Personality Cafe banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
756 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I want to see if I was the only ISFJ who, after watching that movie, doesn't see the point in living anymore.
I have to say that i'm a bit angry at my teachers for showing us this movie right before the weekend because It really doesn't make me want to do anything about it, I look at it as a lost cause already, all it did was depress me a hell of a lot.
What are your thoughts on the subject?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
No, but I would love to. I guess you are feeling a bit angry could be due to your pessimistic personality (which is common in some ISFJs). Although I've never watched this movie, I've watched some other documentaries that talked about global warming. My mood was down while watching it. But it didn't last long. Only when I was watching it.

I think this type of movies or documentaries are good reminders. It reminds us not to waste energy. I know some people don't turn off the light after turning it on. Some people let the water keep running while brushing teeth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
I watched it 4 years ago? would have been in year 10 or 11. The class my school principle took. I saw it but it did not change my life. So maybe I should feel guiltier for sitting in a ducted heated house in a t-shirt and skirt *Walked to bedroom got doona turns off heating*... There is only so much one person can do I came to the conclusion that all I can do is change my impact, So I am never going to drive a car (or at least rarely).

What it is is INCONVENIENT truth it is made to fact (or guilt) you into changing your ways. If you integrate the change into your life you can make your small difference to the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Yes, I have. My favourite part was this:


I thought it was good, useful video, though (as I do with with most educational videos) I questioned its accuracy to some extent. I would have to do a lot more research into global warming and its scientific basis to make an informed opinion. But, as it stands, I do think that global warming is an important issue and that we should be attempting to slow the process.
 
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
I would argue that it should have been titled "A Convenient Lie." That "documentary" has been debunked countless times by countless people. From loads of scientists, to a lot of the media, to a British Judge who tore it apart bit by bit. While the earth is clearly warming up a bit, the film exaggerates it like crazy, and there really isn't any solid evidence (that I've seen) to suggest that humans are the cause. With that said, I'm all for SENSIBLE environmentalism. But the cult of Al Gore is absolute insanity. From their blatant worship of a shameless hypocrite, to their new age "Indulgences" I honestly have a hard time believing that people take him seriously.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
What are your thoughts on the subject?
I've never watched it all. I have issues with climate change doomsayers on many levels, and I'll explain those in hopes of making you feel better about the issue.

First, climate change "experts" usually overlook that during the time of the dinosaurs C02 was much higher than it is now. If C02 levels double from what they are now, it doesn't mean all life goes extinct. It doesn't mean the end of humanity. There will still be viable ecosystems on the globe for life to flourish. These ecosystems may arise as a result of climate change. This is where many authorities on the subject just dismiss facts. The fact is that our climate has never been stable. It was unstable for millions of years prior to mankind. Look at this chart:



As you can see, C02 has fallen remarkably from 600 million years ago. There was life then, there is life now. That said, if our C02 increased to match what it was 600 million years ago, our world climate would be totally different. It's hard to say how it would change. For my local area, I have heard that global warming is increasing our precipitation. Is this bad or good? I don't really know, but it's a change, and generally, people oppose change. Obviously it's bad if a city gets sunk under an ocean, or if farm fields turn to desert... but if that's the only thing these people are pointing at, it's a very biased viewpoint. Northern regions in Canada might actually become more viable farmland. Maybe we'll start growing oranges in Michigan? Climate change isn't a disaster that strikes on a single day. It's a change that happens over a longer period of time, giving some humans the time to adapt to the change. Some animals in the natural world will adapt as well. Those that don't adapt will be disadvantaged and may die as a result of the change, yet complete disaster is the only thing people like Al Gore talk about... why is that? Now, I agree it is a man-made disaster in some ways, but if we're expecting the Earth to never change, that's kind of delusional. Humans have and do effect the environment in many other ways by thriving, not just an acceleration of CO2 increase. Yet CO2 is what their focused on... Why not focus on preventing deforestation? Yes, some environmentalists do this, but why not the elected officials in government? Why don't they focus on preventing ocean pollution which is devastating the fisheries, and causing jellyfish to reproduce out of control? They like to harp on CO2, instead.

There is a simple explanation for why government elected officials who claim to be environmentalists want to control CO2. Tax money. Their "only solution" to stopping CO2 is a unilateral tax in the United States which taxes every bit of CO2 created by power companies. These companies will be forced to buy their CO2 pollution from the government... they will still pollute. They say that this will create an incentive for clean energy. Yes, it will in the long-term, but in the short term it will damage the United States economy and put more people out of work. I work at a large gas station. Its electric bill is $4,500 per month. If the government starts adding a tax to the power company, the power company will charge the gas station more for electricity. They can't create clean energy overnight, can they? The increase in our electric costs directly affects profitability, and employee hours may have to be reduced as a result. At larger companies, people would be fired as a result of this change in policy.

Why not create a clean energy bill that doesn't result in the government getting more tax money in the general coffer? What if the government sold CO2 and used those funds to buy land and plant trees to capture CO2? Yet, no government official ever proposed such a thing, and even if they did, it was a boldfaced lie. It all comes down to economics 101.

Any economist will tell you that production in an economy at any given time can be divided between government production, and private business production. The total pie may expand or shrink over time, but ultimately we must decide what resources we want to allot the government, and what resources will remain for private industry.

A CO2 tax is a way of government bureaucrats achieving their main objective, which is an expansion of government. To this end, they will adopt most any policy which puts more money in their hands as long as it doesn't hurt their prospects of relection. Why do they want more money? More money, and more avenues to tax individuals gives the government bureaucrat more control and power. Imagine you're a member of a government body that has influence over what the tax rate on CO2 will be? You'll have considerable power as a result of that... but power for what?

The power they gain, they use to further expand the influence and power of government. This is their mentality. It is always good to have a larger government to "protect the people" from "big business". Yet, they never say, we have taken it too far. They always say, "we haven't gone far enough." If we allow such people to control government policy over a long period, the pie slice for private industry shrinks and the pie slice for government expands. Yet it has been shown that when we increase the pie portion for government too far (communism, or take Greece for example), what happens as a result is a shrinkage in the overall pie. This is because government is inefficient. Now, people may suggest evidence to show that government spending somehow expanded the economy and they would be quite right. The government borrowed money it didn't have, to artificially expand the total size of the pie.


It's already blatantly apparent that a bloated government cannot function. It spends more than it taxes, and then demands more taxes to make-up for what it spends, yet no limit is ever imposed upon it. If this continues, we will soon find the limit, and it wont be pretty. :) And from the perspective of an average American, the result will be far worse than climate change.

-------------------------------

All that said, I think things need to be done to transition us slowly to clean energy. I do not believe in a new government tax as the "only solution" to the problem. There are many problems and many level-headed solutions to those problems that transition us slowly from one technology to another. Businesses need long-term visibility for government changes, this allows for financial planning so they can remain profitable, and transition themselves with the least impact on the economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,358 Posts
I watched it, but I didn't feel very depressed. I think I didn't feel depressed at all. I just saw it as a worst case scenerio. I did watch it thinking it was produced by someone in politics, so I didn't think it was that credible anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niccolo Machiavelli

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,967 Posts
This reminded me of something.

"...the truths of the world are not fixed, and they're not even necessarily truths, and this is what empowered the children, as they grew, to see through the smoke and mirrors of other people's political agendas and to form their own opinions. Surely, a skill that we should be teaching to all of our children." -David Eagleman, from The Brain With David Eagleman, "Episode 5: Why Do I Need You" (approx. 51 minutes into it)

I've put a linked video in the spoiler tag.

 

On-topic to documentaries about global warming, I think that it's helpful to have another perspective, which is provided by the episode of NOVA titled Dimming The Sun. It's about global dimming which is the other side of the global warming coin. It can be watched at Global Dimming - Top Documentary Films

Concern is warranted, yeah, but not to the point of disheartening people. Awareness, itself, is powerful. It's the initial spark that allows for the possibility of changing things now to influence a better future. The questions we ask are crucial to understanding what's actually happening, and to be able to consider our part in it, and questions are also crucial to confronting any hint of propaganda to see if there is another motive behind alarmists shouting that the sky is falling. There are definitely people who take advantage of a nervous populace and exploit that fear toward fueling their own agenda.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top