Earth 2100 - discussion

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
See I'm torn, because I'm very pro-green/environmentalist, but the damn NWO is using it as an excuse to control and possibly kill off people.

Not "kill off" people. Limiting births would have a surprisingly fast and similar long-term effect, and not involve killing anyone. Unfortunately, people are still animals, feel the need to breed, and consider it a fundamental right to do so. And there are more than a few religions that encourage that sort of thing, too. Those who want to "be fruitful and multiply" don't understand that to get the best fruit from a tree or bush, you have to frequently trim it back.

As for control, you're already controlled. You volunteer for it every time you log on to the Internet. So that's not an issue.

yes i wanna know what this is also? movie?

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
See I'm torn, because I'm very pro-green/environmentalist, but the damn NWO is using it as an excuse to control and possibly kill off people.

Not "kill off" people. Limiting births would have a surprisingly fast and similar long-term effect, and not involve killing anyone. Unfortunately, people are still animals, feel the need to breed, and consider it a fundamental right to do so. And there are more than a few religions that encourage that sort of thing, too. Those who want to "be fruitful and multiply" don't understand that to get the best fruit from a tree or bush, you have to frequently trim it back.

As for control, you're already controlled. You volunteer for it every time you log on to the Internet. So that's not an issue.

I think the answer is urbanization and contraception, not a one-child policy like China.

Originally posted by danglesnipes27
yes i wanna know what this is also? movie?

It's an ABC television special that aired last night.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I think the answer is urbanization and contraception, not a one-child policy like China.

Urbanization doesn't decrease energy consumption, though, it increases it. Although I'm all for turning some areas into satellite generated microwave laser power collecting stations. But I'm sure that will tear up some ecosystem.

Why not limit births? It's relatively easy, and instead of eating up more resources to build more infrastructure, it actually decreases resource consumption.

reply to post by Nohup


Because it's not easy. When people in the 40s and 50s told you that it is improper to talk about sex and that sex was bad, you know what happened? The baby boom. Meanwhile stroll a few decades over to the 70s and 80s when sex became common talk and not that important, and births lowered. Despite all the free sex, open discussion and acceptance of sex in the common world of discussion actually lowered the birth rates.

The moment you limit births and have any regulation on it, the complete opposite happens. China is only doing good with it because they went over to the next level and got the military involved, making it a criminal act. You want that, be my guest. You bring it to Europe and America? Viva la revolution!

a lot of bogus propaganda.

if you know anything about global climate you will see the fraud in there forecast of the future.

two glaring mistakes are one the desert southwest will become dryer.
and there will be a lot more hurricanes

both these will not happen. in fact just the opposite will happen.

as the earth warms EL Nino weather pattern will hit more often and finely became a permanent weather pattern.

two thing EL Nino weather pattern does are cut the number of hurricanes in the western hemisphere. and cause heavy rains in the desert southwest.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.cababstractsplus.org...
www.nationalgeographic.com...
geochange.er.usgs.gov...

this is why the global warmers/climate change people don't want to debate there side.

that know there are 1000s of researchers that have small pieces of the research that would prove them wrong.

this is just a couple of things they got wrong.

another part they claim that the cities will become hideout for the rich and walled off to protect the rich from the lawlessness of the rural country side.

I believe it would be just the opposite the lawlessness would be in the cities and the rural country side would protect themselves by hanging/shooting the criminals
the problem the cities would have is food they would not get food if the country side was out of control.
the rich would be a better targets living in the cities.
people in the cities expect the government to provide everything. when the government can not everything will break down.

People in the countryside take care of themselves.

The only way earth 2100 would have it there way would be if the anti gun people got there way and everyone was disarmed.
then you might have lawlessness in the countryside. but the cities would be hell.

The day the government quits trying to protect the people from criminals the people will take over protecting themselves with the rope and gun.
Shortly there will be many less criminals.

So much bull.
I saw the ride through Las Vegas.

Las Vegas in all probability would have the most reason
and money and impetus to incorporate Tesla technology
to power all their lights and make rain besides.

That town is not as dumb as ABC and the Illuminati pipe dreamers
that shape stupidity into our futures.

It was enough with the von Braun lies and Moon Landing.

Maybe I was the only person that noticed, but after the show was aired its producer explained that they were trying to portray a worst-case scenario and a fairly better one. By the way, this was said several times during the show as well. They weren't predicting the future, only showcasing something that has a comparatively low chance of happening.

Fearmongering? Maybe. But there are both benefits and drawbacks to hyperbolic media and their impacts vary from situation to situation. It's not necessarily inherently a bad thing that they show this rather than your everyday pessimism a la Al Gore, because we haven't seen the truth of what the future holds. Tactics like this only change the situation. They don't always pervert the cause.

One thing that I enjoy watching climate change deniers do is assume that any action taken to prevent something that may or may not happen will have negative consequences. Even if environmentalists turn out wrong entirely, at the end of this we will have advanced scientifically, found new ways to grow food, produce water and acquire energy. And while you may deny that global climate change is an issue, I doubt you can honestly believe that the world doesn't need (and will never need) more food, energy, medicine, and ability to protect itself from weather-related disasters.

Originally posted by Zomgoose


One thing that I enjoy watching climate change deniers do is assume that any action taken to prevent something that may or may not happen will have negative consequences. Even if environmentalists turn out wrong entirely, at the end of this we will have advanced scientifically, found new ways to grow food, produce water and acquire energy. And while you may deny that global climate change is an issue, I doubt you can honestly believe that the world doesn't need (and will never need) more food, energy, medicine, and ability to protect itself from weather-related disasters.

if you want to pay taxes and other money for it fine but i don't want to pay for a hoax.

Whats the difference? They take our tax money and reward the
banksters and greedy ceo's of corrupt corporations with it anyway.
Nah, dont worry your little heads 'bout it one bit.
It'll all be worked by smarter people than any of us.
Go back to sleep its all good.
It will all be hunky dory and just fine and dandy.
I'm sure in 2012 when we get a new president(palin) it will all change overnight and we will get all of it back plus interest in GM.(gubmint motors)
And we will pay less taxes to boot! Good luck with that.
Just glad we can keep our guns, whew.

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by Zomgoose


One thing that I enjoy watching climate change deniers do is assume that any action taken to prevent something that may or may not happen will have negative consequences. Even if environmentalists turn out wrong entirely, at the end of this we will have advanced scientifically, found new ways to grow food, produce water and acquire energy. And while you may deny that global climate change is an issue, I doubt you can honestly believe that the world doesn't need (and will never need) more food, energy, medicine, and ability to protect itself from weather-related disasters.

if you want to pay taxes and other money for it fine but i don't want to pay for a hoax.

If it's for a good reason, then yes, I do want to pay taxes for it. After all, that IS the point of government.

reply to post by Zomgoose


No. The point of government is to ensure the continuation of the people's way of life by their consent. It is not the consent of me nor most to pay taxes on something that is, as you claimed, improbably and a worst case scenario. As I've explained, this was a fear mongering Ceteris Paribus simulation. Look that up, and you might understand why it was impractical and foolish to do it.

In the last few decades we've invented stuff that star trek predicted would take 200 years. The simple fact is that most of the items in this show happened at times that they would be of no concern. How could virus spread and kill billion when medical technology is expected to reach God-like healing levels in just 20 years? How could the seas rise, and places drought? Are they dumb enough to miss the ability to filter out sea water and flood the deserts? How could they say China and India will go to way over water when China and India are coastal nations with enough nationalism and money to do as I just said? How could they be so idiotic as to seal the cities off at the end and fracture the US when the simple fact is that by 2100, we will be on other freaking solar systems, able to import or export whatever harmful items exist on this planet. How could they completely ignore the fact that we already know how to make bacteria that eat methane or CO2 and produce beneficial items with which we can make oil and plastics with? How could they completely ignore the other fact that within the next 20 years China or America, or both, will competition each other for moon and space bases that will harvest vast energy levels for us? How could they also forget that we've already cured problems with pests with genetically engineering food that bugs simple have no attraction to?

I could go on. But the fact is that it is Ceteris paribus, and therefore impossible to happen in the future. The only way this could happen is if every single scientist was killed today and all technological research halted until 2100. This TV show was retarded at best, and with a little common sense and knowledge, it becomes like bread with too much yeast: holes everywhere, with very little to eat.

reply to post by Gorman91
You're missing my point. I am saying that even if nothing remotely like that simulation happens, the act of preparing for those catastrophes will advance our scientific prowess and inadvertently help us develop answers to issues that already exist today. For example, if buildings such as Lucy's house in New York were more widespread (one that produces some of its own energy and grows some of its own food), we could end up with a surplus of food and resources that can be sold or given away to improve our economy and our standing with other nations (not to mention help people in other countries), which are 2 things the United States needs right now.

I completely agree with you that there's only a minuscule chance that those events will happen, and that they don't take technology into account. But the assumption that relevant technology doesn't exist is in itself an incentive to create it. Do you see now?

reply to post by Zomgoose


The technology already exists. It just isn't perfected yet.

Also, we already give away a lot of food. In addition, you could just as easily build vertical farms and not have to make every city smell like a farm. They're smelly enough as it is. Just plant trees that flower. Farm plants stink.

Also, the more you feed starving nations, the more dependent they get, and in addition, the greater hate they have for the hand that feeds them. It's far better to pay to improve their own lands, and pay to improve their own technology, rather than sell them food and suffer the crippling affects of being the hand that feeds, which usually results in many problems. Trade a few things they don't have, but you're far better off giving the other nation the pride of raising their own food, rather than the shame of feeling dependent.

The answer to global hatred for the US is not to give more of what we have. The answer is to conspire together to make others equal to our technological know-how and methods.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Gorman91]

We've been hosed:

Google book Gamov "Gravity"

Search 'floor' to get page 101 for earth wobble (pictured on 99) cause of
glacial responses.

You can't get page 100 for 'Milavkovitch' for further explanation.
Did not try to get page 99 with 'eccentricity' or 'axis' as key
search words.

Looks like the Russians are far more truthful scientifically with their
people or at least didn't go to the Moon so will the join the Green
Revolution globally.

Anyone want to butt up against Gore and his Illuminati minions
might have a chance with this information.

i still think we did go to the moon

Originally posted by Gorman91
i still think we did go to the moon

I agree. And I'm a Russian immigrant.

As to your other point, helping them develop would make sense if they could elect or get in some other way some decent leadership that will use the resources and knowledge we'd give them to help their country, rather than to run dictatorships.

reply to post by Zomgoose


Dictatorships only form in desperation. How many resource bountiful nations have dictatorships that last a long time? Once you give the people bountifulness, democracy comes naturally. When the people are well fed and happy, they think more. (the only reason Americans are fat and happy but not thinking is mainly from mass media, which 3rd world nations lack)

Even a dictator with absolute power cannot restrain his people when they become enlightened.

When a democratic movement begins in a nation with a bad economy and resources unavailable, you get deep social cleavages between people who side with the dictator and people who want democracy. Mexico and Iran are good examples. But just stroll over to China, America, Japan, etc etc and democracy all came on their own, abet with some push in Japan and some more push in China. But that's my point. See hoe quickly the Japanese went with democracy once they were given the opportunity after nationalism fell from grace?

Now yes, it is very likely that a dictator would resist this, and that's usually when covert or military action is needed. But most dictators fall easily if they don't surrender their power.


Basically, 3 key points are needed:

-Enlightened leaders and support of enlightenment from the majority
-Bountiful resources
-Aid from superpowers (but not intervention)

That's how every modern democracy started. It's sad we've forgotten, but that's the only way. It's how the US formed, it's how China is slowly becoming US-like, and it's how any democracy gets its starting.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Gorman91]

Americans are fat due to the Illuminati cartels feeding them sugar
and unnecessary carbohydrates.

Lets ban them like we do tobacco.

The same Illuminati cartels feed us democracy and freedom but
on their terms.

They wish to tell us tales of Earth 2100 under some freedom of
speech and should have the truth broadcast with equal time.