1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Nintendo still most eco-unfriendly console maker

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 8 Jan 2010.

  1. [WP@]WOLVERINE

    [WP@]WOLVERINE What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    470
    Likes Received:
    21
    There is no way that i could care less about this pointless eco hysteria. Geenpeace is a bunch of useless treehuggers that do absolutely nothing but complain and whine about just about everything any company ever does. They spread propagada that they have pulled straight out of their a** and is all about anti cooperation issues wrapped in enviromental hysteria. Even the founder of the organisation has left since he felt that the organisation had gone completely haywire so anything they say is completely irrelevant and should be ignored.
     
  2. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,346
    Likes Received:
    316
    These arguments hit a nerve, I guess and I reacted foolishly. You're totally correct however and I apologise. It can be hard to keep perspective when it's something I feel so passionate about, even if it is important to because it's what distinguishes between the proper, well reasoned discourse that should be fostered around these topics and the knee jerk reactions that cause mistrust for political groups like Greenpeace.

    +rep for making that extremely salient point and making me see the rashness of my previous comment.
     
  3. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    @rickysio

    ah yes, yet another personal attack. i was even nice enough to lay out what you needed to attack in my argument. oh well.

    as to oceanic acidification, whoooo! a whole fraction of a percent higher ph! how will the coral ever survive! probably pretty easily actually, considering they have survived massively higher ph in the past.

    keep in mind we are talking about parts per million here. if natural systems are really so sensitive to slight fluctuations it is amazing they have survived at all. especially since oceanic ph shifts so much naturally, based on temperature, nutrient and mineral content, how many fish are in the area etc.

    also, you may wish to actually address my previous points before you bring in new concepts, or were you conceding the prior points?

    @Cobalt

    i am sorry if i sounded like i supported the AGW theory. obviously i do not. what i meant was that a warmer wetter world would be a huge benefit to the biosphere, not that we are actually causing it. increasing co2 will impact the environment. . . for the better. don't regulate the good stuff we release, regulate the bad stuff better. if we can make burning fossil fuels release pretty much noting but co2 and water, there is no reason we should not use them. western countries have almost reached this goal with most of the fuel we burn. i also agree that nuclear power would be awesome. there are uses for even low level nuclear "waste" that we can research. that would pretty much solve the storage issue as long as society survives. there is no reason we cannot use both.

    and yes, the biosphere lasted this long, and has survived far worse than us. actually a purist would point out that we are actually a part of the biosphere, and what we do with it is just part of the natural order.
     
  4. l3v1ck

    l3v1ck Fueling the world, one oil well at a time.

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    17
    Seems to me that it's the other way round. The environmentalists are the narrow minded ones. They refuse to accept that it's possible that climate change isn't cause by man, and if you look at previous interglacials, there is some evidence to support that.
    People like me haven't decided what to believe, but we're slagged off as narrow minded by the ecohippies. Global warming deniers are treated with almost as much contempt at holocaust deniers these days. A typical action of PC groups these days. Try to mock and marginalise those who disagree with you rather than engage them with reasoned argument. Strange really as there is a lot of evidence to support the argument that man is responsible for climate change, but no, mock and marginalise is the narrow minded way they choose to go.
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2010
  5. biebiep

    biebiep What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    3
    I believe I am one of these purists.


    The effects of religion and "We are the shepherds of this world" mentality, gives me the chillies. Really.



    If the cows were the dominant species on this planet and were the same in number as we are, their farts alone would've easily surpassed us in CO2 emissions...
    (Yes, i'm using a stupid example to point out that "the climate" is defined by what lives on this planet, not the other way around.)


    We are the course of nature. If we go about this "conserving" or "using" is up to us.
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2010
    alpaca likes this.
  6. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    @LucusLoC

    Thank you for some very enlightening points re CO2. I would like to remind you however, that CO2 is only a very small portion of the overall environmental effect of technology, especially when manufacturers don'r go out of their way to reduce their impact. Therefore saying "hey, time to go buy a wii" on the strength of one argument will still, as I said, end badly.

    So, not supporting the development and creation of weapons which if deployed would probably lead to the end of the world as we know it makes one an idiot? Ask yourself how many resources the human race has diverted towards these projects and tell me if it was the best possible use of said resources. In short, was it worth it? Is it worth it? Could no better use be made of the limited resources available to us?

    Lets not bring religion into this. There's nothing religious about saying that if you don't take care of what you have, chances are you will lose it. It is almost a universal constant. We have a whole industry devoted to handling our sewage because if we didn't, we'd be swimming in it. The same goes for rubbish etc. Point is, if we don't "clean up after ourselves" in all senses of the word, we will regret it. Reducing the amount of waste we produce in the first place is just an extension of that.

    Yes, it is. Just as it is up to each one of us to choose whether to commit murder or not. But that doesn't mean there arent consequences to our actions. It is our choice whether we take care of our world or not, and the consequences af that choice will be ours to bear.
     
  7. C0nKer

    C0nKer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    25 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    329
    Likes Received:
    2
    The only way to go green is to kill all modern humans...
     
  8. biebiep

    biebiep What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    3
    We are not responsible for nor do we have a "destiny" for preserving our planet AS IS.


    It has been like this for ages, and all creatures had a severe impact on the environment they live in. For better or for worse.

    If we are responsible for the extinction of another species due to our progress, so be it.
    If we are responsible for this for our "sport" or just because we can be, we are wrong.

    If we are responsible for our own deaths, due to our progress. So be it.
    If we are responsible for our own demise as a species, "just because we could". We are idiots and deserved it.

    Really now, if we were to be classified by advanced aliens as a "Parasitical Organism".
    Would you care and change your life?


    Didn't think so.


    (Oh, and btw, I do believe we all have to clean up after ourselves... But i'm also pretty sure that even if we do, there are just too many people on 1 planet to be sustained. You can't have a society where everything works at 100% efficiency.
    Altough Nature itself is a 100% recycling process, it takes anything from a few days(organic materials) up to a few centuries(nuclear waste) )
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2010
  9. TSR2

    TSR2 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    160
    Likes Received:
    4
    As for nuclear weapons, we haven't had a global war for the best part of 70 years now, so I think it is worth it...
    Of course, if you can suggest a better use of money that would have a similar effect, I'm all for it.
     
  10. s1n1s

    s1n1s What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    163
    Likes Received:
    2
    @LucusLoC
    @eddtox
    @nilesfoundglory
    @l3v1ck

    Are any of you even qualified in science or the respected field on which a lot of you seem to know so much on lol

    and we really do not need more CO2 that would be a crazy thing to start doing.

    you seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot things in nature are linked and as a result of what we are doing we are approaching a no returns zone that would not only kill us but most other species on the planet. sometimes it can only take a little cause a hell of a lot.

    yes climate change happens and yes it would with or without us. but the way in which it would change and the affect of its change on planet is another question and one which we are definitely involved with.
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2010
  11. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    @eddtox

    i am well aware of the other impacts of manufacturing, i have stated so already. we are talking about co2 now though, because that is the substance in contention. the comment on the wii was a flippant remark, and not the foundation of my argument. it bears no further attention.

    weapons development is likewise irrelevant to this argument. it is mostly a moral argument, and while i generally agree with tsr2's sentiment on the subject further discussion would best be discussed in another thread. leave a link here if you want me to respond there.

    @C0nKer

    if you follow Greenpeace's definition of green, then that statement is correct. that is why i prefer the term conservation. the general meaning of my use of that word means we use nature, but try to keep it healthy and growing. individual species, while worth some effort to save, are not worth jeopardizing the lives of our own. there are species that are simply unviable through no action of our own. let them die (in the wild), as nature intended.

    @biebiep

    +1

    @s1n1s

    science is not a religion, and scientists are not our priests, to be trusted no matter what. the whole idea of science is that it can be understood by the "common man." credentials have nothing to do with the argument. that is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."

    your statement that "we really do not need more CO2 that would be a crazy thing to start doing" is based on nothing more than this appeal. i would challenge you to back up your argument with actual facts, instead of just blindly believing.
     
  12. hyperion

    hyperion Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    754
    Likes Received:
    30
    I wouldn't give a damn if both nintendo and greenpeace dissappeared tomorrow. One less crappy games manufacturer and one less bunch of self-righteous, hypocritical, wannabe-vigilante wackjobs.
     
  13. l3v1ck

    l3v1ck Fueling the world, one oil well at a time.

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    17
    Yes actually I am. Hence my knowledge of interglacials.
    For example: Yes we have more CO2 now, but the current temperature pattern has been repeated several times before. Try looking into scientific research before you slag people off.
    [​IMG]
    I don't know either way, there is evidence for both sides, but I refused to be marginalised by one side just for looking beyond the headlines and keeping an open mind.
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2010
  14. alpaca

    alpaca llama eats dremel

    Joined:
    27 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    45
    this was the first post in this tread. see how much it changed. i like this community, as fierce discussions are always just around the door, and when entered, done mostly so in a civilized way. (and if not, frowned upon)

    on topic: i'm with biep biep; one of those purists who think we are as much part of the ecosystem as the plants in our garden, and that whatever we do is up to us, but in the end, the earth does not give a damn about anything we do.
     
  15. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    My original point, and the whole essence of my argument is just a broad statement that as a species and as individuals we should take a greater interest in the well-being of our environment and try to minimize the adverse effects we have on the planet. It is as much a matter of self-preservation as it is one of morality.

    I understand that there are many schools of thought regarding what that actually entails, but that is a different argument, and one that is somewhat premature, considering that there are still many people who do not accept that anything needs to be done. Once again, I'm not suggesting that we stop living, just that we try to reduce our impact on the environment, where possible.

    For example, while dumping chemical waste in the nearby river might be the easiest and cheapest thing for a factory to do, more environmentally responsible alternatives should be sought, regardless of whether there is a law about it in that area or not. As things stand, even in countries which do have strict regulations regarding the disposal of waste, some companies still try to find loop holes and ways around the legislation. It is this kind of irresponsible and mercenary behaviour that is our biggest problem, imo.
     
  16. cybergenics

    cybergenics What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    27 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    613
    Likes Received:
    17
    Most 'Enviromentalists' are just self serving pseudo intellectuals who want to let everyone know they are righteous, some have other agendas, i.e they make a boat load of cash from spreading the 'word'. Like Al Gore and tools like Bono.
     
  17. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    @eddtox

    no one is debating that we should take care of the environment. what we are debating is the labeling of co2 as a pollutant. this is a gas that has only known positive effects on the environment, and only theorized negative effects. theories which don't hold up under the weight of facts and logic i might add. the problem is people (government) are talking about spending *hundreds of billions of dollars* "solving" the "problem" of co2 emissions. that money should go towards something else with proven (or at least reasonably plausible) effect. something like leach-proof dumps, or noX regulation. but as long as you operate under the assumption that co2 is worth regulating we are fundamentally at odds with each other, hence my insistence that we focus on this point of contention.

    @cybergenics

    quite true. Gore stands to make *billions* if cap and trade is passed in the U.S.

    that speaks of somewhat less than pure motives to me.

    @alpaca

    i concur with your assessment of the situation ;-)
     
  18. s1n1s

    s1n1s What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    163
    Likes Received:
    2
    I didn't slag anyone off I was just curious and to simply assume CO2 and water is good for plants seems to me to not be a well thought through idea and I'm not preaching that science is a religion or that scientists are priests. I was just trying to point a lot of people have gone through years of study to try and understand and further our knowledge about the world around us and would probably know in greater detail about this matter than the average common man.

    and I'm not blindly believing, I'm currently studying science so I sort have idea on this matter. plus I did hint that CO2 on its own is not too much of a problem and there are other things involved and the temperature rises that could be caused by CO2 would possibly cause a chain reaction of events that could not be stopped.

    so if I'm understanding you correctly on what you are, is that the majority of scientists in the world are making this all up can't really see what they would gain from that tbh but thats just me.

    so yes more CO2 would be crazy.

    P.S why risk taking the chance anyway its not like we can just move to another planet now is it.
    when has anyone not had other motives in what they say or do to benefit themselves.
    sound the same as saying the oil companies are only saying oil doesn't affect the planet so they can make billions and billions of money actually wait I think they done that already.
    and I'm sure I did say climate change does and will happen regardless of what we do but we will affect the level of change.
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2010
  19. TurtlePerson2

    TurtlePerson2 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they're confusing Nintendo for someone who cares.

    Nintendo is probably the most profit driven company in video games. They don't care that the quality of their games has slipped. They don't care that their fanboys are falling away. As long as they don't have to break out the red ink, they won't change a thing.
     
  20. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    plants, as has been demonstrated in many many studies, as well as many high school projects, absolutely love high concentrations of co2. they flourish up to concentrations of 90% or more, depending on the species. as long as there is a decent amount of oxygen available (5% or so in most cases) plants don't care how much co2 there is.

    a lot of people disagree with the AGW theory as well, and while we can fling accusations about motivation all we want they do nothing to help resolve the issue. Gore may have nothing but the purest motivations at heart, and his position to make money off cap and trade may have nothing to do with his push to get it passed. i cannot say for sure, but i can say it looks remarkably suspicious, and i am sure that no honest ethics comity would let such a conflict of interest fly either.

    *but even that* has no impact on the facts of the matter. AGW is either happening, or it is not, and it is either worth doing something about or it is not. i believe the later for both cases, and i don't care what your credentials are, unless you can refute my above arguments then AGW, as it is currently theorized, is not happening. any climate change (warming or cooling) must be caused by something else.

    *if* you can refute my arguments then please do so, and i will mend my ways. i do not think you can, and the staunch refusal of Gore, Mann et. al. and the rest to engage in open public debate, or release there core data and methodology, is evidence that they cannot either. *in fact* the recent climategate scandal provides a ton of evidence that points to why they will not release their core data or methodology. but, again, that points to motivations and does not actually address the argument or the truth of the matter.

    my argument stands, and whoever is capable is free to dissect and either uphold or refute it. "credentials" are irrelevant.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page