Wars are good for the planet

[spiker]

I think the potential avenues of this thread are too broad and complex and arguments over too many different things and concepts and misunderstandings of ideas and statements.
Wars being good is not my idea and never has been.
The article focuses on medieval wars where many people died, they were killed by arrows/clubbing/spears/bare hands. There were no factories or carbon emissions from industries or pollution of air from war activity. The comment was that because of the population decline at a period of war, it is suggested the tree/plant regrowth absorbed CO2 to a significant degree.

Yeah, so what? All the science in the world is not going to get anyone to agree that "wars are good" for anything really. Whatever science you have may back up your claim, but it's just ghoulish to suggest it. What end result are you seeking here?

 

[blaaah]

Great, another "It's on the interwebz, it has to be true!!!!!!" thing.

There has already been things brought up in this thread that argue certain things that that article didn't even touch. Mainly the fact that the weapons needed to cause enough human deaths(probably nuclear, which would bring the whole radiation aspect into the argument) to have any noticeable effect would surely cause more environmental harm than a few trees could make up for.

On that note, do you know how long tree's take to grow? It's not overnight, not months, more like years. That's in fertile soil, who knows if a tree would even grow in a war zone since there would be a crap load of debris.

I don't see that becoming a forest.

That would easily be a forest, perhaps you are thinking in too few years?
Chernobyl is beginning to be encroached by trees and that even has radioactive earth. And that is not even rubble it's a fully built town that was not damaged. It hasn't been that long since Chernobyl and quite a haven of greenness is developing.

Yeah, so what? All the science in the world is not going to get anyone to agree that "wars are good" for anything really. Whatever science you have may back up your claim, but it's just ghoulish to suggest it. What end result are you seeking here?

Join me at my side, take your fathers place.

 

[blaaah]

.

 

[Northstar]

That would easily be a forest, perhaps you are thinking in too few years?
Chernobyl is beginning to be encroached by trees and that even has radioactive earth. And that is not even rubble it's a fully built town that was not damaged. It hasn't been that long since Chernobyl and quite a haven of greenness is developing.

It's also had extensive decontamination work in the area which would be unlikely to happen following a war with the death toll we are talking about. Not to mention that if there is a forest fire there is a high chance of radiation levels rising which would do unknown damage to the environment.

 

[spiker]

Join me at my side, take your fathers place.

wat

 

[Azuremen]

wat

Star Wars reference.

Blaaah, any establishment that attempts to make this argument seriously is just being sensationalist. And more so NewScientist has been called this several times in the past. On top of that, this article is from their blog space.

It is a popular science magazine. Half of its validity is lost because it is aimed at lay persons.

 

[blaaah]

I agree it can be sensationalist, but at least they don't print nonsense. Their titles are usually the worst things they do.

 

[DK]

It's not the over-population that's the problem, it's a lack of supplies.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

It's not the over-population that's the problem, it's a lack of supplies.

What lack of supplies?

 

[Azuremen]

I agree it can be sensationalist, but at least they don't print nonsense. Their titles are usually the worst things they do.

Sensationalism and nonsense go hand in hand, much like this article.

 

[blaaah]

The sense of the article is rather lacking. It worked in a sensationalist point though as clearly demonstrated on here. And the reactionary viewers did their stuff and the science aspect got completely trashed. So who is worse the sneakily written science of those who react to it?

 

[HACKr]

It's also had extensive decontamination work in the area which would be unlikely to happen following a war with the death toll we are talking about. Not to mention that if there is a forest fire there is a high chance of radiation levels rising which would do unknown damage to the environment.

I'd be willing to say that the decontamination of surrounding areas was not anywhere near as extensive as you think. And in traditional war, it's not like there's nukes being dropped left and right...

Anyway:
The Exclusion Zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is reportedly a haven for wildlife. As humans were evacuated from the area 24 years ago, existing animal populations multiplied and rare species not seen for centuries have returned or have been reintroduced, for example lynx, wild boar, wolf, Eurasian brown bear, European bison, Przewalski's horse, and eagle owl. Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding in the shattered remains of reactor number 4. The Exclusion Zone is so lush with wildlife and greenery that in 2007 the Ukrainian government designated it a wildlife sanctuary, and at 488.7 km2 it is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in Europe.

And:
According to a 2005 U.N. report, wildlife has returned despite radiation levels that are presently 10 to 100 times higher than normal background radiation. Although they were significantly higher soon after the accident, the levels have fallen because of radioactive decay.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_after_the_disaster

I'm not advocating war or anything though...

 

[Azuremen]

The sense of the article is rather lacking. It worked in a sensationalist point though as clearly demonstrated on here. And the reactionary viewers did their stuff and the science aspect got completely trashed. So who is worse the sneakily written science of those who react to it?

Now you are just dodging the issue. Honestly, what is the point in posting this tripe besides getting some attention from the forum, because at the moment, my opinion of you is plummeting.

 

[blaaah]

You are reacting.
It's science, it's a story, it caught my attention. You don't have to respond to it.
Should I decide what to write based on your opinion of me?
What is the issue that you would like me to focus more on and not avoid, I will try and look at it again.

 

[Azuremen]

You are reacting.
It's science, it's a story, it caught my attention. You don't have to respond to it.
Should I decide what to write based on your opinion of me?
What is the issue that you would like me to focus more on and not avoid, I will try and look at it again.

No I mean now you are just avoiding the issue of you trying to argue this as a valid point now saying "ha, I got a reaction!"

It is bordering on trollish behavior and is really just childish and annoying.

 

[blaaah]

So you just want to tell me off for that, OK.
I don't think the subject of the article is valid for much, but I did think it was interesting, and so did others and yourself even if it is to consider worthless knowledge. Sensational information shouldn't be restricted just because it will get a reaction. Only things that need moderating is boring ideas that have been discussed repeatedly in order to get attention. This was a new concept, and that's why it is fresh news in a new scientific report presented in New Scientist and referred to by me.
Calling me a troll or a child does your argument no favours. In fact it destroys it.

 

[MistaX]

Reforestation is the only point they could come up with? What about the resources saved? FOR HEAVENS SAKE THINK OF THE FUEL.


Anyway to quote the Matrix:

"Humanity is a cancer of this planet"

It's pretty true. Although you really have to understand how subjective the term "better" is in this situation.

If Earth itself had an opinion as to what "better" is.... then it'd be a bit less subjective.

 

[spiker]

New Scientist is trolling the scientific community with an article like that. They published it to draw attention to their magazine - ie. sell magazines, ads, etc.

 

[Azuremen]

So you just want to tell me off for that, OK.
I don't think the subject of the article is valid for much, but I did think it was interesting, and so did others and yourself even if it is to consider worthless knowledge. Sensational information shouldn't be restricted just because it will get a reaction. Only things that need moderating is boring ideas that have been discussed repeatedly in order to get attention. This was a new concept, and that's why it is fresh news in a new scientific report presented in New Scientist and referred to by me.
Calling me a troll or a child does your argument no favours. In fact it destroys it.

We reacted mostly because you presented it as if it was a valid point. We rebuffed it, you attempted to defend it, and now you've completely folded in your view point. So now, with the merit of this point gone, you are saying it is still worth posting misleading or invalid information if only because it will generate some type of response.

See where this could be less than ideal?

 

[blaaah]

No I am not saying it's worth posting misleading or worthless information full stop, but if it contains a new idea or concept then it is worth considering, even if it is to dismiss and judge, because if it is new it hasn't been prejudged if you know what i mean.
But in reference to completely changing opinions and viewpoints that to me is great and I celebrate that, there is nothing better to be called a hypocrite, but i note there is a culture in public life of that being a negative quality. To me to change views and opinions on something over what ever factors are involved is very healthy. But those factors should be relevant to how the discussion flows. There is also a difference between heartfelt opinions and expression of thought in order for it to be debated. To explore possibilities an opposing view needs to be said, just because it gets a reaction from my intent doesn't make the discussion invalid. Until there is a resolution or as many points of view have been made it is worthwhile with meaning. It's upto me then if i decide my opinion is more like what someone else suggested rather than my opinion expressed earlier in that discussion. Maybe unlike you i can hold many opinions about things that are in direct conflict with each other. Why do you have to have just one opinion when you can have many?
You are restricting yourself mentally, philosophically and imaginatively . A drawback is it does mean not getting much done if you like being practical about things in life, as each decision is very laboured, maybe it's bi-polar thinking i don't know. But i know it is also a type of scientific method to constantly go with what fits best and not to hold onto the wrong ideas.

New Scientist is trolling the scientific community with an article like that. They published it to draw attention to their magazine - ie. sell magazines, ads, etc.

Normally in their articles, they have a review of the information by independent experts in the field who give their feedback at the end. This is missing in this article, and as has been mentioned might be because it comes from a new section of the magazine. Which is not as professional.

 

[spiker]

blaaah, do you find that when you talk to strangers in real life, they often tell you that they are busy and have to go do something somewhere else immediately?

 

[blaaah]

blaaah, do you find that when you talk to strangers in real life, they often tell you that they are busy and have to go do something somewhere else immediately?

I thought this was real life?
If you mean face to face, i speak in short sentences and then wait for the other person to speak, have conversations with people*, which is something quite different to internet forum posts, which are bit like letters where you have to get more comment across in each post.
But it seems some forum posts have more of a conversation type style, I don't have the patience for that, and it doesn't fit in at all for matters requiring debate.
If i met you in 'real life' i might not give you the time of day.

I was in the pub last week and on the table near me was a young man and young lady, they were already there when I arrived and he was busy talking with her listening, I was there for about an hour with my friend and for the whole time he never stopped talking at her, I was amazed. And it was hilarious. About half way through she put a jacket on, he stopped and asked about it, she said she was just cold, then he instantly continued his rambling for another constant half hour.
I can tell you I am nothing like that!

 

[spiker]

I'm crushed.