fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 Yeah, so? It's too bad that we haven't eradicated more disease-transmitting vermin, parasites, deadly bacteria, etc. Like rats carrying black death and malaria-spreading mosquitoes, ya know? Anyone who sides with and prefers other species over our own, or who worships a hunk of rock like "earth" to the point of wanting to exterminate the human species to "serve" it is a traitor. If you don't like this planet, then by all means please feel free to leave. Having a blatant disregard for the life that surround and supports us is counterproductive to human survival. What did you have for breakfast today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 Having a blatant disregard for the life that surround and supports us is counterproductive to human survival. Blatant disregard? Where did I ever say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 In post #15. "If we had to extract every last resource from the planet to survive and then move to Mars, well, then, that's what we'd have to do. Tough luck, earth. Though luck, other species." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) In post #15. "If we had to extract every last resource from the planet to survive and then move to Mars, well, then, that's what we'd have to do. Tough luck, earth. Though luck, other species." It doesn't say that at all. It all starts with a hypothetical "if," see? If I have a high-powered rifle and see a lion charging at me full speed, I'm gunna blow that sucker away. And that would be just as true if I knew it was the last male lion on earth. I'll leave it to fanatical members of PETA and eco-extemists to just stand there and get eaten alive in order to "save the lions." Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) The rat didn't carry the Plague, the fleas on the rats carried the Yersinia Pestis bacteria. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Exterminate the bacteria and the horses they rode in on. They're all pests, anyway, but that aside, you may have get rid of the whole crew to protect yourself. You can't just selectively kill the bacteria--certainly not some guy from the middle ages. Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 Many of the thousands of varieties of bacteria that inhabit your intestines are potentially lethal if they were not held in check by other bacteria. Indiscriminately eradicating any life can have dire consequences. Where would we be if Alexander Fleming had thrown away that moldy loaf of bread back in 1928? There wouldn't be any penicillin to cure your gonorrhea. On a positive note, untreated gonorrhea causes sterility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillinhttps://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/stdfact-gonorrhea.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 How do like your beer, wine, liquor, bread, yogurt, cheese, donuts, etc...? All fermented products made with...(dah, dah, dah)...bacteria. :shocked: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) It doesn't say that at all. It all starts with a hypothetical "if," see? If I have a high-powered rifle and see a lion charging at me full speed, I'm gunna blow that sucker away. And that would be just as true if I knew it was the last male lion on earth. I'll leave it to fanatical members of PETA and eco-extemists to just stand there and get eaten alive in order to "save the lions." If you have a high power rifle, which is commonly fitted with a scope, you will not hit the charging lion. Those rifles generally use light weight small caliber bullets that have little muzzle energy, not that you will be able to get a bead on the lion in tall grass with a scope anyways. Better to use a large bore hand gun like a .45 Long Colt or .44 Magnum for self defense. PS, the .454 Casull and the .500 Smith and Wesson are both rare and expensive. Edited March 3, 2019 by fahrquad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 Here are the rifle cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 2, 2019 Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 Here is a .50 BMG for comparison. The .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round entered service in 1921 and is still in use. The cartridge itself has been made in many variants: multiple generations of regular ball, tracer, armor-piercing (AP), incendiary, and saboted sub-caliber rounds. The rounds intended for machine guns are made into a continuous belt using metallic links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 3, 2019 Report Share Posted March 3, 2019 .50 BMG vs .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) I think I have taken this topic far enough off thread, so I am leaving it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 4, 2019 Report Share Posted March 4, 2019 Getting back on topic (sort of), bacteria make this dietary staple for millions possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 4, 2019 Report Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) Getting really back on topic, bacteria cells outnumber human cells in our bodies by a rate of 10 to 1. Could humans then be considered merely to be a life support and transport mechanism for bacteria? Who then is the dominant species on the planet? All hail our new lords and masters!!! (lactobacillus bacteria) https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body Edited March 4, 2019 by fahrquad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 8, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) Getting really back on topic, bacteria cells outnumber human cells in our bodies by a rate of 10 to 1. The topic of this thread was human-caused greening and it's effect on our current climate models. Exchem made the claim that planting agricultural crops has no net effect on reducing atmospheric co2. I have disputed his claim, and given my reasons for doing so. His reasoning seems to be along the lines of: "Since all humans die, it is impossible for the species to exist for more than one generation." He has chosen not to respond to my comments. Anyone else have an opinion? Edited March 8, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maine farmer Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 So if you cut down some Amazon rainforest on the one hand and on the other you plant double the green area you cut down, but all in the form of food crops, the planet gets greener but CO2 increases. Well, it all depends. What specific crops are being grown, and what tillage methods are being used? Vegetable crops that are grown using conventional tillage prevents carbon sequestration, but minimal or no till methods allow for more carbon to be sequestered in the soil. Then there are cover crops and fertilization methods to consider also. Some organic producers are experimenting with planting a cover crop of winter rye, then flattening and crimping the rye when the plant is in the boot stage, and planting a crop in the rye residue. This method would be conducive to sequestering a lot of carbon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 8, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) Vegetable crops that are grown using conventional tillage prevents carbon sequestration, but minimal or no till methods allow for more carbon to be sequestered in the soil. I'll take your word for that, Farmguy. But a more important point regarding Exchem's claim is that replanting immediately begins to offset the effect of a harvest, as far as co2 in the atmosphere is concerned. Edited March 8, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 I think that the net effect of agriculture on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is relatively negligible. The primary concern for the planet is the release of carbon that has long been sequestered in the form of fossil fuels. We have to either find an effective long term storage solution to the carbon released or abandon the use of fossil fuels altogether. I favor a combination of direct solar energy, both thermal and photo-voltaic, and indirect solar energy in the form of bio-fuels. This carbon neutral scheme is sustainable but not cheap, but then what is the cost of fossil fuel extraction and global climate change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.