Are Repubs Or Dems More Likely To Survive The Apocalypse?

[Tundralag]

This was a way better thread when we were talking about surviving the apocalypse.

There i was outside the A&P at the start of the apocalypse when the EBT card system crashed.. Didnt think i would make it out alive..

[jeemie]

So, until someone offers a solution to this dilemma, I say hope for the best (i.e. the dire predictions are wrong). Otherwise, we might have a solution to the Fermi paradox.

I've believed all along in this solution to the Fermi paradox.

I believe intelligent technological species arise all over the universe- I believe very few of them survive to become spacefaring civilizations that leave a trace of themselves to be detected.

Because here we are a species that is intelligent enough to build a complex technical society, yet overwhelmingly we are ruled by instincts that arose hundreds of thousands of years ago when we were building stone tools, and it made evolutionary sense to be totally focused on short-term survival- there was neither profit nor reason to be thinking long term.

But our civilization is too complex and too brittle to be ruled by such instincts and survive in the long run. Intelligence allows for the environment to evolve much more rapidly than we as a species can evolve.

I would not be surprised if we are extinct or else drastically reduced as a species before the 22nd Century dawns.

[955876]

nor reason to be thinking long term.

And there it is. True hundreds of years ago and still very true today.

One day you are debating about global warming on a MB or maybe out playing a round of golf when you get a phone call that your wife needs to go to the ER.

A week later you've learned she has a very serious and inoperable brain tumor. In that moment your life has been completely and forever changed in a very dramatic & devastating way.

Love those close to you with everything you've got while you can because that call can literally come at anytime. And when it does everything else you thought you cared about suddenly becomes meaningless.

It has for me...

[Thrillsseeker]

nor reason to be thinking long term.

And there it is. True hundreds of years ago and still very true today.

One day you are debating about global warming on a MB or maybe out playing a round of golf when you get a phone call that your wife needs to go to the ER.

A week later you've learned she has a very serious and inoperable brain tumor. In that moment your life has been completely and forever changed in a very dramatic & devastating way.

Love those close to you with everything you've got while you can because that call can literally come at anytime. And when it does everything else you thought you cared about suddenly becomes meaningless.

It has for me...

Hey man, I'm not sure after reading that if that's the call you got and what your dealing with but damn, that made me stop and think for a minute. Appreciate what I have and how fortunate I am. Jeez man, my thoughts are with you and I hope your ok brother.

[COR-TEN]

I feel like y'all are over complicating things. Clouding issues with more issues is a good way to go nowhere fast. I feel like this thread is a good case study of how to not get shit resolved in politics. All over the map, not a single point agreed upon or resolved. Humans, despite thinking we do, do not group think well.

Like I said, it's just masturbation.

I totally agree, but it's not just politics. I remember a time when people engaged in real compromise and acted like community. Unfortunately, we've been culturally conditioned to think individualism(or personal freedom) is best and the only important thing - which appeals to the most visceral human emotion : selfishness. We are taught that we are not the center of the universe as children, yet this need to satisfy individualism before community is lost on us as adults. This is why the mantra "team" comes before individual stats in football. I guess that's is why I like football. This is not to say I don't condone personal freedom and freedom of choice, but I am willing to make sacrifices. I am a proponent of Gestalt. Loosely interpreted as: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, to quote Spock. We still haven't learned this because even in the apocalypse, the prevailing thought is look out for yourself and watch the perceived weak die off.

We are ruled by the social constructs that are created spontaneously from group behavior, and as Jeemie suggests, technology advances faster than those social constructs. The problem is that humans are the only species that trip over the same rock twice. Three times, even. Its not just technology that trips up humanity, its the idea that man can overcome the individual survival instinct and work together for the betterment of all. Both in the short term and the long. In the US at least, the problem is that short term difficulties and sacrifices aren't willing to be made. The constitution was written in the 1700's, yet we treat it as though it were the hand of god, written in stone, and no further developments should or can be made. I am hugely disappointed in man in that regard.

Over the last 30 years, people have been congealing on two sides, and ultimately there will be a breaking point or a place where equilibrium will force itself upon us. There is no equilibrium now. I firmly believe that the social engineering project called democracy and capitalism will come to a head with its unintended consequences. It has happened in the past with revolution and war. It will inevitably happen again because democracy and capitalism aren't perfect - even though many believe they are the best available. We have a culture of capitalism and a mutated democracy, and that is being exported everywhere as though it were going to solve everything. Everybody thinks it's the best thing ever invented as a social mechanism. it is not, and It’s a sad day when we think our way of life is the best and cannot be improved. Where are the forward thinkers?

Where is the next David Hume, Marx or Darwin, Locke or Payne? Confucius or Jefferson? Hammurabi or Lenin? Who or what is going to take us to the next level? Unfortunately, nobody seems to care or want change since it is difficult and painful.

[COR-TEN]

nor reason to be thinking long term.

And there it is. True hundreds of years ago and still very true today.

One day you are debating about global warming on a MB or maybe out playing a round of golf when you get a phone call that your wife needs to go to the ER.

A week later you've learned she has a very serious and inoperable brain tumor. In that moment your life has been completely and forever changed in a very dramatic & devastating way.

Love those close to you with everything you've got while you can because that call can literally come at anytime. And when it does everything else you thought you cared about suddenly becomes meaningless.

It has for me...

We talk on a forum because it's something to do. It in no way can be compared to serious life issues, but also cannot be ignored. Having said that, I hope all is ok with you and your family. I know what it is like to get blindsided, but it does make you think. Part of a buddhists training at the beginning is to sit and meditate over the grave of a loved one for an entire day. I agree. We need to be reminded of the life cycle. Every day.

[955876]

I know we talk, debate, argue on here because it's something to do. I've enjoyed the Steeler talk as well as the arguments. It's all for fun with people that at least share one common trait with that being the Steelers.

I'm not one to air private matters on a board with strangers but unfortunately what I described is what my life has suddenly become. Golfing one minute preparing for a club tournament, in the ER next, then sitting in an office having a man you've never met who has 20 years experience in brain surgery telling you it's far too dangerous to do surgery in this case.

Our only hope is that the tumor grades a 1 or 2 after biopsy rather than a 3 or 4. Either way we are devastated. Only on here now because my wife is resting and if I don't occupy my mind the anxiety becomes overwhelming.

This isn't anyone's issue and I didn't mean to gloom up the board. Carry on and enjoy the season. I won't be around here much moving forward if at all..

She's only 43 and will spend the rest of her life, however long that is, fighting this. With me helplessly along for the ride.

[COR-TEN]

...

Sorry to hear. . .

I wish you and your wife the best possible outcome.

[jeemie]

So sorry about this, 95.

[V DUB]

I know we talk, debate, argue on here because it's something to do. I've enjoyed the Steeler talk as well as the arguments. It's all for fun with people that at least share one common trait with that being the Steelers.

I'm not one to air private matters on a board with strangers but unfortunately what I described is what my life has suddenly become. Golfing one minute preparing for a club tournament, in the ER next, then sitting in an office having a man you've never met who has 20 years experience in brain surgery telling you it's far too dangerous to do surgery in this case.

Our only hope is that the tumor grades a 1 or 2 after biopsy rather than a 3 or 4. Either way we are devastated. Only on here now because my wife is resting and if I don't occupy my mind the anxiety becomes overwhelming.

This isn't anyone's issue and I didn't mean to gloom up the board. Carry on and enjoy the season. I won't be around here much moving forward if at all..

She's only 43 and will spend the rest of her life, however long that is, fighting this. With me helplessly along for the ride.

All the prayers I can pull off are in your direction man. Honestly have no words.

[Kodiak]

This was a way better thread when we were talking about surviving the apocalypse.

There i was outside the A&P at the start of the apocalypse when the EBT card system crashed.. Didnt think i would make it out alive..

Reps, if I could

[Kodiak]

An entire opinion piece (by the Heartland Institute, no less) that doesn't bring up any of the evidence for or against man's influence on climate change

And if I asked you for evidence to the contrary, would it mean anything? I mean, if you are going to be rigorous about pro-arguments you should at the least be equally rigorous about counter-arguments. Otherwise you're just attempting to defend something you want to believe.

I've read the research. Haven't yet met a "global warming supporter" who has that actually wants to defend the position.

[Kodiak]

The quoted contains nothing but empty rhetoric and vague references to established scientific facts..

Oh really? According to what "scientific" fact? Are you prepared to quote contradictory evidence? Or are you a pseudo scientist just regurgitating Politico and HuffPo?

And, by the way, I will test you on what you consider facts and why...so don't base it on what you read in the NY Post. And if you're just going to copy pasta me, don't waste my time...That's an answer in and of itself.

[Kodiak]

Sorry, 95...Makes everything else in this thread seem so small.

[Havoc]

95,

That is heartwrenching. I feel for you, brother.

[Havoc]

An entire opinion piece (by the Heartland Institute, no less) that doesn't bring up any of the evidence for or against man's influence on climate change, but instead talks about various polls that have been done about what scientists feel about it.

Do you not see how this is deflection from the actual argument about climate change itself?

Some of the arguments in this thread are appeals to authority citing numbers. Whether the article has any merit or is not, it does at least attempt to address this.

One of the co-authors...

"Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite."

He is listed on John Cook's skepticalscience.com website.

Interesting note...

Cook's website lists Dr. Spencer's bio and has a link to Wikipedia. Interesting that Cook does not list in this bio that Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist (according to wiki). Make of that what you will.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29

[Havoc]

Note the difference between something self-selected and self-published by some dude at the head of an institute as you have done versus something blind submitted and blind-peer reviewed as the Cook piece.

Lit,

I understand the difference, but it wasn't just some dude at an institute (see my previous post).

I take Cook's piece seriously.

I looked at the bios of everyone listed as John Cook's "Team" at skepticalscience.com. Not what I expected. But ok, fine.

From Cook's website...

"Naomi Oreskes predicted in 2007 that as human-caused global warming became settled science, fewer papers would see the need to explicitly endorse the consensus. For example, no research papers on geography currently need to state that the Earth is round."

And so if we question it, is it like questioning the earth is round?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=faq

[StillMadAtSlobber]

I know we talk, debate, argue on here because it's something to do. I've enjoyed the Steeler talk as well as the arguments. It's all for fun with people that at least share one common trait with that being the Steelers.

I'm not one to air private matters on a board with strangers but unfortunately what I described is what my life has suddenly become. Golfing one minute preparing for a club tournament, in the ER next, then sitting in an office having a man you've never met who has 20 years experience in brain surgery telling you it's far too dangerous to do surgery in this case.

Our only hope is that the tumor grades a 1 or 2 after biopsy rather than a 3 or 4. Either way we are devastated. Only on here now because my wife is resting and if I don't occupy my mind the anxiety becomes overwhelming.

This isn't anyone's issue and I didn't mean to gloom up the board. Carry on and enjoy the season. I won't be around here much moving forward if at all..

She's only 43 and will spend the rest of her life, however long that is, fighting this. With me helplessly along for the ride.

Oh man.

Best of luck, and try to keep whatever positive thoughts you can. Especially because you and any kids are going to be her anchors. Hopefully she can have that mindset also.

[jeemie]

An entire opinion piece (by the Heartland Institute, no less) that doesn't bring up any of the evidence for or against man's influence on climate change, but instead talks about various polls that have been done about what scientists feel about it.

Do you not see how this is deflection from the actual argument about climate change itself?

Some of the arguments in this thread are appeals to authority citing numbers. Whether the article has any merit or is not, it does at least attempt to address this.

One of the co-authors...

"Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite."

He is listed on John Cook's skepticalscience.com website.

Interesting note...

Cook's website lists Dr. Spencer's bio and has a link to Wikipedia. Interesting that Cook does not list in this bio that Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist (according to wiki). Make of that what you will.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29

Dr. Spencer also signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which declares, among other things:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance

[Havoc]

Dr. Spencer also signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which declares, among other things:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance

This is an A Priori position.

Good research, Jeemie. If I had known this, I would not have posted that article.

[Legacy User]

Definitely nothing to worry about.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253

Abstract

The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

[Kodiak]

Definitely nothing to worry about.

Perhaps if you read the actual research from a scientific view and didn't just spam us with an ignorant reporter's agenda. I'm not saying he's wrong, just likely ignorant.

Still waiting for those scientific facts...according to your scientific training.

[Legacy User]

I'm sorry Kodiak, didn't see an actual argument or refutation in your last post. I linked to the actual report, not a news website, Sport. Carry on!

[V DUB]

Oh man, Kodiak, please tell me you're not the type of dude that need absolute proof to change how you approach something. I honestly don't care if you believe in warming or not, but it sure as shit wouldn't affect you much to use practices that could potentially help, or at minimum slow down the process.

Thinking of it like an Agnostic that prays, "just in case".

[COR-TEN]

Oh man, Kodiak, please tell me you're not the type of dude that need absolute proof to change how you approach something. I honestly don't care if you believe in warming or not, but it sure as shit wouldn't affect you much to use practices that could potentially help, or at minimum slow down the process.

Thinking of it like an Agnostic that prays, "just in case".

Did I miss where Kodiak presented his science or his interpretation of selected science? All I hear is him calling everyone else's science bogus and interpreted by ignorant people.

[V DUB]

It doesn't require a scientific study to make the observation that a pile of plastic the size of a small country in the Pacific can't result in good things. That's like stepping outside in a Thunderstorm & checking the weather forecast to make sure it's raining. The amount of influence humans have on the environment shouldn't matter, the fact we're cognizant of the fact & turn a blind eye regardless does. It's fucking irresponsible, IMO, at minimum.

This was 4 pages back & got little to no response. In a nutshell, if people can't set aside issues or personal views long enough to even listen, what's the point of discussion? There's a warming issue...who/what the source of the issue shouldn't matter. The fact that no one can seem to get past the cause affects any resolution to said issue. It doesn't matter how much human involvement plays a part, the fact is humans play a part, at a greater level than any other species ever on the the planet. I only say that because we as a species are the only ones ever on the planet to recognize that fact & some choose to ignore it. Which is mind boggling to me. Worse than Do Do Birds, at least they weren't aware they were killing themselves.

[Kodiak]

Oh man, Kodiak, please tell me you're not the type of dude that need absolute proof to change how you approach something. I honestly don't care if you believe in warming or not, but it sure as shit wouldn't affect you much to use practices that could potentially help, or at minimum slow down the process.

Thinking of it like an Agnostic that prays, "just in case".

Nope. I'm the "type of dude" that understand real science, and the scientific method. I'd like to say more, but that says it all.

[Kodiak]

Did I miss where Kodiak presented his science or his interpretation of selected science? All I hear is him calling everyone else's science bogus and interpreted by ignorant people.

You can't prove a negative. This is a typically bullshit tactic.

If you want to link actual research, I'll pick it apart or not. Generally, when you want to support a non-obvious position, you're findings should be without fault. That's what is traditionally called "science". And that;s where Climate Research typically fails.

[Kodiak]

I honestly don't care if you believe in warming or not, but it sure as shit wouldn't affect you much to use practices that could potentially help, or at minimum slow down the process.

But what if it does affect our economy?!? Cannot one acknowledge global warming but disagree with the path and direction of "solutions"? What if one is alarmed over the focus on man's role, to the detriment of real, practical solutions?

The liberal solution is to chop down the trees to see the forest. I happen to think that won't matter.

[Kodiak]

By the way, before you guys spam me with research you haven't, or can't, read....a couple tips (and some of this is repetitive):

1) If it's less than 95% CI, it's garbage
2) If it less than 5% alpha, it's garbage
3) If the p-value is less than 5%, it's garbage

More rigorous SCIENTIFIC disciplines seek 1%( at least!) ...and still have many failures before being able to proceed. This is why the overfit models of Climate Research have failed often and early.