Global Warming & Deforestation – Do You Continue Doing Art?

[Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

If you were knowledgeable about Engineering, first year Engineering students do not take, for the most part, core Engineering classes in the first year. Normally, Mechanical Engineering classes begin in the 3rd year.

Therefore, a 1st year Engineering student would not have the knowledge to be able to claim the Titanic would sink because of its design.

I have a masters degree in organic chemistry and chemical engineering and and can tell you that very little of my first year had anything to do with chemical engineering.......

I have a close friend who has a masters in mechanical engineering (leaning towards aviation) and I just texted him when I read this and asked him if he remembers there being anything to do with mechanical engineering his first year.....answer....NO!

Seems like I mostly remember my first year at University of Texas (Austin) mostly evolved efforts to have fun and get laid

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

But understanding that is not your objective is it John? Your objective is to desperately prove me wrong by twisting anything I say in any way you can. Misconstruing words and the point of my post, that is the art you are practicing, and frankly John you are just not very good at it. You are much more transparent than you think here John, but only to those who do not share in your desired objective.


.

ketzer,
once again, you can not claim you were wrong, which is okay. I understand that.

I base my answer, to you, from my experience as an Engineer. Need I say more?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Lucky 1

I have a masters degree in organic chemistry and chemical engineering and and can tell you that very little of my first year had anything to do with chemical engineering.......

I have a close friend who has a masters in mechanical engineering (leaning towards aviation) and I just texted him when I read this and asked him if he remembers there being anything to do with mechanical engineering his first year.....answer....NO!

Seems like I mostly remember my first year at University of Texas (Austin) mostly evolved efforts to have fun and get laid

I went to College for Engineering......

I agree with you 100%.
Hard to believe a 1st year Engineering student could tell from the Titanic's schematic it would sink.

Vectors, etc. do not get taught till the 3rd year.

Originally Posted by Lucky 1

I have a masters degree in organic chemistry and chemical engineering and and can tell you that very little of my first year had anything to do with chemical engineering.......

I have a close friend who has a masters in mechanical engineering (leaning towards aviation) and I just texted him when I read this and asked him if he remembers there being anything to do with mechanical engineering his first year.....answer....NO!

Seems like I mostly remember my first year at University of Texas (Austin) mostly evolved efforts to have fun and get laid

Well, there ya have it, case closed. And yet I can't help thinking that all of them, including yourself, should the question have shown up on a placement test, would have had all the information they needed to know that the Titanic could in fact sink. I recall taking statics, dynamics, and physics in my first year of engineering. But as I said in my previous post, even high school physics would be more than enough to make that assessment.

Of course, the topic of this thread is not about what classes different engineering students might have taken in their first year in college or in AP classes in high school, or even in basic high school classes. All that is really just a red herring, and frankly a rather rancid and stinky red herring at that. It's purpose is to distract from the point of the thread, among other purposes, that are perhaps more important to the one who loves to toss those stinky red herrings in to stink things up, desperately hoping the stink will stick to me.

The point of this thread, to which this latest stinky red herring actually does relate to, is the question of whether one should just go about living one's life as best they can, doing their art, or whatever living their life entails. Or if one should focus their efforts on trying to stave off what the world's scientists are warning is going to be an ecological disaster. The answer to such a question resides, IMO, and I would expect many others, in whether there is really any hope in convincing all those individuals who deny that there is any real problem being caused by human activities at all. The answer to which, this latest turn in the thread discussion would seem to support is, maybe there is no real hope of doing so. That maybe it is in fact a waste of time to try to convince them of anything, maybe it is even too late to do anything about it if one could convince them. That maybe this is just the inevitable trajectory of "intelligent" life. That maybe it is just not intelligent enough to avoid blowing itself up, so to speak.

IMO, the threats that are being warned about by the world's leading scientists are real threats. Yet when one wishes to discuss them, there are always those who don't want to change anything, and who try to argue against it. When their arguments start to seem obviously ridiculous, they often go to their backup tactic of diversion. Toss out a red hearing and try to shift the argument to that. Take something out of context or twist its meaning and point, shout, pull one's hair out, or pee one’s pants over that, anything to distract. They like to all get together in an echo chamber and shout together so it just gives them the feeling that since they keep hearing it, it must somehow be right. In the end, I think they are just the captain and cruise directors on the ship of fools, a ship full of fools who love to fool themselves to make themselves feel better about themselves and their selfish behaviors.

The question in this thread is, whether or not they are better off than the ones standing on the bow of the ship yelling about an iceberg. The fools get to believe the ship is unsinkable right up to the point when they start cursing the engineers and punching the women and children in the face as they fight to get onto the few remaining life boats. Hoping there is still a ship out there to pick them up. One that was not so full of fools so as to ram itself into an iceberg and sink, laughing away right up until they felt their own shoes getting wet. And if they do get picked up by another ship, and are asked what in the hell were you thinking, they will shrug their shoulders and try to divert attention by arguing about whether anyone could have known, and also likely to start arguing that the new ship should pick up the pace as they are in a hurry to get to where they are going.

Perhaps, that is just how semi intelligent life sinks back into the dust from which it came.

[inavalan]

Ketzer, it seems that you try to have it both ways, to show you're wise while clowning around. Any scientist worth its science will tell that you can't have your cake and eat it too

[BigJohn]

This reminds me of the 'preacher' who flew around the country advocating we have to do something about CO2 emissions. His airplane, which had a huge carbon footprint, cause 'more damage' then what his speeches did for the cause. His hypocrisy sit the 'cause' back considerably.

Originally Posted by inavalan

Ketzer, it seems that you try to have it both ways, to show you're wise while clowning around. Any scientist worth its science will tell that you can't have your cake and eat it too

On the contrary Mr. Inavalan, clowning around is simply the icing on my cake. I can choose to eat some cake, or some icing, or both, now, and I can save some for later depending on the mood I am in. It does perhaps give you and me both a clue as to how I feel about the question I posed at the end of my previous post. There is BTW, hope, though perhaps not found in the future of this particular thread of reality. In fact, depending on one's particular bent on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, one could argue that success is certain, but then if they do they must also argue that failure is certain, at least as far as the argument I might argue.

The thing is Mr. Inavalan, that while both you and I are apt to say we create our own realities, I could (and maybe you would) also say that from another perspective what we really do is "choose" our realities. Though perhaps we would mean different things when we say those things.

The thing is, one can zoom into reality and take it very seriously, feel it shake ones bones, and one can zoom back out again, and see what a tragic comedy it all is. That in a strange sort of way the fools are in fact right, that there really is nothing to be worried about after all. It is perhaps a matter of how seriously one wishes to take the matter before one, and how far one is willing to travel along any given thread, and experience what that means. Choices Mr. Inavalin, soo very many choices being made, and so little awareness we are making them, and how those choices are guiding us to the different experiences that may result.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This reminds me of the 'preacher' who flew around the country advocating we have to do something about CO2 emissions. His airplane, which had a huge carbon footprint, cause 'more damage' then what his speeches did for the cause. His hypocrisy sit the 'cause' back considerably.

I smell fish!

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

On the contrary Mr. Inavalan, clowning around is simply the icing on my cake. I can choose to eat some cake, or some icing, or both, now, and I can save some for later depending on the mood I am in. It does perhaps give you and me both a clue as to how I feel about the question I posed at the end of my previous post. There is BTW, hope, though perhaps not found in the future of this particular thread of reality. In fact, depending on one's particular bent on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, one could argue that success is certain, but then if they do they must also argue that failure is certain, at least as far as the argument I might argue.

The thing is Mr. Inavalan, that while both you and I are apt to say we create our own realities, I could (and maybe you would) also say that from another perspective what we really do is "choose" our realities. Though perhaps we would mean different things when we say those things.

The thing is, one can zoom into reality and take it very seriously, feel it shake ones bones, and one can zoom back out again, and see what a tragic comedy it all is. That in a strange sort of way the fools are in fact right, that there really is nothing to be worried about after all. It is perhaps a matter of how seriously one wishes to take the matter before one, and how far one is willing to travel along any given thread, and experience what that means. Choices Mr. Inavalin, soo very many choices being made, and so little awareness we are making them, and how those choices are guiding us to the different experiences that may result.

I think that the "choice" position is limiting, it is reactive to what you perceive happening. Adopting a "creative" position is not limiting, and I believe energetically more efficient.

I think that you used "awareness" in a different way than I do; you seem to have meant "mindless", not having or not using enough mind resources (?); or maybe you meant "lack of focus" (?)

Anyway, there is a difference of perspective between being guided by choices, and creating your reality. That is the difference between being reactive, and being creative. I'm not talking of a difference in capabilities, but a difference in perspective, in attitude. I believe that the creative perspective is a quantum leap ahead of the reactive perspective.

[Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This reminds me of the 'preacher' who flew around the country advocating we have to do something about CO2 emissions. His airplane, which had a huge carbon footprint, cause 'more damage' then what his speeches did for the cause. His hypocrisy sit the 'cause' back considerably.

Would that be the preacher who's married to the "chicken farmer heiress"???? If so....I think he's a kook!!! An environmentalist wacko kinda kook!!