Great video on climate change!

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Winter said:

If I reach that one I have more. I have a whole ordered list after that, I'll never run out of stuff to pursue. It's not about the end goal, it's about doing what I decided I would do. (For no reason at all)

What are you actively doing to reach that goal? 

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Winter said:

It's embarrassing to be active on that forum for that reason (I should be working, not doing that). I generally am on this forum when trying to get back some awareness to work. I wouldn't be participating right now if everything was going well. In fact nothing justifies my presence on the forum, I'm here purely by ego craving of having a discussion with you.

But I do my best to maintain A s in all my courses at school while trying to get my side "business/startup/project" rolling. My project is a 2 year old video game. (Yeah I know video game bwaaah) I'm doing that as it's my shortess access to a lot of money and management experience. (The existing code base is big enough that I would waste time and money trying to make a new project instead, and this project has potential).

 The school is a way to get access to material and knowledge while the project is a way to get money. The plan is to reinvest the money I would get from the successful project into other businesses (science related). At school I study both computer science and I'll start to take management courses next term. Comp Sci is an easy access to a lot of fields as all science fields need computers nowadays. I want to learn more chemistry/physics/bio but I have a limit of credits I can take at school, so I'll learn those subjects by reading textbooks on my own.

I'm so pathetic now, talking but not walking. But I know if I want to walk well again I need to stop feeling guilt about not walking. 

None of this sounds specifically Orange. So, I think it's important to drop the limiting beliefs relative to Spiral Dynamics and making sure that you don't leave a certain stage. Allow yourself to grow with your goals and don't be afraid of making small changes as you progress toward your goal.

So, I say continue on with what you're doing. And really focus on your passions. 

But none of that requires remaining in Orange conceptually, as at the end of the day Spiral Dynamics is just a theoretical framework. 

Like I said before, I find it to be a more compelling model to use on entire social systems and to understand the workings of society and how to bring humanity forward. But when used as a personal model, I find that people trip a bit over the model and it getting in the way of goals and personal development. 

But I also don't look down on your video game idea or your goal overall. It seems like you're uncomfortable and expect judgment to come from others relative to your goals. If this has been something you have experienced, then perhaps that's why you've sought refuge in your identification with Orange for fear of losing grip of what's important to you. Do you have a lot of people in your life that judge you? 

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Winter said:

The problem with my video game is that in order to discipline myself to make it, I had to drop activities such as... playing video games. I had pretty serious fighting game addiction that was slowing me down in the past. Now it's all behind but, I'm the one trapping others with my game. I can't be "fair" if I want to succeed, I need those statistics and exp points to grab the players. (Otherwise they'll just play something else) That clash between getting rich with my project and helping society is not strong enough to make me drop that project and start a new one but is strong enough to make me say that it's my last video game ever.

Opinions of others do not matter and I don't have much negative judgements from people. But by making that video game I'm kind of building a trap for some amount of people.

Pursuing a video game passion is as valuable as anything else in my opinion but for many its a trap that they need to get out of. If getting good at video games is not your main goal then there's little point playing them.

I don't really see the job of creating video games as being particularly nefarious. I do understand that people get addictions to things like that. But I don't see any harm in video games by themselves. I think the problem with addiction to things like video games tends to come out of a sense of social isolation, which then translates to wanting to busy one's self with too much entertainment.

When I play video games, my main goal is to have fun with them. I seldom ever play them, and when I do, I don't experience the pull to continue for hours and hours. I grow weary of it in about thirty minutes and move on. 

So, my thought is that it would surprise me if a lot of people play video games for the purpose of getting good at playing them. My thought was that video games were played because they're stimulating and fun. I could be wrong here, as I don't know the gamer culture that well. But I would be surprised if there was a conscious goal of getting good at them. 

But this is coming from someone who has never been addicted to video games, and mostly sees them in a casual and leisurely way. 

But if you're really that conflicted about creating video games and you're just doing it for the money, can you think of something else that would be lucrative for you that doesn't bother you?

[Shadowraix]

I always thought Katharine Hayhoe with the Global Weirding channel did a phenomenal job explaining climate change. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow

[Outer]

Stop Flying
Eat Plant-based diet
Drive electric or hybrid or take public transportation
Use LED lights
Buy electricity from renewable sources
Recycle
Vote for people that take climate change seriously, don't vote for people who take bribes
Tell others after you've improved yourself

Edited December 2, 2018 by Outer

[purerogue]

Have you watched videos that have opposite opinion , or are you just clinging to this opinion?

There are plenty of fact that are hard to deny, that might make it possible that it has very little to do with human impact , but this forum is not for arguing about such things. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by purerogue

[Outer]

16 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Have you watched videos that have opposite opinion , or are you just clinging to this opinion?

There are plenty of fact that are hard to deny, that might make it possible that it has very little to do with human impact , but this forum is not for arguing about such things. 

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[purerogue]

2 minutes ago, Outer said:

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I think you got wrong idea here, I am not saying that climate change is not happening , but that it might have  little to do with human impact, they are 2 competelly different things. 

[Outer]

14 minutes ago, purerogue said:

I think you got wrong idea here, I am not saying that climate change is not happening , but that it might have  little to do with human impact, they are 2 competelly different things. 

Quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Quote

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[purerogue]

7 minutes ago, Outer said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You are just stating fact that carbon dioxide has never been this high, which is true, but it might have nothing to to with climate change as it is cyclical , and on cycles there ere even larger cycles, now find if earth has never been this warm.

[Outer]

6 minutes ago, purerogue said:

You are just stating fact that carbon dioxide has never been this high, which is true, but it might have nothing to to with climate change as it is cyclical , and on cycles there ere even larger cycles, now find if earth has never been this warm.

I think what you're trying to say is that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they've been for 400,000 years or more, but that carbon dioxide is just correlated with the increase in average earth temperature. But carbon dioxide and other gases has been proven to trap in heat:

Quote

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Quote

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Outer

[purerogue]

5 minutes ago, Outer said:

I think what you're trying to say is that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they've been for 400,000 years or more, but that carbon dioxide is just correlated with the increase in average earth temperature. But carbon dioxide and other gases has been proven to trap in heat:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Doesn't basically everything traps in heat, energy, Interesting , what I read that first of all we are due to ice age , not recovering from it, and evidence says that cyclical changes can happen very fast in couple of years, so I am confused how it can happen 10 times faster, but I do not want to ignore their claims, neither I want to cling to them , as they are not as smart as they think , they are still just speculating to some degree, that is why there are different opinions. 

[purerogue]

There are allot of information out there

https://www.thegwpf.com/understanding-climate-cycles-or-how-to-avoid-climate-panics/

You can look in other ideas if you want to. 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by purerogue

[Outer]

1 minute ago, purerogue said:

Doesn't basically everything traps in heat, energy, Interesting , what I read that first of all we are due to ice age , not recovering from it, and evidence says that cyclical changes can happen very fast in couple of years, so I am confused how it can happen 10 times faster, but I do not want to ignore their claims, neither I want to cling to them , as they are not as smart as they think , they are still just speculating to some degree, that is why there are different opinions. 

Well you do agree that the average temperature is rising, that carbon dioxide and other gases traps in heat, that carbon dioxide levels in the earth atmosphere is the highest its been for 400,000 years or longer? But you might not agree that the carbon dioxide increase is a large part of the average temperature increase?

 

[daniel695]

if the ice melts wouldn't the water level be at the same level because the size of the ice was pushing the water high so by melting it remains the same level? i saw a video that proves this. what do you guys think?

[Outer]

5 minutes ago, daniel695 said:

if the ice melts wouldn't the water level be at the same level because the size of the ice was pushing the water high so by melting it remains the same level? i saw a video that proves this. what do you guys think?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/

[purerogue]

10 minutes ago, daniel695 said:

if the ice melts wouldn't the water level be at the same level because the size of the ice was pushing the water high so by melting it remains the same level? i saw a video that proves this. what do you guys think?

Does air compressed take up less space? 

13 minutes ago, Outer said:

Well you do agree that the average temperature is rising, that carbon dioxide and other gases traps in heat, that carbon dioxide levels in the earth atmosphere is the highest its been for 400,000 years or longer? But you might not agree that the carbon dioxide increase is a large part of the average temperature increase?

 

Yes, it probably has some effect , everything has , question is how much. 

[daniel695]

2 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Does air compressed take up less space? 

im not sure would it. how do you compress air? 

[purerogue]

Just now, daniel695 said:

im not sure would it. how do you compress air? 

Just google your answer, answer is yes , water will take up more space, but it is not that there will be more water , it will simply take more space when it melts. 

[Shadowraix]

49 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Just google your answer, answer is yes , water will take up more space, but it is not that there will be more water , it will simply take more space when it melts. 

Correct. Liquid water molecules aren't as tightly packed together as solid water molecules. That basically sums it up.