My take on a common argument made regarding Global Warming

[Snorri1234]

1 germ = possible infection of multiple people
100 germs = possible infection of hundreds of people
1 person = not enough to protect the environment
100 people = a little better, but nowhere close
10000 people = still not enough

Do you see where I'm going with this? One person doesn't mean jack squat, while 1 germ can lead to the death of 1/3 of Europe. Analogy = suck.

Oh I see where you are going with this. It's just that it doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the original point.

The point wasn't that humans are like germs because they can kill an organism much bigger than themselves on their own. And if that wasn't the point, then your random thought-process has nothing to do with it. It's like comparing apples to oranges and then making a strawberry-banana milkshake, it doesn't make any sense because it's unrelated.

[black elk speaks]

1 germ = possible infection of multiple people
100 germs = possible infection of hundreds of people
1 person = not enough to protect the environment
100 people = a little better, but nowhere close
10000 people = still not enough

Do you see where I'm going with this? One person doesn't mean jack squat, while 1 germ can lead to the death of 1/3 of Europe. Analogy = suck.

Oh I see where you are going with this. It's just that it doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the original point.

The point wasn't that humans are like germs because they can kill an organism much bigger than themselves on their own. And if that wasn't the point, then your random thought-process has nothing to do with it. It's like comparing apples to oranges and then making a strawberry-banana milkshake, it doesn't make any sense because it's unrelated.

yes, your post there is very random and hard to follow. my point is this. you can look at 6.7 billion people and say that they all make a big impact on the planet. this is true, i think we can all agree. but if you say that only 1 person makes no impact, then you are wrong because that person actually makes 1/6,700,000,000th of an impact. if all 6.7 billion people make a concerted effort to make a difference then they can.

there is a neat philosophy that can be used to make sweeping changes in the way that people can learn and change the way that they do things. its called "the hundredth monkey"

read about it here:
http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/monkey.html

ine person can make a difference by making a positive change in their community and set it forth as an example.

[pancakemix]

1/6.7 billionth = not a whole lot. If one person tries to save the environment while the rest of the world pollutes, what do they accomplish? Sure, it means SOMETHING, but that's what a smart-alec would say. You can only get a big job done with everyone's help. Meanwhile, a single germ can affect one person easily and spread on to other people.

I don't disagree with what it's trying to say, but it's still a bad analogy.

[Snorri1234]

I don't disagree with what it's trying to say, but it's still a bad analogy.

NO IT IS NOT!


Dictionaries don't tell time, so comparing them to watches in that regard is stupid.


But it isn't about that. Analogies aren't literal. Comparing is always faulty when taken at a whole because the things are different, it's why you make a comparison. You can't say the taste of an orange was "exactly like the taste of an orange" because it's fucking stupid. f*ck you and your "humans aren't like viruses because so and so"-argument, it's not about that! It's like you're purposefully trying to act like an ignorant fool, either that or you're a retard who doesn't grasp the meaning of "analogy".

Let's take the definition from the dictionary: (Yay to you snorri for being a pedantic arse)

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:

It doesn't fucking say: "After which you have to point out the features which are not alike." It's not about that!

[black elk speaks]

1/6.7 billionth = not a whole lot. If one person tries to save the environment while the rest of the world pollutes, what do they accomplish? Sure, it means SOMETHING, but that's what a smart-alec would say. You can only get a big job done with everyone's help. Meanwhile, a single germ can affect one person easily and spread on to other people.

I don't disagree with what it's trying to say, but it's still a bad analogy.

your missing the analogy. read this and understand that there are good and bad germs:

http://www.utne.com/2001-11-01/GoodGermsBadGerms.aspx

there are germs that kill and germs that kill germs that kill. if not for the good germs then the bad germs would win. germs do not have a consciousness (at least that i know of) but if they did, imagine if you will that what these germs are saying to each other

bad germ: "screw this place, i am going to throw my waste right into the blood stream, its not my problem"

good germ: "look at that asshole. he is throwing his trash right into the blood stream "hey asshole germ, don't you know that you are going to kill our host?""

bad germ:"screw you pal, who put you in charge!"

~body feels sick, goes to the doctor, gets antibiotics, bad germs get their germy butts kicked...

sure, its a little silly, but the point is, if you aren't that 1 person that makes a statement, then the people around you will not get the idea. then they can't spread the idea. its not a bad thing, in fact, you seem to have the idea that the media is a bad thing. its not. it is how we get information. it is up to us to process it and use it to change.

[Jenos Ridan]

put holes in the ozone layer.

I've only heard of the one over anarctica, which, last I heard, might be the result of how the atmosphere works. If holes were made, wouldn't they be all in the northern hemisphere (someone once told me that is it comparible to the effect of a bong, the chemicals flow to the bottom or some such. Sounded like a load of bollocks to me)?

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, with bacteria, it only takes one. If one bacterium/virus infects one cell, it mass produces genetic code and can spread throughout the body. If one person tries to change the environment, it doesn't make 1000 people do their part, and those people making 1000 more people each want to help, etc, ad infinitum. Unless of course, that person is a politician.

Not really.




Viruses do use our cells to help them reproduce (infect us with their genetic code , which is why they are only "quasi living"), but bacteria are organisms that reproduce like any other single celled organism. For one bacteria to infect would be pretty improbable. Not impossible, but improbable. Our bodies' defenses are pretty good (in healthy folks.)

A bigger danger is that bacteria can sometimes exchange genetic material with a similar type bacteria. E Coli (found in everyone's guts ... usually innocuous, but dangerous strains have emerged recently.) is close enough to Cholera, for example that they essentially combine and "mate" (loose comparison ... study your textbook for the full info). That is how antibiotic resistant Cholera strains emerged. The E Coli developed resistance and then passed it on to the Cholera. This is yet another reason why we need to use all our antibotics ...to kill as many of all bacteria in our bodies as we can.

[PLAYER57832]

put holes in the ozone layer.

I've only heard of the one over anarctica, which, last I heard, might be the result of how the atmosphere works. If holes were made, wouldn't they be all in the northern hemisphere (someone once told me that is it comparible to the effect of a bong, the chemicals flow to the bottom or some such. Sounded like a load of bollocks to me)?

No, there are several holes. And, because our world's air currents move and are tied together, the pollutants are found everywhere. The holes appear at the poles, not because of the "bong affect", but because the layers are thinner there to begin. A small hole IS natural, but it is getting bigger and is no longer seasonal.

[PLAYER57832]

i hear that the energy that is saved from recycling one aluminum can is enough to power one tv set for the entire duration of the super bowl game.

You hear, so it must be true. This is the problem. The media has absolute control over us. What they say, the vast majority will believe. I wonder how much actual history varies from US history books.


We can't know if the energy saved from one aluminum can being recycled can power a tv for a year. But that's what we are told. There has to be a place we can draw the line, otherwise nothing can prevent the media from controlling us.

highlighted one critical point for emphasis....


Jay, you make it clear you have not studied much science. It is not "media control". It is understanding based upon understanding. You have to learn to read before you can write a novel. You have to learn to add before you can multiply and do both before you learn algebra or trig. When you say that you don't know how much energy comes from an aluminum can, you are effectively saying you never learned to read or add... and so algebra cannot be true!

I won't go into the whole pathway right now. I am tired and, as I have said before, the information IS out there if you wish. I will direct you to how you can find the information. (better anyway ... you need to discover it for yourself or you won't believe).

Figure out how much energy and such it takes to mine aluminum. Don't forget cleanup of pollutants, the transport of the materials .... etc. Then find out what it takes to make a can in a factory. If you have TV, either old Mr Roger's shows or the new Discover show "how it works" will go into the process. (the Discover show is naturally more detailed and up to date).

THEN compare that to what it takes to recycle a can.

Anyway, this is hardly rocket science Jay. If you are going to disbelieve something so concrete, so absolutely verifiable, then it is not about the media ... it is about you being too lazy to check it out for yourself. (and yes, it does take time and effort to check it out ... which is why most of us do check out some things and trust others).

[Neoteny]

Actually, with bacteria, it only takes one. If one bacterium/virus infects one cell, it mass produces genetic code and can spread throughout the body. If one person tries to change the environment, it doesn't make 1000 people do their part, and those people making 1000 more people each want to help, etc, ad infinitum. Unless of course, that person is a politician.

Not really.




Viruses do use our cells to help them reproduce (infect us with their genetic code , which is why they are only "quasi living"), but bacteria are organisms that reproduce like any other single celled organism. For one bacteria to infect would be pretty improbable. Not impossible, but improbable. Our bodies' defenses are pretty good (in healthy folks.)

A bigger danger is that bacteria can sometimes exchange genetic material with a similar type bacteria. E Coli (found in everyone's guts ... usually innocuous, but dangerous strains have emerged recently.) is close enough to Cholera, for example that they essentially combine and "mate" (loose comparison ... study your textbook for the full info). That is how antibiotic resistant Cholera strains emerged. The E Coli developed resistance and then passed it on to the Cholera. This is yet another reason why we need to use all our antibotics ...to kill as many of all bacteria in our bodies as we can.

Conjugation for everyone!