teleport machine.Imagine:you could visit world and play chess tournaments everyday.
An invention that could make the world a better place?
Sort:
^^^
Why? Wouldn't the locker room be empty if the women are in gym class?
Dec 5, 2019
0
#24
Invent new play facilities for all the kids in the world. We start by melting down every single gun bullet, bomb , tank. every single weapon on this earth. Yep we melt the lot down & turn this disgraceful world into a nice place for kids..... This earth didn't have to feel like hell things could have been a lot different. .....I am disappointed with humans
Dec 5, 2019
0
#26
Terminator-T800 wrote:
Invent new play facilities for all the kids in the world. We start by melting down every single gun bullet, bomb , tank. every single weapon on this earth. Yep we melt the lot down & turn this disgraceful world into a nice place for kids..... This earth didn't have to feel like hell things could have been a lot different. .....I am disappointed with humans
Yep, except I don't think we should melt down the A-Bombs.
CRYYSIS isn't that not an invention?
hoodoothere wrote:
Terminator-T800 wrote:
Invent new play facilities for all the kids in the world. We start by melting down every single gun bullet, bomb , tank. every single weapon on this earth. Yep we melt the lot down & turn this disgraceful world into a nice place for kids..... This earth didn't have to feel like hell things could have been a lot different. .....I am disappointed with humans
Yep, except I don't think we should melt down the A-Bombs.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SPECIES WE'RE RUINING THE WORLD AND TRYING TO FIND OTHER WORLDS TO RUIN WHATS WWRONG WITH US
hoodoothere wrote:
GMproposedsolutions wrote:
We need to harvest the forests. Letting them stand without good care and wild fires ruining them is not a solution.
It's sad one group wants to destroy in one way and another does in a way that makes them feel better. There is an obvious solution to all those whom actually use their brain.
I'm for forest management and land management in general, deforestation is something different, like clear cutting or intentionally setting hundreds of square miles of tropical forest on fire to create supposedly "use-able land". All these practices do is cause severe soil erosion and/or release lots of pollutants. The wealth divide will continue to get worse as population goes up because resources get scarcer and labor gets cheaper, a perfect setup for those in charge to profit. I'm telling you, over-population is what we need to focus on. I knew the solution 45 years ago, in which time the population has doubled. Coincidentally all the forests on earth now only consume half the CO2 produced, if population had stabilized around 1970 there would be no CO2 imbalance. Are we going to just kick the can down the road for future generations?
I was looking at my chess table, and chess pieces after I read your comment. Wood is 100% renewable and recyclable. And burning wood is a zero sum game isn't it? 100% of what is given off burning it was put into it when the tree grew. Burning (or using) wood doesn't release any more pollutants than what went into growing the wood in the first place. Just like the tropical rain forest. Any forest burned creates less demand for the oxygen it produces because there are less animals in the forest that burned. I think it all balances out. Extremely little oxygen or co2 are leaving the planet. It's all here, it just changes form from time to time. Like when your chess pieces get made.
woollensock wrote:
Totally disagree with you,forests are very important to the wellbeing of the planet.
I didn't say they were unimportant. I said burning wood is a zero sum game. When wood burns, everything that is given off was put into making the wood in the first place. 100% renewable. Isn't burning and using of wood part of what keeps the whole ecosystem of earth in balance?
Jan 8, 2020
0
#38
lfPatriotGames wrote:
hoodoothere wrote:
GMproposedsolutions wrote:
We need to harvest the forests. Letting them stand without good care and wild fires ruining them is not a solution.
It's sad one group wants to destroy in one way and another does in a way that makes them feel better. There is an obvious solution to all those whom actually use their brain.
I'm for forest management and land management in general, deforestation is something different, like clear cutting or intentionally setting hundreds of square miles of tropical forest on fire to create supposedly "use-able land". All these practices do is cause severe soil erosion and/or release lots of pollutants. The wealth divide will continue to get worse as population goes up because resources get scarcer and labor gets cheaper, a perfect setup for those in charge to profit. I'm telling you, over-population is what we need to focus on. I knew the solution 45 years ago, in which time the population has doubled. Coincidentally all the forests on earth now only consume half the CO2 produced, if population had stabilized around 1970 there would be no CO2 imbalance. Are we going to just kick the can down the road for future generations?
I was looking at my chess table, and chess pieces after I read your comment. Wood is 100% renewable and recyclable. And burning wood is a zero sum game isn't it? 100% of what is given off burning it was put into it when the tree grew. Burning (or using) wood doesn't release any more pollutants than what went into growing the wood in the first place. Just like the tropical rain forest. Any forest burned creates less demand for the oxygen it produces because there are less animals in the forest that burned. I think it all balances out. Extremely little oxygen or co2 are leaving the planet. It's all here, it just changes form from time to time. Like when your chess pieces get made.
That would be true if you don't look at the rates/time factor. Remember that burning takes up a lot of oxygen fast. That burning wood is zero sum is a misnomer that is kicked around mainly by regulators because it is not politically correct to address it. Carbon tied up in wood is being kicked into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and adds to the already over abundant CO2, and is not being put back into wood at the same rate since the forests it comes from are shrinking. More of the carbon needs to be tied up in wood not free-form in the atmosphere. True, it may balance over time if the forests are allowed to re-grow, but that is not happening, they are shrinking. Also even given an equilibrium situation between CO2 tied up in wood and wood-derived atmospheric CO2 (which doesn't currently exist), there is the lag time between the time it is released and tied up again in a growing plant and the more people that are around the more wood and other fuels are used. Recent fires in the Amazon and Australia don't help, they actually give off a lot of heat too, along with pollutants/CO2. Over-population is the elephant in the room that has tramped us and will continue to do so unless it is addressed. If the amount of farmland decreases due to global warming as some feel, what do we do then if there are more people? Also if all the polar ice melts, the sea levels are projected to rise about 230 feet, more people crammed in less space? Better look on the topo map and make sure your house is at about 250 of elevation or higher, or buy some land that is if your house is lower.....maybe for your children or grandchildren if not for yourself.
I guess I look at it like I look at most things. What makes the most sense? If the ice caps melt, wouldnt that just mean that things return to what they were originally? If the amazon burns, wouldn't that just mean that co2 levels rise to what they were originally? If sea levels rise, wouldn't that just mean they return to what they were originally?
I think it's naïve to assume the world will just stay exactly the same forever. Things change. I think the history of the earth is all about change. Even climate change. It would make sense, to me anyway, that climate has to change. Sea levels rise and fall, co2 builds up then releases. Very little is leaving this planet, so everything is here. Its just about how we use it.
I agree huge fires and burning of fuel will release co2 quickly. That's obvious. But why does that matter? It's still the same result. A supervolcano or asteroid hitting would make a huge change very quickly too. But things always balance out. Even population. I dont think population is a problem any more than too many trees are a problem. Nature always has a way of balancing things out, even if it takes "disaster" to do it.
We need a world leader so everybody feels more united and connected again.
I nominate Trump