What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
55 Comments
- phreak79, on 01/22/2009, -3/+23This is what I don't get. Even if you don't believe in man-made climate change there are so many other benefits of living a clean lifestyle. It really is a no brainer.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -2/+15What do you mean by "naturally"? The cleanup has mostly been due to public interest thwarting corporate interests. It is nearly always more profitable for industry in the short term to produce dirty energy with no regard for the environment. The public absolutely NEEDs to impose regulations to counter the "natural" tendencies of energy corporations to be dirty.
If you don't believe that, head to Beijing or Mexico City for your next vacation. - gofalcons, on 01/22/2009, -2/+9Look, there is nothing wrong with cleaning up the environment, just stop trying to scare people into doing it.
- SpectralSounds, on 01/22/2009, -2/+7What if I'm bed ridden and suffering at the end of my life? Can I trade those extra 5 months in for an overdose of heroin?
- serif69, on 01/22/2009, -2/+5"Controlling for changes in income, education, demographics and smoking, about five months of that can be chalked up to air improvements."
So in a study related to health, they controlled for one health factor, and three demographic factors. No factoring in of disease, diet, or substance abuse. Nice work. - Narcism, on 01/22/2009, -3/+6I'm going to have Alzheimer's anyway. I won't notice.
- sodade, on 01/22/2009, -0/+3I moved from the Bay Area to a rural mountain setting specifically because I was ***** sick of breathing in the detritus of an overpopulated society.
- designerutah, on 01/22/2009, -3/+6You're talking about two things that are related and assuming a connection. Cleaner planet, cleaner lifestyle, these are things almost anyone can agree with. But Climate Change proponents say that man-made pollutants will soon cause world-wide climactic disaster unless governments step in and force... some type of change. I am not against Climate Change ... in terms of it being part of the environmental science and man-made changes are real, just not understood. I am also FOR cleaner air, cleaner water, and believe that the people have the responsibility to hold themselves, corporations and governments to a higher standard. What I am NOT in favor of though is panic, huge assumptions, and bad science used for politically motivated fear mongering.
FOR -- Cleaner environment
FOR -- Holding individuals, corporations,and governments to higher standards
FOR -- Scientific study and determining what is really happening, and how best to repair the damage
FOR -- Research and development of alternate fuels, energy, mass transit, recycling, etc.
AGAINST -- Politically motivated fear mongering used to fill coffers and get re-elected.
AGAINST -- Unproven reactionary science based on small sample sizes and short timelines. - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+3oxygen bars existed?
- Pezza131214, on 01/22/2009, -3/+6Five months ain't nothin'. If i did the math (10 years lost for smoking, 1 year for using caffeine/amphetamine, 3 years for fast food, etc) I'd only have about 20 years of life. I'm 19 now so i may as well live it up.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+3Well my point is, five extra months doesn't just mean five extra months of being frail and feeble. It's not like Death just tacks those months on to the end of your life. Your health follows you throughout your life, and something that causes you to die five months sooner probably also makes you less healthy before then, too.
- MeatyMcBeef, on 01/22/2009, -0/+3@KaseyCarbone
The public does not need to "impose" anything. If the public wants cleaner cars they will stop buying those which are not. This forces companies to develop ones which meet the demands. No one has to legislate, impose, or regulate in cases where free markets function properly.
However. In cases where innovation has stagnated in such a way where, say the public does not demand a cleaner/more efficient widget because the cost difference between current widgets and cleaner widgets is too high is where we get stuck. I would not want to legislate against old widgets(legislating against is only fun until it's you being legislated against) but I would prefer grants or subsidies to assist in making clean widgets cheaper. An incentive is usually more effective if the incentive has STRICT guidelines on how it is used.
Anyway that's my two bits, not that it matters as this is Digg and we're all a bunch of cluster ***** idiots arguing over the same 2 topics. - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -2/+5Yay, you get five more months of life in a nursing home with abusive caretakers.
- Nintendesert, on 01/22/2009, -1/+4That's ok, the rampant obesity and its related diseases will counter that!
- Pezza131214, on 01/22/2009, -0/+2No, he's talking about market driven improvements, and improvements that occur with more advanced technology. I can burn coal to heat my home, or I can run my AC in reverse (heat pump). It's not because of regulations that I chose the latter, it's because it's better in every way. I can chose incandescent light bulbs or compact florescence. Again, i chose the latter because they're cheaper in the long run, and provide a better light.
Another example, computers of today use less power than computers of 20 years ago, they use less power because they're more efficient, not because somebody made them use less power.
Beijing and Mexico city are dirty not because they're allowed to be, but because they don't have the infrastructure/ technology. Why do you think they didn't tried to apply the kyoto protocol to developing nations? If what you're saying is true, and the issue is lack of regulation in those places, wouldn't the protocol fix the problem? - Meor, on 01/22/2009, -6/+8Exchanging 5 months to not have to listen to hypocritical self-righteous anti-society nuts? Sign me up for that one.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/23/2009, -0/+2"There is no question that we've released more CO2 into the air then there has ever been before we've existed. "
Source? - skinny01, on 01/22/2009, -0/+2I would think that having clean air would add a lot more to your life than just 5 months.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+2Meaty, if a company put a car on the market with two nearly identical models, one with a catalytic converter, and one without for $1000 less, what percentage of the public would buy the more expensive one for the sake of the environment? I'd bet money on the majority of purchasers mentally justifying buying the cheaper one, even though they are concerned about air quality.
I understand your enthusiasm about the power of the free market, as I've spent some time waxing libertarian myself, but reality just doesn't meet theory half way in most of these scenarios. There are simply too many complexities and layers of abstraction in real world commerce for the simple math of conservative economics to work the way we wish it would. - flamesoftheend, on 01/22/2009, -1/+3There is no question that we've released more CO2 into the air then there has ever been before we've existed. This is about clean air, we make it dirty.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+2anything healthy will "add months to your life". what's the difference.
- firesphotons, on 01/22/2009, -0/+1Might not be able to afford the life I already have left to burn.
- MaxD, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2and surely 'five months' would get lost in statistical noise after they factored out all the other changes - I mean how accurately can you model the impact of wealth on life expectancy? I'd be surprised if you could be more accurate than +-1 year, which makes 5 months just noise.
- IDiggJenn, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2What is the quality of this 5 months of life?...its not really that significant of a time considering an entire lifespan
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2Why the ***** are people burying designerutah? I have a challenge for anyone reading this:
Give me a point by point rebuttal to his logic. If it's legitimate, I'll honestly send you money on paypal. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone would disagree with what he's saying. The same people who question nearly every word that comes out of politicians mouths surrender that skepticism when it comes to the topic of global warming. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
Meanwhile, former presidential candidates like Al Gore are taking down Nobel Peace Prizes for pushing controversial topics through movies. Whether you want to admit it or not, there's something wrong with that. Anytime politics gets involved with science we have a separation effect that splits two sides down the middle and creates a Republican vs. Democrat type WAR of hostility. Blind arguments and people at each others throat for something both of them know nothing about. Think about it. - smileydude, on 01/22/2009, -1/+25 months longer to languish in a nursing home/hospice bed? Length of life doesn't determine the quality of the last few years. I've been in a few third world countries where people seem to die younger and happier.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+1"If what you're saying is true, and the issue is lack of regulation in those places, wouldn't the protocol fix the problem?"
What you're saying actually bolsters the case against market-driven environmental improvements. Developing nations are given a pass on stricter regulations precisely because such regulations impose a burden on their developing economic interests. While the adoption of more regulation is expected from developed nations because they can (ideally) more readily afford such burdens.
Would the catalytic converter somehow become standard on autos in developed nations if it weren't forced upon manufacturers by regulation? Would the more expensive "clean coal" technology even be considered in corporate board rooms if public environmental concern and cap & trade proposals weren't breathing down their necks? I'm not saying market-driven improvements do not exist, they certainly do, but they alone are not nearly enough to get us where we need to be. - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -2/+3That's flawed logic. The truth is, that five months shorter probably also means ending up in a nursing home five months earlier.
- darny, on 01/22/2009, -2/+35 months, huh....if those 5 months are added to the end of my life, when I'm in pain, grouchy and pooping myself, I'll opt for the smog please.
- FreckleEars, on 01/23/2009, -0/+1There are many aspects to a cleaner life that are just nice. I have cut out almost all fast food chains from my diet and I have saved money in my wallet and health. Most of it tastes like ***** and bothers my digestion anyways =P. I have cut out my car and I save about 60% of the money I saved at a longer commute by about 50%, so justifiable to me. I have cut down on using electricity in the house with the fun lighbulbs etc.
The problem is for some these are not options. Not everyone has efficient mass transit available and some people rely on a vehicle. Not everyone can afford the time to make their own food every day. Instead of pushing fear, like designer said, push incentives. I can SAVE money NOT having a car and having mass transit and taxis. I save around 60% the money AND I never have to shovel my car out which cost me around 3 hours a week from December to March. I can also utilize that time to sleep or read a book. Give people numbers they can rely on and the turn towards green will be easier.
I am by no means a tree hugger and I do not want to sacrifice a lot of good from my life for little personal benefit. It is selfish human nature. That being said, money is a driving factor. If anyone wants a real turn for green, give people a financial reason. - madmaxmedia, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2Pollution (noxious stuff that gets in your lungs and messes them up) is different than CO2 (stuff that you exhale all on your own already.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to heat being retained in our atmosphere and global warming.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2Dont worry. soon your rural mountain setting will be overpopulated as well.
- Jeepinator, on 01/22/2009, -4/+5In other news, a recent study confirms that studies are unnecessary.
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -0/+1"let technology evolve naturally"
WAT? - uHaveASmallDigg, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2Something this guy has been talking about for years:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/683aef46cb/head-z ... - tarley, on 01/22/2009, -0/+1It does however mean a bigger strain on your already stretched health system.
Great huh! - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2Length of time alive is a bad measure. Whats much more important is how long you are alive with a healthy brain and body. Nobody wants to spend an extra 6 months in a nursing home. I've seen 40 year olds who have smoked and drank alcohol their whole lives and they look like the living dead. I've also seen 40-50 year olds who can outrun and outlift me. You can't exactly measure "healthy years alive," but I think you can infer that the study is saying you will have more healthy years if you live with clean air.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/22/2009, -0/+15 extra months in a city with 10,000,000 people. So that lets people in that city live 4,166,667 years longer.
- slapthemonkey, on 01/23/2009, -0/+1Should be more and has to depend on the "yet to live period."
- Gloony, on 01/23/2009, -0/+1I believe the phrase you are looking for is "statistically insignificant"
- SaranWrap, on 01/22/2009, -1/+2This screams of BS.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -2/+2Not like it matters anyways. All the Eastern countries with little to no environmental regulation are producing cheaper items and driving American manufacturing into bankruptcy. Hooray for globalization, where you can buy your plastic widget for 10% less at Wal-Mart and 500% more pollution causing!
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+1Article Summary: DUH
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+1Move to a high elevation city. "***** rolls downhill," and so does air pollution.
- TheUngod, on 01/22/2009, -2/+2If I didn't have to spend so much money on cleaning up the environment I'd be able to eat healthier and afford a gym membership, adding way more than 5 months to my life span.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -8/+8Were not against a cleaner planet, but let technology evolve naturally, we are still alot cleaner than 50 years ago and our EPA has some of the most stringent laws in the world.
- Barackalypse, on 01/22/2009, -2/+2How many months of additional work is that cleaner air going to cost me? If I have to work 6 months to pay for something that gives me back 5, its a net loss.
I always tell my friends who exercise this. "You'll probably live 4 or 5 years longer than me, but you'll have spent 4 or 5 years in the gym, so in the end the 80 year old version of you lives to 85, but the 30 year old version of me got an extra 3 hours a week to do something fun with". -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is