0

I'ts very interesting to see what people are most concerned about in the world today. And most of these things affect us all in some way or other.

22
Contributors
132
Replies
133
Views
12 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by hopalongcassidy
0

Well, anyway, the options were going to be:

1.Global warming

2.World Economy

3.Conflict

4.Crime

I would have to say global warming myself. But that doesn't mean YOU do.

0

Global warming is just a lot of hot air, it doesn't exist (at least not in the way the treehuggers claim).

The world economy isn't any worse overall than it has been in a long time, though there are local problems in Europe.

There's never been less wars and conflict than now and what there is doesn't affect me directly.

Crime is bad, but not a lot worse than in the past.

Overall, economics and crime affect me the most but not at a global scale.

The only worries I have about "global warming" is the incredible amount of resources being wasted on it that could be far better spent fighting crime and improving the economy.

0

Global warming is just a lot of hot air, it doesn't exist (at least not in the way the treehuggers claim).

I am not a treehugger, neither am I a gas and coal powered maniac. But global warming does exist and in the long term it is the most influential current affair. :-|

0

I would have to say confilct. I live in the US and it worries me that we are always into other countries affairs, and not worried about our own well being.

Next, I would have to say economics. These high gas prices cause a chain of reactions. First, you can't drive many places which causes stores to lose buisiness. They in turn raise prices, and it just keeps going from there.

0

I am not a treehugger, neither am I a gas and coal powered maniac. But global warming does exist and in the long term it is the most influential current affair. :-|

I don't think global warming is even the most important of them... what I'm worried about is the environment in general. Now Bush is drilling in Alaska and is going to log the sequioas, because they are a 'fire hazard'... I am worried of the pillaging of the natural world just so some company can make more profits. If the western world wouldn't antagonize the middle east, then maybe our oil prices wouldn't be so high. Well maybe people wouldn't be so pissed if they didn't drive $50,000 mobile fortresses that get half a mile to a gallon. It is a sad state of affairs in the world when people are more worried about high prices than genocide in Africa.

0

If the western world wouldn't antagonize the middle east, then maybe our oil prices wouldn't be so high. Well maybe people wouldn't be so pissed if they didn't drive $50,000 mobile fortresses that get half a mile to a gallon. It is a sad state of affairs in the world when people are more worried about high prices than genocide in Africa.

First of all, have you ever heard of a thing called supply and demand? Oil is being produced as FAST as it can possibly be produced. The western world "antagonizing"(as you put it) the middle east has nothing to do with oil prices. The demand is simply to high.


Wait a minute, you just were bashing intervention into other nations, and now your saying we need to worry about genocide in Africa? Your spinning what you just said?

0

First of all, have you ever heard of a thing called supply and demand? Oil is being produced as FAST as it can possibly be produced. The western world "antagonizing"(as you put it) the middle east has nothing to do with oil prices. The demand is simply to high.

Not only is this true, oil being pushed up in price is a good thing in the long term - it means that our oil won't run out as quickly. Remember once the oil goes away, no more plastic...and that means no more TV, consoles, and of course PC's :sad:

[edit:BTW, congrats on 500 posts server_crash :mrgreen: ]

0

I am not a treehugger, neither am I a gas and coal powered maniac. But global warming does exist and in the long term it is the most influential current affair. :-|

Wrong. The TOTAL effect of human activity on the global climate is so small as to be impossible to measure against the inaccuracy of the data used.

While the climate is indeed changing, that's not because of any human activity but purely due to natural changes that would happen no matter what we did to either accellerate it or slow it down.

For example, the entire benefit of the Kyoto debacle (which will destroy the economies of the countries foolish enough to have comitted to it) will be AT MOST a 0.7 degree drop in average global temperature over a 50 year period.
That's about 3 times smaller than the minimum detectable change over such a period that's statistically significant.

Remember that we're living in an interglacial. That's a period of time between two glacial eras. Such periods can last anywhere from a few thousand to over 20.000 years. We're currently well past the halfway point in one.
The main thing interglacials have in common is wild and unpredictable climate swings. Global average temperatures can varry by as much as 10-15 degrees over a few decades. Other climate factors can varry by similarly large numbers.

You might be surprised that the warmest climate of the last several hundred years was BEFORE the industrial revolution, so before the output of the hated (by the greens) carbon dioxide began in earnest.
The current warming up didn't in fact start until well AFTER the peak of those emissions and have gone down ever since the 1970s in the western world yet the climate isn't getting any colder.

No, I don't worry about the climate insofar as human activity might influence it on a global scale.
Local scale is different, on a spot level human activity can have an influence by changing small scale wind and precipitation patterns but those effects don't translate to larger climate structures.
For example (and an example literally close to home for me), wind turbines will change the wind patterns and thereby the rainfall and temperatures around them for up to several hundred meters. This has led to crops not receiving the amount of rain needed, and thus reduced harvests.

0

I never said that it was mainly human error contributing. I just said, and so did you, that the climate is warming up substantially to affect our lives.

0

[edit:BTW, congrats on 500 posts server_crash :mrgreen: ]

Thank you, I didn't even notice myself!


About the environment, I don't worry about it too much, because I feel like there is little we can do. Some things you just have to deal with.

0

First of all, have you ever heard of a thing called supply and demand? Oil is being produced as FAST as it can possibly be produced. The western world "antagonizing"(as you put it) the middle east has nothing to do with oil prices. The demand is simply to high.


Wait a minute, you just were bashing intervention into other nations, and now your saying we need to worry about genocide in Africa? Your spinning what you just said?

I am well aware of suppy and demand, but if you think that nothing in the past (or present) has to do with current oil prices, then go read a history book. The middle east was imperialized for so long by western powers, raped financially, so of course when they unite and form OPEC way back when, they aren't just going to give the oil away. Yes, oil for them is a business, but more oil refineries should have been built in places like California. Energy saving national projects should be put into action, but of course Bush won't do that, because it'll take away potential profits from big business. Of course the prices will be high by simple economic laws, but go figure, political matters are capable of effecting trade too!

Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq. As far as Africa, I was pointing out that the US isn't intervening, despite the fact that millions of people are being murdered... oil is more important evidently. Weapons of mass destruction.. what about North Korea? Bush is holding onto the idea that negotiations will work, while Kim Jong-Il won't even negotiate anymore. And we know that he has nuclear weapons, and being as unstable as he is, he just might use them. Harboring terrorists? Gimme a break... the United States is not well liked in the middle east, so this should come as no suprise.

jwenting, interesting about the warmest period being right before the industrial boom in England, but where do you get this information from? I'll believe it when I see a source.

0

My motto "Don't worry be happy :D" ... not worried at all about the globe ... just worried about my home and my work place.

0

Energy saving national projects should be put into action, but of course Bush won't do that, because it'll take away potential profits from big business. Of course the prices will be high by simple economic laws, but go figure, political matters are capable of effecting trade too!

Really? Are you sure? I swear a simple search on google brought up millions of finds on Bush's energy proposal which support production over conservation..

Where did you get that information from? I'll believe it when you site a non-biased source.

0

Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq. As far as Africa, I was pointing out that the US isn't intervening, despite the fact that millions of people are being murdered... oil is more important evidently. Weapons of mass destruction.. what about North Korea? Bush is holding onto the idea that negotiations will work, while Kim Jong-Il won't even negotiate anymore. And we know that he has nuclear weapons, and being as unstable as he is, he just might use them. Harboring terrorists? Gimme a break... the United States is not well liked in the middle east, so this should come as no suprise.
/QUOTE]


Once again, your spinning. Your worried about our reputation and don't like the way we intervine, but you want us to do something about Africa? We've sent billions over to that country. They are a soveriegn Continent all together, and you bash bush about intervining in Iraq? Try to keep one point of view, the switching back and forth is confusing me.

-1

I am more concerned about the war than some because as a Briton I believe that my country should not have been involved at all. Hopefully Labor will be voted out this year and then Britian can finally get some well deserved peace.

Which brings me on to another question.

Do you personally think the all out war was a good idea?

0

I am more concerned about the war than some because as a Briton I believe that my country should not have been involved at all. Hopefully Labor will be voted out this year and then Britian can finally get some well deserved peace.

Which brings me on to another question.

Do you personally think the all out war was a good idea?

I really like Tony Blair, and I hope Bush hasen't cost him the election.
Anyways, I think war was a terrible decision. We have enough problems of our own. Right now, we are over in North Korea protecting their borders, when our country desperately needs our borders protected...But that's an issue I'd rather not get into! I personally don't like the choices that's been made, but there is nothing I can do about them. It's really too late to pull out of Iraq right now, and we would look silly to just leave them at total anarachy.

It's a hard topic to talk about. I don't agree with it, but nothing I can do.

0

First, I didn´t want to get involved in this very controversial topic but it´s getting interesting and I can´t resist...too bad you didn´t get the poll in it JJ...

There will always be crime, it´s human nature and out of our individual control, so it doesn´t worry me, although it bothers me.

Golbal warming isn´t an issue at all. The fluctuations we think we are experiencing are on such a small period that they are unimportant in the long term. Have you ever seen a picture of the earth - you can´t even see us - at most, everything that humans have accomplished and even our existance appears as an extremely thin scum on the surface of the planet. The long-term climactic changes on earth are a result of forces way beyond our ability to understand or affect yet, like planetary entropy, friction, gravity, etc.

World economy is a function of forces beyond our control as well. We can manipulate the markets all we want and inertia will force it back to the middle with time. It has a mind of its own.

So, the one thing, out of these choices, that is in our control, although on a global scale, is conflict. I will only address Iraq here, specifically, as a debate about war is too large a subject for this thread:

Iraq was necessary for one reason. There was much debate over a long period of time about taking on Sadaam. It was thought that he was the only force that was keeping the middle east from imploding, for a variety of reasons, and that removing him would result in an all-out fiasco over the entire region when that, admittedly weird, stability was gone.

We don´t know for certain all the reasons the US is there, those are state secrets. However, it is certain that if we had not made some kind of a move in the region, there would develop problems with atomic weapons that we would regret. It is already happening and we may even be too late to stop it now. But I believe that is the sole reason that we made the move we did. It was a gamble and we are a long way to understanding the result.

Remember that these guys hate the west. On top of that, they have been fighting one another for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with religion, even though they use that as an excuse, because the religions have very similar roots, the religions protagonists, Jesus, Mohammud, etc. are related. But religions have been used like that since they have existed.

So, in the long run, the British and the Americans opted to intervene in an area that could blow up in all our faces at any time. Was it right? Would it be right to try and defuse a bomb in your back yard? Argue all you want about the rightness...it´s done now. Let´s support the fixing of the problem. You cannot have peace if somebody out there wants war, no matter who it is...

0

And let's not forget that the US and all other UN members had a mandate (and in fact a duty) from the UN to do what the US dating back to 1991.
The treaty terms for the ceasefire in the first war against Iraq clearly stated that Iraq was to provide unimpeded access to UN arms inspectors and not to have any weapons in the designated zones in the north and south. They violated both provisions constantly.

In fact, the US and allies should have acted against Iraq 10 years ago.

0

And let's not forget that the US and all other UN members had a mandate (and in fact a duty) from the UN to do what the US dating back to 1991. The treaty terms for the ceasefire in the first war against Iraq clearly stated that Iraq was to provide unimpeded access to UN arms inspectors and not to have any weapons in the designated zones in the north and south. They violated both provisions constantly.

In fact, the US and allies should have acted against Iraq 10 years ago.

Right! Many folks don´t like to remember the real reasons we are there but want the US to act in an emotional way to a political problem. Just consider the following statement:

Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq.

This is pure hogwash! If the US didn´t support Israel, there would be no Israel. And as far as I can recollect, the US has never conquered or intended to conquer anyone. We don´t want any other country for ourselves. We do protect our interests, which can be argued may not be the interests of others sometimes. We do protect the interests of our allies. We try to act with restraint in most conflicts, maybe too much at times. But statements like the one above are just misinformed, leftist propoganda.

Try listening to some unbiased news media...

1

I disagree with quite a lot of your hardline views, jwenting, but on that point I agree wholeheartedly. It's a point which seems to get lost amongst the "Oh no, they didn't find WMDs!"


By the way, my own 'most worrying'?

The capitalist World Economy. On a global scale, that's just what we have, and it's a big worry. Capitalism basically and fundamentally depends upon continued growth for its continued existence. We live on a ball of rock with finite resources. And we're not even thinking about alternatives ;)

0

By the way, my own 'most worrying'?

The capitalist World Economy. On a global scale, that's just what we have, and it's a big worry. Capitalism basically and fundamentally depends upon continued growth for its continued existence. We live on a ball of rock with finite resources. And we're not even thinking about alternatives ;)

An exact description of the beast. Man´s short history on this planet shows us that every system is fundamentally flawed.

I reckon we ought to format and reload...:idea:

0

But Bush started the Iraq war on random countries that may or may not have contained terrorists. Even more people were killed by Bush's retaliation than the original war's cause. (the twin towers incident)

Bush was just like a big kid, who firmly believed that if he hit back harder there would be instant peace. WRONG. :evil:

0

But Bush started the Iraq war on random countries that may or may not have contained terrorists. Even more people were killed by Bush's retaliation than the original war's cause. (the twin towers incident)

Bush was just like a big kid, who firmly believed that if he hit back harder there would be instant peace. WRONG. :evil:

Where does this come from? All middle eastern countries contain terrorists. Bush never expected there would be a quick peace. He has said the war would last a long time over and over.

-1

Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq. As far as Africa, I was pointing out that the US isn't intervening, despite the fact that millions of people are being murdered... oil is more important evidently. Weapons of mass destruction.. what about North Korea? Bush is holding onto the idea that negotiations will work, while Kim Jong-Il won't even negotiate anymore. And we know that he has nuclear weapons, and being as unstable as he is, he just might use them. Harboring terrorists? Gimme a break... the United States is not well liked in the middle east, so this should come as no suprise.

Once again, your spinning. Your worried about our reputation and don't like the way we intervine, but you want us to do something about Africa? We've sent billions over to that country. They are a soveriegn Continent all together, and you bash bush about intervining in Iraq? Try to keep one point of view, the switching back and forth is confusing me.

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. Oh, and for the record, Africa is a continent, not a country. Where did I say that intervention is a bad thing? The US intervened in the latter 20th century when genocide was going on in the Balkans, yet they don't do this now. My entire point is that the military was sent into Iraq for several reasons, and one of them, our administration claims, is that Saddam was blatantly violating human rights. Yet I didn't see genocide in Iraq to the degree that it has gone on in Africa, and probably is still going on today. Yes, they violated UN sanctions about monitoring, but is that a reason to go to war and send large amounts of people to their death? He had the potential to develop nuclear weapons, yes, but North Korea has nuclear weapons. There are probably dozens of nuclear weapons floating around the Middle East and Africa anyways, sold by the Russian Mafia in the latter days of the Soviet Empire. Perhaps it would be a wiser effort to locate these missing weapons first.

Oh by the way man, how do you "site" a source? Is it anything like citing a source?

This is pure hogwash! If the US didn´t support Israel, there would be no Israel. And as far as I can recollect, the US has never conquered or intended to conquer anyone. We don´t want any other country for ourselves

Um... when America was tasting Imerialism in the 19th century, thats just what we did with the Philippines. It was transfered to US control after the Spanish-American war, but when they didn't just go quietly, troops were sent in, and a bloodbath ensued. They wouldn't quietly become our lackies, so the millitary was sent in, and we made them ours... if that's not conquering, I don't know what is. Granted, it was not a soverign nation, but it was fighting for its own independence, and we crushed them in the interest of having it as a target for imperialism. Oh, but I guess you didn't know that....

As far as Israel, I am merely using it as an example of why America and the west are so hated around there. Yes, you make my point exactly.. if America had not supported Israel, there would have been no Israel, and the Arabs know this too.

1

Yes, they violated UN sanctions about monitoring, but is that a reason to go to war and send large amounts of people to their death?

And you were the one telling me to read a history book? Take a look at numbers. This has been one of the most succesful wars ever. Can you name a war that had fewer deaths than this one,and accomplished the "cause"? Don't think so.

You implicitly include hints that intervention is a bad thing. If you haven't realized it, read your responses again. Pretty obvious, even to the dumbest. Support is intervention, right? and your going off about us supporting Israel? You preach Isolationism... A concept that doesn't work in this day and age.


By the way, you know America is hated across the middle east because we represent everything they are against, and don't have..in which they envy us...But of course you didn't know that..


Now, you were ranting about Africa and genocide, but your not even sure if it's still going on today? What's up with that?

-1

And you were the one telling me to read a history book? Take a look at numbers. This has been one of the most succesful wars ever. Can you name a war that had fewer deaths than this one,and accomplished the "cause"? Don't think so.

You implicitly include hints that intervention is a bad thing. If you haven't realized it, read your responses again. Pretty obvious, even to the dumbest. Support is intervention, right? and your going off about us supporting Israel? You preach Isolationism... A concept that doesn't work in this day and age.


By the way, you know America is hated across the middle east because we represent everything they are against, and don't have..in which they envy us...But of course you didn't know that..


Now, you were ranting about Africa and genocide, but your not even sure if it's still going on today? What's up with that?

The numbers aren't the important thing in the war... regardless of how many people have lost their lives, it's the fact that they lost their lives that concerns me. Nobody should have been shipped out to die in the desert because of a matter like this. If Saddam was actively developing a nuclear bomb or had biological weapons, that would be a different thing, but potential to develop them is not worth sending kids off to die. I love how you totally ignored my point about the Russian nuclear weapons floating around the world... I didn't think you'd have much to say to that.

It's fairly obvious that you can't read, because I didn't say that America shouldn't support Israel, but that hatred of us in the region is heightened by the fact that we do support them. I am preaching isolationism? I love it when someone totally gives me an unqualified look into what I really am saying. Was I just not asking why America was not going into Africa? I don't see anything saying that we should shut off all trade and totally isolate ourselves from world matters. I asked why we did nothing about North Korea (and continue to do nothing). If I really was preaching isolationism, then I wouldn't care about the US doing anything in North Korea or Africa. As far as Africa goes, who knows on a day to day basis how many people are being killed there... I certanly don't see it getting the media coverage that a slutty pop star's pregnancy is.

Oh yes, the sole reason that America and the western world are hated so badly in the middle east is because they are jealous of us, such an obvious answer! Nevermind the fact that American tanks are rolling around blowing up their mosques, the fact that we totally toppled a soverign reshime in the heart of their region, the fact that the western world raped the Arabs financially for so long, or the fact that Bush declared to push a "Crusade" against terrorists... leave it to our skilled linguist president to bring religious flavors into an already troubled conflict. Bush is very skilled at bullshit as far as justifying why we went in there, and why they hate us. "They hate us for our freedom"... you're telling me that some poor Iranian has any concept of what we have? They have any idea just what kind of luxary Americans live in, and what "freedom" is to us? I think he would hate us because there are tanks with our name on them rolling in his neighboring country, which may turn their turrets towards his country next. Maybe some Iraqi hates us because bombs are being dropped on residential areas, and US soldiers are beating down peoples doors in the middle of the night, and arresting people they might happen to classify as enemy combatants or potential threats. To say that the Middle East hates us because they envy us is pretentious and outrageous.

0

Um... when America was tasting Imerialism in the 19th century, thats just what we did with the Philippines. It was transfered to US control after the Spanish-American war, but when they didn't just go quietly,

The US didn't conquer the Philipines though, they just threw out insurgents :)
They then went on to give the people there a choice whether they wanted independence or become a part of the US and the people chose (and got) independence.

The capitalist World Economy. On a global scale, that's just what we have, and it's a big worry. Capitalism basically and fundamentally depends upon continued growth for its continued existence. We live on a ball of rock with finite resources. And we're not even thinking about alternatives

The alternative is a Soviet style centrally controlled corruption (sorry, I can't call it an economy. It's been tried and tested and it's been proven to not work.
There may be possible alternatives but none I think that would work without a single global non-democratic government imposing them and that's not a situation I'd want to see as it would severely limit freedom.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.