Jump to content

Apocalyptic Predictions About the Environment


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

My uncle raises cows as a retirement hobby.  I wrote my Auntie & Uncle, "Tell Charles to keep sendin' us that good cow, 'cause if the Environmentalist Wackos really are right, and if cow farts really are gonna destroy the Universe as We Know It in a few years anyway, at least we might as well eat good before it finally happens!" :D:rofl::D

Wish I had a relative who sent me steaks and hamburger issuing forth from his hobby. I think I’d like that better than zucchini. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not unfair. She is a public servant and is accountable for the tenor and content of her public statements. They are fair game for public response and commentary, just as mass media are accountable for what they publish or broadcast. She needs to put on her big-girl pants and recognize that. 
 

Her subsequent remarks blaming others for their reaction and casting aspersions on their intelligenceis a white wash. If you look at her original statement, which garbled what the UN body said, there is nothing in it to convey to a reasonable listener or reader that she was engaging in “dry humor” or “sarcasm.” It seemed in dead earnest, and nothing in it indicated otherwise. How is someone with normal intellect supposed to know she’s joking about that when she brings forth the “green new deal” and is serious?
 

But this has strayed into the political realm, so I won’t continue it. Just know in advance that whatever rejoinder you make I will probably disagree with but not respond to. 

In the year 2021 with the current President just caught on a phone call soliciting officials to actively commit election fraud you want to wax indignant about AOC’s COMMENT while opining about how public officials all need to be held accountable? That’s just sad.

It is in the political realm because YOU brought it up. It hasn’t strayed there. You deliberately drove over to it. Acting like this was beyond your control and that you will now bow out because the conversation went exactly where you intended it to is just silly and more of a dissembling cop-out than what you are accusing AOC of. Physician, heal thyself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wish I had a relative who sent me steaks and hamburger issuing forth from his hobby. I think I’d like that better than zucchini. 

I'll see what I can do. (It might require at least some in-real-life info from you, though.  I can tell you how to reach out to me if you're interested.) ;):P

Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In the year 2021 with the current President just caught on a phone call soliciting officials to actively commit election fraud you want to wax indignant about AOC’s COMMENT while opining about how public officials all need to be held accountable? That’s just sad.

It is in the political realm because YOU brought it up. It hasn’t strayed there. You deliberately drove over to it. Acting like this was beyond your control and that you will now bow out because the conversation went exactly where you intended it to is just silly and more of a dissembling cop-out than what you are accusing AOC of. Physician, heal thyself.

Um, check the thread title and see if Sandy Cortez’s overwrought handwringing doesn’t fit the definition. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'll see what I can do. (It might require at least some in-real-life info from you, though.  I can tell you how to reach out to me if you're interested.) ;):P

Sounds tempting, but I wouldn’t want to exploit a friendship in that manner. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

...It is going to require a lot of cooperation, massive alterations to our economic and social structures, a political will to collectively sacrifice for the greater good, and probably more. I am not optimistic.

This is the part that worries me. I'm not optimistic, either. If the major players globally were not, in general, basically organized crime bosses, I might feel more optimistic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, check the thread title and see if Sandy Cortez’s overwrought handwringing doesn’t fit the definition. 

I wouldn't characterize it as "overwrought handwringing" as that implies someone is just worrying without seeking to do anything about it. It is still politics though and that ominous message about politics still appears across the top of my screen when I log in and Nemesis stares at me with his blood red eyes in the corner as he monitors me on the webcam. Then he starts sharpening his machete and glaring. He is dedicated to his role.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I wouldn't characterize it as "overwrought handwringing" as that implies someone is just worrying without seeking to do anything about it. It is still politics though and that ominous message about politics still appears across the top of my screen when I log in and Nemesis stares at me with his blood red eyes in the corner as he monitors me on the webcam. Then he starts sharpening his machete and glaring. He is dedicated to his role.

Whether or not you accept my rhetorical characterization, it is still an “apocalyptic prediction about the environment,” however you slice it. And you indict me for driving this into the political realm when it was you who brought up Trump. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether or not you accept my rhetorical characterization, it is still an “apocalyptic prediction about the environment,” however you slice it. And you indict me for driving this into the political realm when it was you who brought up Trump. 

Nope, you brought in the first political figure. I just pointed out the rank hypocrisy and idiocy of just under half the people in the country trying to take a morally superior stance on upright political conduct right now. I plan to ignore them for the rest of their natural lives actually if they try to bring up the topic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, smac97 said:

By "it" I meant "environmentalism."

Sure.  But how much of "environmentalism" is alarmist?  Excessive?  Based on ulterior motives (money, governmental power/policy/influence)?  How much credence should we give to environmental alarmism?

The same can be said of our current physical bodies (we'll eventually get new ones), but that does not absolve us of the responsibility to take care of them in the here and now.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a pretty big disconnect between A) the good and wholesome, and yet also measured and reasonable, calls for environmental stewardship, and B) the politicizes, alarmist, misanthropic, doom-n-gloom, very-likely-to-have-ulterior-motives alarmism being peddled all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we each need to draw the line where we see fit.  It is a personal choice and ANY level of concern for the environment should be seen as a good thing, in my perspective. 

For example, regarding automobiles, some people choose to purchase and drive so-called gas guzzlers and the mere fact that the vehicles consume so much petrol/gasoline and pollute the air propels some OTHER people to seek to outlaw ALL gas guzzlers because they just can't tolerate the idea that any gas guzzler should exist as a choice of an automobile to purchase and drive.  Even if the people driving the gas guzzlers get their own oil out of the ground to produce their own petrol/gasoline and have so much oil and gas  left over that they sell their excess on the open market.

Meanwhile, back at my ranch, I drive my pickup truck as often as I want to so that I can carry whatever I want to carry in my truck and it doesn't bother me one bit that I drive my truck as much as I want to.  Even if other people have a hissy fit about it.

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, you brought in the first political figure. I just pointed out the rank hypocrisy and idiocy of just under half the people in the country trying to take a morally superior stance on upright political conduct right now. I plan to ignore them for the rest of their natural lives actually if they try to bring up the topic.

You will have to ignore the internet too - - -

the-problem-with-quotes-on-the-internet.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post

 

On 1/3/2021 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

C. The leaders of the Church have, it seems, not really weighed in on the doom-and-gloom predictions noted above.  Does this affect your perspective on those predictions?  Why or why not?

Quote

Wasn’t the earth created with enough resources for all?
The earth is endowed with an array of natural resources that will provide for the human family if they are used as the Lord instructed—to care for the poor and the needy and not use more than is needed (see Doctrine and Covenants 104:14–18); to avoid waste (see Doctrine and Covenants 49:19–21); and not to forcibly take resources from another (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:20). The fulness of the earth is to be used with wisdom and restraint.

Big "if" (literally, I made it 36 font size :))!

Sounds to me like a promise of doom-and-gloom if things don't change on a global scale.  Generally speaking, it seems to me that humans are more concerned with the worship of mammon in self-interest than they are concerned about the poor and the environmental sustainability of such life-styles on a global scale.   I am afraid that too many consume in a blind state of comfortable complacency (including myself in many ways).   Does anyone truly believe that first-world life-styles are environmentally sustainable on a global scale?  

When stepping back and looking at the global disparities between the rich and poor, with most living in poverty or extreme poverty ("to care for the poor and the needy"), when looking at the excesses in consumption ("not use more than is needed") and waste ("to avoid waste"), war's and forcible takeover of resources ("not to forcibly take resources from another"), I would say that overall, we are miserably failing to satisfy that big "if" and absolutely will suffer the environmental doom-and-gloom consequences in days to come.    Something HAS to change or it is inevitable.  Some have tried to predict time-tables for such consequences and have failed.  But just as there have been many false prophecies regarding the return of the Lord, those false prophecies should in no way dissuade us from believing that he will indeed return someday and that we should prepare.  It should be no different with this.  We have been warned. 

 


 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

6C6261EB1A6D2682F33E8B839741CFCBE5C5E98A

Oh?  Are you saying Einstein was the reincarnation of Isaac Newton?  Where is Newton/Einstein spirit embodied today?  :blink:

Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wish I had a relative who sent me steaks and hamburger issuing forth from his hobby. I think I’d like that better than zucchini. 

 

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'll see what I can do. (It might require at least some in-real-life info from you, though.  I can tell you how to reach out to me if you're interested.) ;):P

 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sounds tempting, but I wouldn’t want to exploit a friendship in that manner. 

You wouldn't be. :) 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

The earth is endowed with an array of natural resources that will provide for the human family if they are used as the Lord instructed—to care for the poor and the needy and not use more than is needed (see Doctrine and Covenants 104:14–18); to avoid waste (see Doctrine and Covenants 49:19–21); and not to forcibly take resources from another (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:20). The fulness of the earth is to be used with wisdom and restraint.

Big "if" (literally, I made it 36 font size :))!

Sounds to me like a promise of doom-and-gloom if things don't change on a global scale. 

Really?  Where?  What is the "doom and gloom" you see here?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Generally speaking, it seems to me that humans are more concerned with the worship of mammon in self-interest than they are concerned about the poor and the environmental sustainability of such life-styles on a global scale.

It also seems to me that a lot of the people who are propagating environmental alarmism are grossly hypocritical, and are also dilettantes.  Consider these remarks by Norman Borlaug (emphases added) :

Quote

Called "arguably the greatest American in the 20th century," during his 95 years, Norman Borlaug probably saved more lives than any other person.

He is one of just six people to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And yet Borlaug, who died three years ago today, is scarcely known in his own country.

Born in Iowa in 1914, Borlaug spent most of his life in impoverished nations inventing, improving and teaching the "Green Revolution." His idea was simple: Make developing countries self sufficient in food by teaching them how to use modern agricultural techniques that are easy to implement. Borlaug spent most of his time in Mexico, Pakistan and India, and focused on five areas: crop cultivars (seeds), irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides and mechanization. His successes were remarkable.

In 1950, Mexico imported over half of its food. Thanks to Borlaug's efforts to convince farmers there to try his techniques, Mexican food production increased 10-fold by 1970, and the country had become a net exporter. In India and Pakistan, production doubled. In 1999, the Atlantic Monthly estimated that Borlaug's efforts, combined with those he trained and equipped, saved the lives of 1 billion human beings.

Shockingly, the Green Revolution was almost entirely funded by developing countries and private charities (notably the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations), rather than by the governments of prosperous nations. At the time, the overwhelming view of academic and political elites in the wealthy countries was that it was already too late.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller "The Population Bomb" typified this attitude. Ehrlich wrote, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." He later said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971," and "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." Required reading at many colleges, Ehrlich's book stated that it was "a fantasy" that India would "ever" feed itself.

Ehrlich, who was wrong about several things, was ignorant of what Norman Borlaug was already in the process of accomplishing.

In the introduction to a 2000 interview with Borlaug, Reason magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote, "In Pakistan, wheat yields rose from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 8.4 million in 1970. In India, they rose from 12.3 million tons to 20 million. And the yields continue to increase. Last year [1999], India harvested a record 73.5 million tons of wheat, up 11.5 percent from 1998. Since Ehrlich's dire predictions in 1968, India's population has more than doubled, its wheat production has more than tripled, and its economy has grown nine-fold."

In spite of Ehrlich's claims, Borlaug had India feeding itself within a mere five years of his book release. Also around the time of Ehrlich's misguided doom-mongering, Borlaug's colleagues at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research were spreading his ideas about high-yield rice through Asia, causing another food production explosion. Towards the end of his life, Borlaug was working to institute his agricultural revolution in Africa.

No good deed goes unpunished, so we shouldn't be surprised that Borlaug was attacked by proponents of the trendy new faith of radical environmentalism because Green Revolution farming requires some pesticide and lots of fertilizer. Gregg Easterbrook quotes Borlaug saying the following in the 1990s:

"(Most Western environmentalists) have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists in wealthy nations were trying to deny them these things."

The same can be said for a lot of the measures called for by today's environmental alarmists.

Quote

Borlaug was correct: "Environmentalists" and their allies pressured the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the World Bank and Western governments to drop funding and support for the great humanitarian as he was trying to expand his efforts into Africa. As a result, it is no surprise that the continent is doing the poorest at feeding its people.

There's an old proverb: "He who has bread has many problems. He who has no bread has only one problem." Today, the talk is all about demands for massively intrusive government interventions requiring trillions of dollars to address deeply speculative problems 100 years hence supported by highly suspicious computer models and data. Much less is said about solving real current problems using proven methods pioneered by Norman Borlaug that require much smaller sums.

More than 40 years ago Borlaug wrote, "One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy." 

Some things never change.

Yep.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am afraid that too many consume in a blind state of comfortable complacency (including myself in many ways).   

I agree.  We can find ways to improve on this point.  

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does anyone truly believe that first-world life-styles are environmentally sustainable on a global scale?  

When stepping back and looking at the global disparities between the rich and poor, with most living in poverty or extreme poverty ("to care for the poor and the needy"), when looking at the excesses in consumption ("not use more than is needed") and waste ("to avoid waste"), war's and forcible takeover of resources ("not to forcibly take resources from another"), I would say that overall, we are miserably failing to satisfy that big "if" and absolutely will suffer the environmental doom-and-gloom consequences in days to come.   

Again, what "consequences" are you referencing here?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Something HAS to change or it is inevitable.  Some have tried to predict time-tables for such consequences and have failed.  But just as there have been many false prophecies regarding the return of the Lord, those false prophecies should in no way dissuade us from believing that he will indeed return someday and that we should prepare.  It should be no different with this.  We have been warned. 

Warned by whom?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Really?  Where?  What is the "doom and gloom" you see here?

The Church clearly published this to counter popular religious-right arguments against environmentalism which suggest that the earth is bountiful and that there is resources enough for all.   Another popular argument from the same group that they countered is this - "If the earth will be changed at the Second Coming of Jesus, why does it matter if we care for the earth and conserve?"

Here is the quote by the church in question:

Quote

Wasn’t the earth created with enough resources for all?
The earth is endowed with an array of natural resources that will provide for the human family if they are used as the Lord instructed—to care for the poor and the needy and not use more than is needed (see Doctrine and Covenants 104:14–18); to avoid waste (see Doctrine and Covenants 49:19–21); and not to forcibly take resources from another (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:20). The fulness of the earth is to be used with wisdom and restraint.

My question to you is what is not doom-and-gloom about not having enough resources to provide for the human family if we fail to use them as the Lord instructed?  In counter to this popular religious anti-environmental claim the church answered that we will have enough if, and only if, we do as he commanded with the resources provided to us.

The question is, are we living up to the Lord's instructions on a global scale?  If not (and without change), then the church suggests that we cannot trust that there will be resources enough (doom-and-gloom). 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It also seems to me that a lot of the people who are propagating environmental alarmism are grossly hypocritical, and are also dilettantes.  Consider these remarks by Norman Borlaug (emphases added) :

 That's all great and dandy, but I am confused as to how it addresses any of my comments.  This ignores the points that the Lord instructed (and which I made) about using the Earth's resources 1) to care for the poor and needy, 2) to not use more than is needed, 3) to avoid waste, and 4) to not forcibly take resources from another, and instead it builds up a straw-man attacks on environmental extremists.  If you are not grouping me with these extremists, then surely you can see how your comments are not really relevant or applicable to anything I said. 

I'd rather an environmental "dilettante" than an outright antagonist, to be honest. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

If I was going to construct a new and improved version of Hell, my most powerful misery generator would be the endless use of scripture to push obfuscated political agendas.

Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Oh?  Are you saying Einstein was the reincarnation of Isaac Newton?  Where is Newton/Einstein spirit embodied today?  :blink:

Since he “invented” electricity you probably have to add in Benjamin Franklin too.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Chum said:

If I was going to construct a new and improved version of Hell, my most powerful misery generator would be the endless use of scripture to push obfuscated political agendas.

Oh wow! Can I help you run this? I would be really good at it. Seriously, I once wrote up a piece using Bible and Book of Mormon scripture to support fascism to confuse someone.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh wow! Can I help you run this? I would be really good at it. Seriously, I once wrote up a piece using Bible and Book of Mormon scripture to support fascism to confuse someone.

I actually need someone to manage the circle where callings are issued w/o needed training & then obstructed when finally figured out.

Interested?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, you brought in the first political figure. I just pointed out the rank hypocrisy and idiocy of just under half the people in the country trying to take a morally superior stance on upright political conduct right now. I plan to ignore them for the rest of their natural lives actually if they try to bring up the topic.

I brought in the first political figure because her remark and behavior fit the thread topic as though it were tailor-made for her. Your bringing up Trump was gratuitous what-about-ism. The thread has nothing to do with Trump. Trump has not made apocalyptic predictions about the environment. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Alas!  I fear I've driven him away permanently! :(  

Kenngo1969, I want to apologize for picking on you. I've been defensive since I came on here and I need to stop doing that. I dont pick on people in real life, and for some reason when I come on here I feel like I have to always be looking behind me, like somebody's waiting to stab me. My wife told me I need to grow a thicker skin while online and as usual, she's correct. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I brought in the first political figure because her remark and behavior fit the thread topic as though it were tailor-made for her. Your bringing up Trump was gratuitous what-about-ism. The thread has nothing to do with Trump. Trump has not made apocalyptic predictions about the environment. 

Oh, but he has:

"The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, OK? They’re at a record level."

Records? Does he know how big they used to be? He clearly thinks we are all going to die in an ice age!

Before you whine about me taking what he said literally when he probably didn’t mean exactly that remember what started this derail. 

 

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Ah, yes, the Chinese invented it and if we give into them by making things greener we are all going to turn into commies or be destroyed economically and we will all die. Standard apocalyptic conspiracy mongering. Emphasis on conspiracy since China wasn’t one of the biggest peddlers of the idea. They have taken over though. Once the US abandoned its stance as the global leader of the fight to mitigate climate change China has taken a leading role. Hopefully with actual competent diplomacy we can claw that back but we’ll see. Then again we need to get away from “global laughingstock” first before leadership is possible. Oh, and to complete the symmetry he later claimed that this was “a joke”. Do you believe him? He flip-flopped again later claiming he “probably called it a hoax”. Then he denied he had ever said it was a hoax during one of the debates. Then he flip-flopped back and forth a lot more depending on who knows what?

 

Still too vague and not apocalypticish enough for you? Trump and three of his children were signatories to this letter to then-President Obama:

“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

If we fail to act now (back in 2009) it will be catastrophic. Very apocalyptic talk. Of course he flip-flopped on that a year later. He then flip-flopped back when he wanted to build a sea wall at his resort in Ireland in 2016 to hold back the rising oceans.

 

When you introduced your favorite pet quote for a cheap political jab why should we stop there? There is a lot of much greater equally relevant idiocy out there.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...