in detail. - Anyway that's off topic but I hope you think about this and not just dismiss it.

I agree with your point, that's kind of why I brought up the stadium situation. I am *not* visualizing 105,000 people individually, I am visualizing "105,000 people" as a rough unit. Aren't our points about the same? At any rate I realize you didn't mention a particular study but I'd still be interested in seeing that type of study.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

No, Zelos is right. In your head you may be able to see a large number, but can you really COMPREHEND how long such a time span is?

Well that's what I'm saying. We can handle the numbers just fine but we have no real appreciation for that kind of time span. You and Zelos included, despite what might be claimed.

Quite the opposite. Some people can do long division in 3 seconds, others take 5 minutes. You have no proof that it cannot be done.

Time wise, I see absolutely no problem with comprehending the long time span. In fact I wish I had lived that long, so much useful information to be had...

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

No, Zelos is right. In your head you may be able to see a large number, but can you really COMPREHEND how long such a time span is?

Well that's what I'm saying. We can handle the numbers just fine but we have no real appreciation for that kind of time span. You and Zelos included, despite what might be claimed.

Quite the opposite. Some people can do long division in 3 seconds, others take 5 minutes. You have no proof that it cannot be done.

Time wise, I see absolutely no problem with comprehending the long time span. In fact I wish I had lived that long, so much useful information to be had...

TO be had yes, but would you have learned anything?

Depends on if my brain didn't become so loaded with information it cooked itself.

So I'd assume no, the human body can't naturally survive that long without some sort of mental problem. even assuming you didn't age.

Oh, to be mean: I don't know megabrain, why don't you tell us

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Quite the opposite. Some people can do long division in 3 seconds, others take 5 minutes. You have no proof that it cannot be done.

Time wise, I see absolutely no problem with comprehending the long time span. In fact I wish I had lived that long, so much useful information to be had...

What does long division have to do with this? That's a computation, and as an analogy completely useless. No I don't have "proof" but this isn't exactly the type of topic you prove and disprove. I did a quick search for studies along these lines but didn't come up with anything - it's unfortunate. However it IS hard to argue with the fact that our intuition only prepares us to really understand things which are somehow relevant to our everyday experiences. So claiming to really, truly grasp distances and time spans many orders of magnitude greater than our lifespans seems about as outlandish as claiming to be able to read minds.