Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Rosebuddy wrote: They're perfectly tenable. Cuba is consistently better off than its neighbours.
Saying a guy who used and condoned torture is 'alright' is a pretty flimsy position. The donkey-caves that condone it in the US are pretty gakky as well.
Pretending that one knows how things would have been in an imaginary world is also fairly poor sociology and history. You might as well try using "if things were different then they would have been different" as a generic argument at that point. If one is making arbitrary comparisons than the US is better off than Cuba. Canada is better off than Cuba. Germany is better off than Cuba. China is better off than Cuba. We can tap dance around bs all day if that is your desire. Actually I suppose that isn't true as there would be little point in it if one already is in the mode of making excuses for terrible people and fantasizing about alternate realities. Cuba is not hell on Earth and that was never argued, but it also isn't some goober paradise either.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
It's difficult to know exactly but it's easy to look at a country that does something and then compare it to similar countries in the same region that don't do that thing and then see how they fare.
It's much fairer to compare Cuba with, say, Haiti than it is to compare Cuba with the US because only one of those is a superpower that has constantly tried to sabotage the other. Canada and Germany are both aligned with imperialism rather than against it so that comparison isn't very fair either. China's developments come from communism and it doesn't have a similar relation to its region as Cuba does to its.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's difficult to know exactly but it's easy to look at a country that does something and then compare it to similar countries in the same region that don't do that thing and then see how they fare.
It's much fairer to compare Cuba with, say, Haiti than it is to compare Cuba with the US because only one of those is a superpower that has constantly tried to sabotage the other. Canada and Germany are both aligned with imperialism rather than against it so that comparison isn't very fair either. China's developments come from communism and it doesn't have a similar relation to its region as Cuba does to its.
China's developments are owed directly to deng xiaoping not communism.
Yet you posited just such a thing and now you are changing your argument to wrench it back into something more usable. The origianl statement had nothing to do with neighbors or arbitrary standards but that you were sure it was better off than if Cuba had used capitalism, and that is something we can't know since it never happened. For all we know Cuba might have been even have been more successful. Making an assumption one way or the other is still an assumption; it is playing a game of "what if" instead of trying to understand what was.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Rosebuddy wrote: Fidel Castro was, on balance, alright and Cuba is better off than it would've been under capitalism.
Admittedly I was pretty tired when I posted and he certainly is no demon, but holy gak are those untenable positions.
He was a tyrant.
The ultimate irony is that he died on Black Friday... arguably the biggest celebration of capitalism of the year.
But one that also gives us many examples of the dangers of rampant consumerism that capitalism can create.
Compared to the tens of millions who have died of starvation (alone) under socialism in the last century... I'll take it.
Tens of millions who have died of starvation under socialism?
Communism, yeah, but socialism?
No disrespect to dakka members, but Americans wouldn't know socialism if it kicked them in the ass!
The American view of what socialism is, and how it's practiced in Europe, are light years apart.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
I agree with you 100%, but no system is perfect, and capitalism has left a trail of dead in its wake, as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 16:35:04
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
No disrespect to dakka members, but Americans wouldn't know socialism if it kicked them in the ass!
The American view of what socialism is, and how it's practiced in Europe, are light years apart.
Yeah, it's especially weird because America already has some socialist stuff, but if you point it out to them, they say that it's not socialist and it makes total sense to do it that way.
So literally, they don't know socialism when it happens right in front of them and you point it out to them.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
I disagree. Socialism as a concept has given us universal healthcare systems, state welfare programs, Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
Capitalism gave us Martin Shkreli
Star Trek's Federation was silly. It had way too many species in it. Really you'd only get, at most, 1-2 species to join an organization like that if you tried to do something similar in real life when we start exploring the galaxy in spaceships and start encountering aliens.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/26 16:55:00
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
I disagree. Socialism as a concept has given us universal healthcare systems, state welfare programs, Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
Capitalism gave us Martin Shkreli
Star Trek's Federation was silly. It had way too many species in it. Really you'd only get, at most, 1-2 species to join an organization like that if you tried to do something similar in real life when we start exploring the galaxy in spaceships and start encountering aliens.
That depends on the species and their culture. Most of the species who are part of the Federation are the less war-like alien races (Klingons are an exception but then they also joined it after many others and only as a means of survival), who seek to understand the universe rather than conquer or exploit it. Species with such cultures will naturally gravitate towards cooperation with others as it provides the easiest and most effective route for them to achieve their goals.
A species will not reach the point of escaping its home solar system and colonising others without uniting its entire species behind that goal. The question then is whether it is a democratic union, or unification by force.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
No disrespect to dakka members, but Americans wouldn't know socialism if it kicked them in the ass!
The American view of what socialism is, and how it's practiced in Europe, are light years apart.
Yeah, it's especially weird because America already has some socialist stuff, but if you point it out to them, they say that it's not socialist and it makes total sense to do it that way.
So literally, they don't know socialism when it happens right in front of them and you point it out to them.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
I disagree. Socialism as a concept has given us universal healthcare systems, state welfare programs, Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
Capitalism gave us Martin Shkreli
Star Trek's Federation was silly. It had way too many species in it. Really you'd only get, at most, 1-2 species to join an organization like that if you tried to do something similar in real life when we start exploring the galaxy in spaceships and start encountering aliens.
Canada: it's what the USA could have been, and to be honest, they secretly regret not being it
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
A species will not reach the point of escaping its home solar system and colonising others without uniting its entire species behind that goal. The question then is whether it is a democratic union, or unification by force.
I rather think our history has disproved that- The only similar moment that comes to mind would be the American colonisation efforts, or the Viking era. And the American one really drives home the idea that sometimes you run for relatively open land when you can't beat your rivals at home. Once the cost of space travel comes down, I'd be astonished if space doesn't begin to be competitively exploited.
The ISS stands as a good piece of evidence of your theory that a species will come together before reaching for the stars.
On the other hand, the Indian Space Research agency is just one example of an entire country deciding that it would be better to do the whole thing themselves, rather than work with another country. America's desire to privatize, rather than doing any sort of collaborative launch vehicle with Russia is another.
Once the technology for interstellar colonies is discovered, then it is going to run just like the colonizing of America. You'll see special interest groups, military outposts, penal planets, and all too many Roanoke equivalents.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
A species will not reach the point of escaping its home solar system and colonising others without uniting its entire species behind that goal. The question then is whether it is a democratic union, or unification by force.
I rather think our history has disproved that- The only similar moment that comes to mind would be the American colonisation efforts, or the Viking era. And the American one really drives home the idea that sometimes you run for relatively open land when you can't beat your rivals at home. Once the cost of space travel comes down, I'd be astonished if space doesn't begin to be competitively exploited.
The ISS stands as a good piece of evidence of your theory that a species will come together before reaching for the stars.
On the other hand, the Indian Space Research agency is just one example of an entire country deciding that it would be better to do the whole thing themselves, rather than work with another country. America's desire to privatize, rather than doing any sort of collaborative launch vehicle with Russia is another.
Once the technology for interstellar colonies is discovered, then it is going to run just like the colonizing of America. You'll see special interest groups, military outposts, penal planets, and all too many Roanoke equivalents.
Yeah, I think I'm more in the realm of nations will colonize space before a unified humanity does.
Yet you posited just such a thing and now you are changing your argument to wrench it back into something more usable. The origianl statement had nothing to do with neighbors or arbitrary standards but that you were sure it was better off than if Cuba had used capitalism, and that is something we can't know since it never happened. For all we know Cuba might have been even have been more successful. Making an assumption one way or the other is still an assumption; it is playing a game of "what if" instead of trying to understand what was.
When I say that it is difficult to know "exactly" I mean that it is difficult to even speculate in what would have happened in each year, in detail, after the point of divergence. I contrast this against the ease with which one can compare Cuba to countries in the same region that were subjected to capitalism. There is zero reason to believe that the Cuban people would have had it better if their resources had been plundered and all public power transferred to private power.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
I disagree. Socialism as a concept has given us universal healthcare systems, state welfare programs, Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
Capitalism gave us Martin Shkreli
Star Trek's Federation was silly. It had way too many species in it. Really you'd only get, at most, 1-2 species to join an organization like that if you tried to do something similar in real life when we start exploring the galaxy in spaceships and start encountering aliens.
That depends on the species and their culture. Most of the species who are part of the Federation are the less war-like alien races (Klingons are an exception but then they also joined it after many others and only as a means of survival), who seek to understand the universe rather than conquer or exploit it. Species with such cultures will naturally gravitate towards cooperation with others as it provides the easiest and most effective route for them to achieve their goals.
A species will not reach the point of escaping its home solar system and colonising others without uniting its entire species behind that goal. The question then is whether it is a democratic union, or unification by force.
No, I mean that in real life there are probably only like 7 human-like civilizations in the galaxy, and the Federation's territory is only large enough that they'd've only come across about 1-2 non-human civilizations.
Also, apparently if you ask NASA scientists and engineers about the possibility of terraforming Mars to escape to if we ruin Earth enough, they ask you why you wouldn't just fix Earth instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Canada: it's what the USA could have been, and to be honest, they secretly regret not being it
Yeah, I kinda wish Americans would stop freaking out about terrorism. In the past 15 years terrorism hasn't been particularly dangerous, yet you guys seem really freaked out about it.
It's weird seeing your news reports doing fearmongering about something less dangerous to you than cows.
Like, can you guys not do math or something?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 18:45:00
This will become a said day in the history of America.
He's a narcissist and has no clue. Too bad.
I don't know, seem a lot like the political mirror image of what we've had for the prior 8 years.
Your mirror is weird and doesn't seem to get how reflections work.
I mean, if you're one of the people who decided President Obama was the Antichrist, fine, whatever, I guess pretending he's Trump works just as well. But otherwise...come on. You know better.
Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 20:53:31
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
Correct, you can have both socialism and capitalism in the same country. It's not one or the other. You can socialize the stuff that benefits from it enough to require government control, while leaving the rest to capitalism.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
Couldn't resist
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
While I agree with you many in the USA have been persuaded to believe the silliness that socialism is, essentially, a synonym for Communism.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
While I agree with you many in the USA have been persuaded to believe the silliness that socialism is, essentially, a synonym for Communism.
Yeah, sometimes it's weird to be a Canadian and have Americans online try to lecture me on how evil socialism is.
I mean, I do kinda live in a socialist country, so I'm pretty sure I know how it works better than an American who doesn't think America does socialist stuff.
But don't worry, we love you guys up here. We're glad you're our neighbours. We don't want to be Americans, we like staying Canadians, and a reference to Canada acting like America is a rather negative statement, and we think you guys do and say wacky stuff all the time, but we don't hate you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 22:15:26
Rosebuddy wrote: Fidel Castro was, on balance, alright and Cuba is better off than it would've been under capitalism.
Admittedly I was pretty tired when I posted and he certainly is no demon, but holy gak are those untenable positions.
He was a tyrant.
The ultimate irony is that he died on Black Friday... arguably the biggest celebration of capitalism of the year.
But one that also gives us many examples of the dangers of rampant consumerism that capitalism can create.
Compared to the tens of millions who have died of starvation (alone) under socialism in the last century... I'll take it.
How fething DARE you speak ill of the works of our great lords Weber and Marx? Socialism is the ONLY answer.
whembly wrote:Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
whembly wrote: Capitalism is awesome. It's done more good on this planet that any brand of socialism has ever done.
You mean, aside from schools, roads, the military, police, fire departments, dams, highways, social security, medicare, governing bodies for electromagnetic spectrum and communications and air travel and more, the driving of all kinds of research that has radically altered our daily lives, space programs, etc? All those things are "socialist" programs, like...by definition, and they're all sorts of awesome in their own way.
Socialism is not the antithesis of capitalism, it's not a zero sum either-or game. Neither works particularly well on its own. The nations with the highest standards of living are strong hybrids of both systems for a reason.
While I agree with you many in the USA have been persuaded to believe the silliness that socialism is, essentially, a synonym for Communism.
It may have been because Karl Marx himself said that Socialism logically leads to communism. Did nobody read the actual texts that Marx and Weber put out?
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.
As a footnote, since most pro-Socialist politicians/voters are also big fans of the single payer healthcare system, we fortunately have one in existence right here in the US of A to give you an example of what the US would be like if we went that road.
The VA.
I want that to sink in: the biggest push from the socialized healthcare crowd is to essentially ape the VA. I've been dealing with the VA since 2008 for a back injury during my deployment. I've seen firsthand how bad the system runs, and that it took until 2013 for them to simply process paperwork stating my physical limits so I could continue my military career. That's not even counting the hoops one has to go through for medication. Ever dealt with ExpressScripts? Try it some time. My wife has to go through them to get her diabetes medicines, along with her other long term medication. One prescription went unfilled for over 2 months, and we had to go out of pocket to keep her alive essentially. And if that is spread to every place universally, what is the likelihood of us being able to actually GET things when the socialized medical service fails as it routinely does?
And don't get me started on incompetence within the system. WITHOUT any sort of MRI or Xray to go off of, they sent me to a chiropractic session in their hospital. Thankfully the Dr. or whatever he was refused to administer care without knowing the extent of the injury.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.
I don't know if whispering 'please notice me, senpai' under his breath every time Putin comes on the TV counts as foreign experience.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.
Trump has massively more experience in running businesses badly, at least.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.
And Trump has no experience of any sort in any kind of government office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: It may have been because Karl Marx himself said that Socialism logically leads to communism. Did nobody read the actual texts that Marx and Weber put out?
If you're gonna accept everything Karl Marx says about communism as the truth just because he's Karl Marx, why don't you also accept the arguments he made in favor of using communism as the best way to do things?
Karl Marx can be wrong about communism. There's no reason to take what he says as the infallible truth, because you're already rejecting things he says about communism,
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/26 23:12:43
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.... They are both charismatic guys that pandered to a demographic that came out in force to get them elected. Neither one had any real political experience. They both made a lot of campaign promises that one didn't keep and the other likely won't keep. Both blame the previous administration for the nation's problems.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that Obama did have previous political experience, since there's records of him voting on stuff in Congress.
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.
I don't know if whispering 'please notice me, senpai' under his breath every time Putin comes on the TV counts as foreign experience.
Also, as one of those people in a foreign country... we liked Obama. He seemed to be really good for the USA.
Trump isn't a preferable alternative to Obama when it comes to dealing with US Heads of State.
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Well, the scientists studying this stuff all seem to think humanity's role is pretty significant and we have to get the situation under control.
I'm gonna trust the experts' opinions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 23:21:36
