I want make a topic for discussing any range of topics, but it has to require some thought to discuss. An example would be: Is President Bush doing a good job running America. Please be open-minded to others, give your sources, and use paragraphs.
Intelligent Discussion
- Thread starter popothellama
- Start date
RE: Intelligent Discussion (mods, please sticky)
Stuff like this doesn't get stickied, but it's nice nonetheless when intelligent threads are made (although I'm unfamiliar with American politics so I'd have to give that one a miss). What I'd really like to see is an intelligent thread of the week/month, and people vote on which subject to discuss.
In any case, I'll impose the "spam being deleted at the speed of light" rule for any thread marked with "discussion" in the title.
Stuff like this doesn't get stickied, but it's nice nonetheless when intelligent threads are made (although I'm unfamiliar with American politics so I'd have to give that one a miss). What I'd really like to see is an intelligent thread of the week/month, and people vote on which subject to discuss.
In any case, I'll impose the "spam being deleted at the speed of light" rule for any thread marked with "discussion" in the title.
Go ahead and start a topic, that was an example, and I don't know how else I could name this thread. I will use your idea, I just need some topics.
How can we discuss that?
Just discuss it like give opinions and comments (pls direct the comments to green bacon)
Right now, I think one of the most important topics to talk about at the moment is the issue of global warming.
The documentary An Inconvenient Truth addresses this issue, and seeks to inform viewers about the lasting consequences of global warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps, population displacement in coastal areas, and plant and animal population ranges changing. It suggests the notion that we will be living in a much different world within the next century. Some of the claims are questionable, though, like the claim that there is an consensus in the scientific community that it is an issue. They did not show how they conducted the survey or even defined what they meant by a consensus (consensus for ALL scientists?). Regardless if it is an issue or not, I think it is highly appropriate for us to take action.
One idea I have is to disperse native tree seeds over a wide area. Aerial distribution by airplane would work. The idea is to plant many more trees for the sake of carbon dioxide sequestration. It can probably be done in a way that does not introduce non-native species to a region. Regions around highways, like Interstate 5 on the long stretch from Tracy, CA to Grapevine, CA (the beginning of the pass to Los Angeles), would be great candidates for this approach, as it would help with reducing emissions from highway traffic. Other freeways that go through unpopulated regions would also be good candidates as well. It seems like a cost-effective solution in the long run, plus it adds scenery to bland stretches of freeway. It would still take a while for the trees to grow, but would an investment for our future.
What do you guys think?
The documentary An Inconvenient Truth addresses this issue, and seeks to inform viewers about the lasting consequences of global warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps, population displacement in coastal areas, and plant and animal population ranges changing. It suggests the notion that we will be living in a much different world within the next century. Some of the claims are questionable, though, like the claim that there is an consensus in the scientific community that it is an issue. They did not show how they conducted the survey or even defined what they meant by a consensus (consensus for ALL scientists?). Regardless if it is an issue or not, I think it is highly appropriate for us to take action.
One idea I have is to disperse native tree seeds over a wide area. Aerial distribution by airplane would work. The idea is to plant many more trees for the sake of carbon dioxide sequestration. It can probably be done in a way that does not introduce non-native species to a region. Regions around highways, like Interstate 5 on the long stretch from Tracy, CA to Grapevine, CA (the beginning of the pass to Los Angeles), would be great candidates for this approach, as it would help with reducing emissions from highway traffic. Other freeways that go through unpopulated regions would also be good candidates as well. It seems like a cost-effective solution in the long run, plus it adds scenery to bland stretches of freeway. It would still take a while for the trees to grow, but would an investment for our future.
What do you guys think?
Now that's a topic worth discussing. I also watched the movie and rather enjoyed it. That man should have been president.
However, using an airplane method seems questionable, as it back tracks the overall goal. Instead, i'd suggest that the government create a job for doing that. The company vechicle would be an electric car(or another eco-car) and would be required for all buisness trips. Also, speeding the production of greenbuildings is completely needed, as we keep building more and more. The more we build, the more the want to build grows, so it should be the want to build green buildings and save our planet.
I'm not sure if there is one, but if not, there should be a class made that teaches students about global warming, and has them plant trees, put up flyers, recycle and other things as such. It would be an elective to start, but could be made in to a manditory class. But where does the money come from? I think it should come from our space exploration money myself. I can't understand why we put money into finding new planets, when we can't take care of the one we already have. By the time we get someone to be able to live on mars, there won't be an earth. So why give up our planet so one man can say he lived on mars?
However, using an airplane method seems questionable, as it back tracks the overall goal. Instead, i'd suggest that the government create a job for doing that. The company vechicle would be an electric car(or another eco-car) and would be required for all buisness trips. Also, speeding the production of greenbuildings is completely needed, as we keep building more and more. The more we build, the more the want to build grows, so it should be the want to build green buildings and save our planet.
I'm not sure if there is one, but if not, there should be a class made that teaches students about global warming, and has them plant trees, put up flyers, recycle and other things as such. It would be an elective to start, but could be made in to a manditory class. But where does the money come from? I think it should come from our space exploration money myself. I can't understand why we put money into finding new planets, when we can't take care of the one we already have. By the time we get someone to be able to live on mars, there won't be an earth. So why give up our planet so one man can say he lived on mars?
A very good suggestion, DRK, but the problem with the plane spreading is that, unless fired like a missle, it won't bury itself and thus just sit there. That would also mean that the highways must be regulary patrolled and have fly-overs with things like firefighting copters to regulary sprinkle with water. Don't know about the rainfall level there, but I doubt it's enough. Also, the fumes released by cars is not only just CO2, it's probbly other toxic materials which would probably infect and kill the trees.
Unforetunately, I can't think of my own idea, so I really shouldn't be picking holes in yours.
Unforetunately, I can't think of my own idea, so I really shouldn't be picking holes in yours.
Guys, Gore has a private jet, and uses up 10 times the energy of an average American. He's one to talk.
I think aerial dispersion might still be worth considering. Burying the seeds and giving it the proper nutrients increases the chances of success that the trees will do well. However, tree seeds simply fall off trees, and the trees are somehow able to propagate anyway. Aerial dispersion might work well for large areas of open fields. However, the more I think about it, I think it would be better if trees are planted normally along the sides of the freeway. That would be an excellent opportunity for inmates to do something productive, provided that it is appropriate for the nature of the crimes that they committed.
That is a good suggestion... I think it would be an excellent opportunity for community service as well. If students are encouraged to plant trees for community service, some of them might be encouraged to continue helping find ways to protect the environment, and some might even pursue occupations to help with that end.
A contest might be a good way to encourage people to plant as many trees as possible; have a contest to see how many trees a student can plant in a particular amount of time. They would have to document each tree that they planted and give it some sort of marker so that it could be judged correctly. The student who plants the most trees gets a scholarship or some other sort of prize that improves their educational opportunities.
As far as the fumes go, I've seen a lot of bushes in the middle of the freeway that seem to do well there, so I don't see why trees would die from the toxic compounds released in exhaust. Hopefully, technology for reducing the amount of toxic compounds in exhaust will improve so that the idea is even more feasible.
I think that the single biggest solution that we need to keep working on is figuring out a way to harness the energy produced by nuclear fusion. Unlike fission, the waste products are insignificant, and accidents result in the reaction shutting down, rather than spiraling out of control. The energy is also cheaper and greater than the energy produced by fission (Wikipedia). If we develop this technology, we could replace all of the fossil-fuel based power plants and eliminate an enormous amount of emissions; not just carbon dioxide, but carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, chlorine compounds, and other emissions that pose environmental and health problems. While this technology appears to take a while before it is developed, and there is a chance that it might not work, I think it is worth spending more time pursuing.
What do you guys think?
Master of the six kings said:
That is a good suggestion... I think it would be an excellent opportunity for community service as well. If students are encouraged to plant trees for community service, some of them might be encouraged to continue helping find ways to protect the environment, and some might even pursue occupations to help with that end.
A contest might be a good way to encourage people to plant as many trees as possible; have a contest to see how many trees a student can plant in a particular amount of time. They would have to document each tree that they planted and give it some sort of marker so that it could be judged correctly. The student who plants the most trees gets a scholarship or some other sort of prize that improves their educational opportunities.
The idea is that the trees are native to the area, so that they not only have a better chance of survival, but also so that they don't become invasive. Competition might be a problem, though, as the trees would compete for nutrients.Lieutenant Houndoom said:
As far as the fumes go, I've seen a lot of bushes in the middle of the freeway that seem to do well there, so I don't see why trees would die from the toxic compounds released in exhaust. Hopefully, technology for reducing the amount of toxic compounds in exhaust will improve so that the idea is even more feasible.
I think that the single biggest solution that we need to keep working on is figuring out a way to harness the energy produced by nuclear fusion. Unlike fission, the waste products are insignificant, and accidents result in the reaction shutting down, rather than spiraling out of control. The energy is also cheaper and greater than the energy produced by fission (Wikipedia). If we develop this technology, we could replace all of the fossil-fuel based power plants and eliminate an enormous amount of emissions; not just carbon dioxide, but carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, chlorine compounds, and other emissions that pose environmental and health problems. While this technology appears to take a while before it is developed, and there is a chance that it might not work, I think it is worth spending more time pursuing.
What do you guys think?
What did I say about nativity? Never said anything about that...
Have no idea what fission/fusion is. Which one's the one that has lots of waste and hurts if it blows up?
Have no idea what fission/fusion is. Which one's the one that has lots of waste and hurts if it blows up?
What I was trying to say at the time was that since the trees are native, they have a better chance of success than other trees. Some trees might do so well that they become invasive, but these trees would not be as likely. It is mostly a response to part talking about the rainfall not necessarily being enough.
Regarding the seeds staying in one place, if it is a wide enough area, they should not travel too far. However, that might be a concern if several seeds make it outside of the area and sprout, as it might result in possible property damage or damage to surrounding ecosystems.
Fission is the current process that we use today. It involves splitting an atom to release enormous amounts of energy. Some of the atoms reach a state where no more reactions can take place, and end up as nuclear waste. These can remain radioactive for a long period of time. On top of that, if there is an accident, the reaction could go out of control, and result in a meltdown, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. That is what happened at Chernobyl. Since it had no containment building, there was a lot of radioactive materials that were released all over Europe, resulting in birth defects, radiation poisoning, cancer, and deaths. (Nuclear Power, Chernobyl Distaster).
Fusion is the process that the sun uses to create its power. Unlike fission, it involves fusing smaller atoms together to make larger atoms, releasing enormous amounts of energy in the process. Since it appears to be considerably more safe and more reliable than the current technology (fission), it is worthwhile pursuing as a replacement for both fission and fossil-fuel based power.
Regarding the seeds staying in one place, if it is a wide enough area, they should not travel too far. However, that might be a concern if several seeds make it outside of the area and sprout, as it might result in possible property damage or damage to surrounding ecosystems.
Fission is the current process that we use today. It involves splitting an atom to release enormous amounts of energy. Some of the atoms reach a state where no more reactions can take place, and end up as nuclear waste. These can remain radioactive for a long period of time. On top of that, if there is an accident, the reaction could go out of control, and result in a meltdown, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. That is what happened at Chernobyl. Since it had no containment building, there was a lot of radioactive materials that were released all over Europe, resulting in birth defects, radiation poisoning, cancer, and deaths. (Nuclear Power, Chernobyl Distaster).
Fusion is the process that the sun uses to create its power. Unlike fission, it involves fusing smaller atoms together to make larger atoms, releasing enormous amounts of energy in the process. Since it appears to be considerably more safe and more reliable than the current technology (fission), it is worthwhile pursuing as a replacement for both fission and fossil-fuel based power.
That definitely sounds a more effecient solution, though it was stated that:
The article also stated the fact that it has a lower risk rate, though "getting your money's worth" is the higher concern at the moment.
Wiki said:
The article also stated the fact that it has a lower risk rate, though "getting your money's worth" is the higher concern at the moment.
Yeah... scientists have already come up with the technology for sustaining a fusion reaction. However, figuring out how to harness the energy in a manner that is cost-effective is the big question. I still think there is a good possibility that it might work out. It might be many years down the road, most likely outside of my lifetime, but I still think it is worthwhile to at least determine if it is feasible.
Global warming or not, we'll have to change to nuclear or some other energy form in the near future, as the fossil fuels won't supply us forever. In fact I hear we only have about 50 years worth of the stuff left. Not to mention that the shortage of a valuable fuel supply can and will cause wars between nations (perhaps it's happened already if you're skeptical about Iraq).
Fusion is preferable over fission, as I dislike what happens to the leftover waste or rather, what could happen to it (terrorism, weapons, things like that). Even if fusion isn't deemed as a practical solution, we can still make use of it if everyone turns their attention to that big bright burning thing in the sky.
Antimatter has always interested me as an energy source. It can produce mass amounts of energy and there is very little (if any) waste leftover from the reactions with regular matter (antimatter + matter = KABLAM). The two major problems though are;
1) Rather tricky to make/find.
2) What on earth would you keep it in?
So it's quite probably not the alternative, but it's enough to get any science-fiction writer drooling. I just thought I'd throw that in here.
Fusion is preferable over fission, as I dislike what happens to the leftover waste or rather, what could happen to it (terrorism, weapons, things like that). Even if fusion isn't deemed as a practical solution, we can still make use of it if everyone turns their attention to that big bright burning thing in the sky.
Antimatter has always interested me as an energy source. It can produce mass amounts of energy and there is very little (if any) waste leftover from the reactions with regular matter (antimatter + matter = KABLAM). The two major problems though are;
1) Rather tricky to make/find.
2) What on earth would you keep it in?
So it's quite probably not the alternative, but it's enough to get any science-fiction writer drooling. I just thought I'd throw that in here.
at liveearth.org you can learn how to save a lot of energy by doing small things like unpluging electrical appliances after turning them off or simply changing a light bulb to a fluorescent light.
But think of all the energy that was wasted on- Creating the website on the computer and putting on the massive concert.
Also - Personally, I don't beleive that global warming is any thing to worry about.
I live in London and I found out that in victorian times (1880-1900 about) the River Thames used to freeze over every winter and there would be a fair ground on the ice. Therefore I think that Global Warming is inevitable and unstoppable and that we should learn to live with it.
Also - Personally, I don't beleive that global warming is any thing to worry about.
I live in London and I found out that in victorian times (1880-1900 about) the River Thames used to freeze over every winter and there would be a fair ground on the ice. Therefore I think that Global Warming is inevitable and unstoppable and that we should learn to live with it.
Just because you live on the most lopsided place on the world in terms of weather, doesn't mean we all do -_-
Don't you know how things can escalate? In about 100 years, it's possible that the whole world is submerged. Now, I doubt you'll live to 113 years old, but I don't think you'd like to die via drowning.
Don't you know how things can escalate? In about 100 years, it's possible that the whole world is submerged. Now, I doubt you'll live to 113 years old, but I don't think you'd like to die via drowning.