 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Verto
I wouldn't describe it as cruel. It's not as if they are bludgeoned to death. |
Generally, most living things prefer to remain that way. Having killed, and having seen things killed across most of the evolutionary spectrum, I've never seen a lack of cruelty in the process of killing, unless the animal (or human) killed was in severe and generally untreatable pain if left alive.
And a lot of shelters still use decompression, which is painful as hell. In San Diego County, they distinguish dogs from other animals, and if you're a dog you get an injuection in the forepaw, whereas with other animals, the practice is to just force the needle directly into the thoracic cavity and inject into the heart area. If you don't think that's painful, try it out. We don't even kill mass murderers that way.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kucinich
[q]
Why would the sun get so much bigger and/or hotter within the next hundred million years? It's been going steady for nearly five billion so far. |
it doesn't it stays on main sequence. Although part of the problem is that the Sun really hasn't been going steady for those 5 billion years it's had steady changes (generally always increasing) in it's luminosity. The early sun was so dim that if we had that level of luminosity today the earth would be gripped by a profound glaciation worse than any of the ice ages. However, the Earth's early atmosphere was far far richer in greenhouse gasses than the modern atmosphere. A fortuitous balance between photosynthesis and a steady increase in the suns luminosity over time kept the earth from either Freezing under a dim sun or becoming a venus under the brighter more modern sun. The sun will be twice as bright due to this steady increase by the time it finally leaves main sequence as it is today. For the future the problem comes from an ongoing logarithmic increase in H2O lost to space over time as an indirect result of this gradual steady increase in solar output. The problem appears to be that the retention of water is very sensitive to total radiation received and there is a feedback effect that accelerates the process further. I think i should not look only for the issue of Science that described these predictions but also the ones right after since there may be the usual objections to these predictions by various readers and I could see if in fact their model had any obvious holes. I hadn't heard that it was a controversial prediction until just now.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|