# Earth Hour 2008



## McWizzle94 (Mar 25, 2008)

This is something that i think that everyone should do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qczUcQ-VjM


----------



## Hadley4000 (Mar 25, 2008)

I'll be out of the house anyway.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 25, 2008)

I guess I will bring candles with me to the Danish Open


----------



## Dene (Mar 26, 2008)

Uh, I hate such typical American dribble. Did you hear his voice? Seriously? How could you make something sound so melodramatic? And, like a typical American, he has no idea how to pronounce "Melbourne" or "Brisbane". This sort of video makes me sick.
I for one will not contribute to such a wasteful cause either. Global warming, if it is even real, is a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice Age/Draught. If anybody thinks they can stop it, they have another thing coming.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Mar 26, 2008)

Dene said:


> Uh, I hate such typical American dribble. Did you hear his voice? Seriously? How could you make something sound so melodramatic? And, like a typical American, he has no idea how to pronounce "Melbourne" or "Brisbane". This sort of video makes me sick.
> I for one will not contribute to such a wasteful cause either. Global warming, if it is even real, is a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice Age/Draught. If anybody thinks they can stop it, they have another thing coming.





Don't get me started on global warming. It IS real. It is fact. Wake up.


----------



## badmephisto (Mar 26, 2008)

Global Warming IS real, and Humans ARE causing it. Those two facts are agreed upon by most scientists. The topic of all discussion is exactly how this warming is going to change Earth. Exactly how fast will it change it? In what ways? That's the hard part. 

Anyway, I will participate in the Earth Hour; we need to become a little more aware of the environmental issues, and hopefully all of this will also lead to more solar power usage and less environmental contamination. 
If it were up to me there would be a laws for use of solar power and heavy subsidies for solar power research and development, as well as increased funding to hybrid production. The only reason none of this has happened yet is because there are people with millions in their pockets who don't want any of this to happen.

Also, have you seen all the stuff that accumulates inside the snow on sides of roads from car exhausts? We breath that ****, no wonder diseases like asthma are on the rise.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 26, 2008)

Dene said:


> ...I for one will not contribute to such a wasteful cause either. Global warming, if it is even real, is a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice Age/Draught. If anybody thinks they can stop it, they have another thing coming.


 
This cause is mostly about making a point and NOT being wasteful.
And I agree on the natural cycle, but we are accelerating that cycle a lot (and we can stop that).

I am wondering what that thing is that is coming my way now.


----------



## Dene (Mar 26, 2008)

So what if it's being accelerated?
I'm going to discuss a theory here that was provided me by someone far more intelligent than myself, and my senior.
Consider this: A bacteria replicates through binary fission into 2 cells, and this can be achieved in approximately 10 minutes (which is the number we will use for the sake of simplicity). Optimal growth of bacteria is worked out using 2^n, where n is the number of generations. Thus, in one day, we could have 6*24 generations. 2^144=2.23007452*10^43. In a week we would have 2^144*7=.... Ok my calculator wont let me work it out, it's too big! You get the idea, in a very short space of time, the bacteria will have occupied the whole space of the Earth, and in not too much longer, the whole universe!
This, of course, doesn't happen. Why not? Well, there seems to be a kind of natural population cap. All sorts of things contribute, space, food, competition etc. that stop them from breaching a certain number.
I hope you can all see where I'm going with this. Perhaps we humans have reached a population cap ourselves? Such a happening is inevitable, and the effects that are going to keep our numbers down are the same things, as in, resources, space, competition.

As for you Hadley, I disagree, I am yet to be convinced that global warming, in the sense that modern scientists claim, is real. As far as I'm still concerned, it is part of a natural cycle, and most of the population will die, and humans will evolve to a greater species. Of course, this is so long away that you are wasting your time even thinking about it.

Mr. van Galen, what is coming is the inevitable  . It cannot be stopped, the best thing to do is not to try and stop it (stupid choice) but instead prepare future generations for it (smart choice). I'm all with Stephen Hawking in this, in that space travel is our most viable option at the moment.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 26, 2008)

> ...the effects that are going to keep our numbers down are the same things, as in, resources, space, competition.


 One of these effects is people realizing we are using to many resources and doing something about it like Earth Hour. I agree it is a small start that will be more symbolical than actually useful, but you and me discussing is already proving it's point.



> ... it is part of a natural cycle, and most of the population will die, and humans will evolve to a greater species. Of course, this is so long away that you are wasting your time even thinking about it.


That natural cycle exists, but if you analyze the rate of temperature changes in the past and right now you would understand that this ISN'T so long away anymore. The industrial era only started about a century ago (let's not try to be to precise), and currently only a limited portion of the human race is living "a western/modern" life-style. Already the effects are noticable and influence nature a lot. Imagine if/when giants like China and India adopt the same life-style and resource-use.



> ...what is coming is the inevitable


Yeah, that is kind of the definition, but you didn't answer the question. What should we prepare future generations for?

P.S. to give an indication how large China and India really are:
1

 People's Republic of China[2]1,323,270,000March 26, 200819.84%Chinese Population clock, in Chinese2

 India1,130,720,000March 26, 200816.95%Official Indian Population clock—

 European Union497,198,740January 1, 20087.39%Eurostat Population3

 United States303,645,612March 16, 20084.55%Official USA Population clock

That is 37% in the 2 biggest countries and "only" 12% in the next 2 biggest "countries". I don't know how many resources those 12% use, but I guess it will be at least 50%.

Please read something like this, that is the whole reason this topic exists.

P.S. space travel is a nice option, but not very realistic at the moment. Consider how many resources it takes to put some robot on a planet a few "galactic houses" away from us it isn't very useful yet.


----------



## pcharles93 (Mar 26, 2008)

Whether global warming is a cycle or not, take this into account: It's not changing anything that quickly. We'll most likely be dead before the damage is done.


----------



## hinges (Mar 26, 2008)

has no one seen the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth ?
it strongly proves that global warming is not a hoax and should be taken very seriously...i recommend everyone to see that movie...

and btw the more population of a country does not equal of it taking that many resources and contributing to that much pollution...its not a population to pollution ratio...because both of those countries are still developing they contribute a whole less pollution than the current developed countries are producing...

and america as we know it producing more pollution and either of those two countries...and thats a fact.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 26, 2008)

hinges said:


> ...and btw the more population of a country does not equal of it taking that many resources and contributing to that much pollution...its not a population to pollution ratio...because both of those countries are still developing they contribute a whole less pollution than the current developed countries are producing...
> 
> and america as we know it producing more pollution and either of those two countries...and thats a fact.


That was exactly my point. US + Europe are only 12% of the current population. Imagine what happens when China and India continue to "modernise" like US + Europe!


----------



## Cerberus (Mar 26, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > ...I for one will not contribute to such a wasteful cause either. Global warming, if it is even real, is a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice Age/Draught. If anybody thinks they can stop it, they have another thing coming.
> ...



I also think that way and also I find such hours not that good as they seem, because if you realy want to do something about your own energy
consumption, then change your habbits EVERY hour, every day and turn off stand-by etc and you save the envirement much more than turn off everything one hour and after that turn on everything and waste energy. (however this can be done because energy can not be destroyed)

And about Al Gore, ok, he showed many people what the problems of global warming are but how does he himself travel? with private yet, big car, why not use public airplain or the bus to show that he is not better and trys to reduce his affect on global warming too?

P.S: another thing you should think about is to become a pirate, because of this:


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 26, 2008)

Interesting that this is right in the middle of the scheduled Chattahoochee after party:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=ChattahoocheeSpring2008


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 26, 2008)

Only 17???? 

Let's all not pretend to be holy. I am going to drive to Denmark just to play with a piece of plastic. Doing that at home would be better for the environment.

I don't think this hour will work very well. Nobody around me seems to know about it and I haven't heard it on the news either. I guess me (and Erik) will look silly cubing in Denmark using candle-light. (good moment for multi-blind)

Why isn't Erik talking in this thread? He studies this kind of thing.


----------



## hinges (Mar 26, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Only 17????
> Let's all not pretend to be holy. I am going to drive to Denmark just to play with a piece of plastic. Doing that at home would be better for the environment.




LOL good one...but i think cubers are doing a lot less polluting than other sports...

besides i think we should be helping the environment in the way we can...we dont have to adhere to rules or regulations or anything...

it comes down to more ethical and moral issue than anything else.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 26, 2008)

hinges said:


> LOL good one...but i think cubers are doing a lot less polluting than other sports...



True - we stay home most of the time and play with our cubes, instead of going out and consuming. Although I must admit I always try to have plenty of light when solving. Hmm, maybe I should be more environment-friendly and always turn off the light during the solving phase of a BLD solve? (For 5x5x5 multis, this could be a pretty significant energy savings. )


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 26, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Hmm, maybe I should be more environment-friendly and always turn off the light during the solving phase of a BLD solve? (For 5x5x5 multis, this could be a pretty significant energy savings. )


Considering the total amount of time you spend solving blind you can save a LOT.

Also, if you are sitting in the dark others won't see->talk-distract


----------



## hinges (Mar 26, 2008)

Errr we are trying to be environment friendly...not turn into social outcasts...

hmm perhaps we are too late for that now...oh well.....


----------



## abbracadiabra (Mar 26, 2008)

There are two issues:

One is global warming, which we could debate until we were blue in the face and never come to agreement. So let's shelve that for the moment. 

The second is energy conservation, which I'm pretty sure everybody agrees is a worthwhile objective for many reasons, of which global warming is only one. 

So at issue is whether everyone turning the lights out for one hour at the same time would save a significant amount of energy. Perhaps those of you who are mathematically inclined could answer that - I can't. 

@cerebrus - You're probably correct that turning out the lights for a single hour isn't significant, but it sure couldn't hurt. And perhaps the united effort of multiple people might make a lasting enough impression on each of them to make energy conservation part of the culture of their daily existence. I think we're in agreement about the liklihood of that being more significant.

@pcharles93 - I don't think you're looking at the big picture. The fact that we may be dead before the consequences are paid for our actions is irrelevant. Ultimately, the price will be paid by our children and grandchildren, and that's something I care deeply about.


----------



## Erik (Mar 26, 2008)

Ah yes I finally reply too in this thread.
I'm studyin environmental things but not at this high 'level' of global problems, more like companies who are not applying to the rules they should or smaller problems regarding water management or ecological problems, all within a scale of some square miles so far 
But that doesn't mean we (me and my classmates) don't think about this biiiiig problem too. This is a great initiative and I'll talk about it to my one of my teachers, of course it doesn't REALLY help the global warming at all because it's only one hour and candles and stuff also emit CO2 which is again one of the things that get blamed for the problem in the first place. HOWEVER, it's a good initiative to get attention to this problem so I'll encourage everyone to join!

The real cause of this problem (lets assume it's caused by human lifestyle) is the way people tread the environment these days. Actually it's maybe not even that but there are so MANY people nowadays. A non-realistic solution would be to do things like the one-child policy (only applied more mild) since less people-> less cars/less energy needed/less oil needed/less space needed/less nature needed = good 
Of course such a worldwide policy is very very hard to make. More realistic would be to get all people more concious and buy that more expensive lightbolt which needs less power and buy that CAR which doesn't do 5 km to a liter of gasoline (like most american cars  ) but buy a maybe more expensive but more efficient car which does 15 km to a liter of gasoline, it will even save you money after some time 
Enjoy!
Edit: or indeed get a bike and use it for those small bits of course you can think up numerous other tricks


----------



## Dene (Mar 26, 2008)

hinges said:


> has no one seen the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth ?



No they haven't, it turns out that, when you don't live in America, you don't pay any attention to the people in it (excpet, of course, when they intrude in other countries). I doubt many people have seen the movie, because we don't all worship Al Gore or his views.

Cerberus: Such a comparison is so stupid it is crazy. It's like saying, the more ice creams we eat, the more likely we are to drown. Sure, there is a strong correlation, but it has nothing to do with eating ice creams, more likely to be to do with the fact that we eat ice creams in summer, and we go swimming more in summer (and thus, drown more in summer).

Abbracadiabra: I really don't see the point in energy conservation. As a person who is extremely interested in physics, I know one of the most fundamental laws of physics: energy is neither created nor detroyed. Whatever we use, we can get back. Turning off all the lights for an hour may have an effect in the cities who are doing it, but nowhere else. It would also depend on the population of the cities and the amount of big businesses open at that time. The funny thing is, that it achieves the exact goal that energy companies don't want, yet they encourage it  . Image is everything, but they're destroying their own businesses.



AvGalen said:


> One of these effects is people realizing we are using to many resources and doing something about it like Earth Hour. I agree it is a small start that will be more symbolical than actually useful, but you and me discussing is already proving it's point.


The problem is, are we really using too many resources? We have to survive, would you rather we did so in a primitive state, or modern state? Survival of the fittest, if you want to go back to the pleistocene, you're dead.



AvGalen said:


> That natural cycle exists, but if you analyze the rate of temperature changes in the past and right now you would understand that this ISN'T so long away anymore. The industrial era only started about a century ago (let's not try to be to precise), and currently only a limited portion of the human race is living "a western/modern" life-style. Already the effects are noticable and influence nature a lot. Imagine if/when giants like China and India adopt the same life-style and resource-use.


Perhaps, but if you recall back 50 years ago, there was fear of a global "cooling". They thought all the crops would die from the cold and we'd all be doomed. What happened to that? I don't trust any of their temperature analyses.



AvGalen said:


> Yeah, that is kind of the definition, but you didn't answer the question. What should we prepare future generations for?


Well I did mention space travel. Or else, simply nothing. There is nothing we can do. If there is a population boom, either you tell people to stop reproducing (of which, I am doing my part  ), or you can't do anything.



AvGalen said:


> That is 37% in the 2 biggest countries and "only" 12% in the next 2 biggest "countries". I don't know how many resources those 12% use, but I guess it will be at least 50%.


Yes I am already aware of all these stats. I think it is clear that there is only one target country. The one that is wasting billions on a war that shouldn't exist.



AvGalen said:


> Please read something like this, that is the whole reason this topic exists.


Perhaps, but I disagree with this theory, it is very reductionist, in that it puts all the weight on food. There are so many other factors that will effect a rise in population.



AvGalen said:


> P.S. space travel is a nice option, but not very realistic at the moment. Consider how many resources it takes to put some robot on a planet a few "galactic houses" away from us it isn't very useful yet.


Which is why more effort needs to be put into this.

EDIT: sorry for the long post, but I just saw Erik's so I'll add: Or get a bike!


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 27, 2008)

Dene, I have to say you don't make a lot of sense.


> Yes I am already aware of all these stats. I think it is clear that there is only one target country. The one that is wasting billions on a war that shouldn't exist.


 I am pointing out that right now there are two "countries" (12%) that are very big polutors because of there life-style, but that it will be 4 "countries (48%) in the near future. You reduce it to 1 country (<8%) and add something about a war. And your talk about space travel is just sci-fi without realism.
and you ignore the problems.


----------



## Dene (Mar 27, 2008)

I can only see one country that is really burning through resources at the moment (America) and at the same time they are spending billions on a war instead of doing something about it. As for China, I don't think they will be a problem, as they are going to great lengths to clean things up for the Olympics and are showing that they can deal with any problems.
As for space travel, I don't think it is nearly as unrealistic as the idea that people can STOP "climate change." If more money was put into it, it could be done.
As for ignoring the problems, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I think I already said that there isn't really a problem, or at least there's nothing that we can fix.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Mar 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> As for space travel, I don't think it is nearly as unrealistic as the idea that people can STOP "climate change."



maybe we cant stop climate change, but we can slow it down


----------



## Arget (Apr 1, 2008)

Dene said:


> I can only see one country that is really burning through resources at the moment (America) and at the same time they are spending billions on a war instead of doing something about it. As for China, I don't think they will be a problem, as they are going to great lengths to clean things up for the Olympics and are showing that they can deal with any problems.


That's really funny considering that the United States AND China are among the most pollutant countries in the world and you say that China is not going to be a problem. Yes, the USA is of course the largest cause of the issue, however, other major countries such as China and countries. However, this is not a matter of which country is hurting the environment the most. It is a GLOBAL issue. We cannot have one control blaming another and telling them to fix up the problems with the environment. In order to achieve the 7th goal in the Millenium Development Goals, which currently we are in no possible way going to accomplish by 2015, we need to come together as a united global body to face the issue. The ignorance expressed by the USA and other countries to work on the issue is what is causing the problems. Individuals have begun to step out and make themselves heard but at the rate that this is ocurring, it is nothing. What the world needs now is unity. If countries are to continue to blame one another for the current condition of the environment, then there will be no step forward that is taken and no initiative set in place. Without unity, the problem will grow and universally lead to much greater problems.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2008)

What are the Millenium Developmental Goals? I have never heard of them. As for unity, it will never happen, you're wasting your time even considering it.


----------



## 36duong (Apr 1, 2008)

Dene said:


> Uh, I hate such typical American dribble. Did you hear his voice? Seriously? How could you make something sound so melodramatic? And, like a typical American, he has no idea how to pronounce "Melbourne" or "Brisbane". This sort of video makes me sick.
> I for one will not contribute to such a wasteful cause either. Global warming, if it is even real, is a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice Age/Draught. If anybody thinks they can stop it, they have another thing coming.



I agree with the first point but disagree with the second. Global Warming is something that is caused by humans, but I am very doubtful that it is going to be fixed by humans, money rules supreme over the environment


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 1, 2008)

Dene: I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking about. Saying only the USA is a big polluter is so besides the truth that it is no use continuing in detailed arguments. http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/06/20/1/ And China's economical growth is much faster than that of the USA (as I have mentioned several times before). Also, China is much less worried about pollution compared to the USA (which is already not so worried).
It seems you think "America is doing all the harm, we cannot stop it, let's escape to another planet"


Also: Use google and you will find http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ as the first hit. Main point 7 has this item:


> Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2008)

LMAO, I just read the first goal in their list and realised that reading the rest would be pointless. What a complete load of crap "erradicate all extreme hunger and poverty". And how the hell do they intend to achieve something so absurd? Do they not realise that over half of the entire population is in such a state? They are insane. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to achieve that would be to KILL everyone in "extreme poverty". And then, they poverty line would just move up. There is no way everyone could be _equally_ nourished, thus the poverty line will just move up.
As for your first article, it is mere speculation. I do understand that China is chugging crap into the atmosphere, but you're wasting your time if you think they're going to care. They're trying to clean up a bit for the Olympics, but other than that, China will do as she pleases. America is the problem country, if they are so intent on fixing it, then why aren't they doing anything? If you take a look at some of the crap that we have planned here in New Zealand (which might i point out is the LEADING country in reducing carbon emissions) you would see it isn't that hard.


----------



## abbracadiabra (Apr 2, 2008)

Well then Dene, I think we could all take a lesson from New Zealand. 

The fact that a goal is hard to attain doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to try. And I don't think it's reasonable to give up because others aren't on board. You have to start somewhere, and that somewhere might as well be with ourselves as individuals. In my home I've made an effort to be environmentally conscious. We recycle. I've switched to low energy light fixtures all around the house. I'm careful about the chemicals we use for cleaning. And I drive a fuel efficient vehichle. I realize that my efforts aren't going to make a tinkers damn worth of difference in the big picture, but if everyone made an effort I think we could do a better job of protecting the environment we're leaving behind for our children and grandchildren. And I can't expect anyone else to make an effort unless I do so myself. 

As for eradicating extreme hunger and poverty - I think we all have a responsibility to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Maybe you're right and we can't eradicate it. But perhaps we can reduce it, and that in and of itself is a worthy goal.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2008)

"We recycle"

That, I must admit, I find extremely funny. The impression I get from your clear statement (a mere two word sentence!) is that it isn't common in America to recycle!! Which is something that I was brought up with, something that is the norm here in New Zealand! This is irrelevant though, of course.

I agree, sure we should be helping those less fortunate, but it isn't going to achieved in a capatalist dominated world. There isn't any point even trying, too few people have all the money.


----------



## abbracadiabra (Apr 2, 2008)

You're right- everyone should recycle. But it is not done in every home here. I wish it was. Like I said - you've got to start somewhere, and that somewhere has to be with ourselves as individuals. Also, like I said, we could afford to take a lesson from you. I'm glad to hear you are so environmentally conscious in New Zealand, and my hope is that we Americans could learn from our friends and neighbors around the world and follow suit. 

Don't think we're all so arrogant, Dene. We're all human beings; we're no different than you.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2008)

I don't quite understand, who do I think is arrogant? If you mean American's, then yes, I have a strong dislike of the race _in general_, and take an anti-American stance at all times. This of course, doesn't work the same with individual cases. I know plenty of "good" American's, in the sense that I have no problem with them, but in general, a country that could twice elect such an idiot into presidency just doesn't strike me as a good country at all.


----------



## 36duong (Apr 2, 2008)

Global Warming is a big threat, It will take a lot of resources to put a billion people in China into 1st world living standards. Australia is in the middle of a mining boom because of China and India purchasing so much of our resources. People aren't going to let billions of dollars slip for the "environment." The earth is most certainly doomed so why worry in the first place? Slow it? yes. Stop it? no. It'd like burning money to let our current mining boom stop.


----------

