Something that seems to be ignored in the used games debate

[noiseredux]

Does that clear things up?

yes, I think so.

[Jmustang1968]

But there is financial and political gain to be had from it, so it has been made to be a huge issue.

Thanks for supporting my irrational religious point... instead of debating the issue you attack the other person, question intelligence and motives.

Hypocrite, thy name is Jmustang1968.

How so? Saying your scathing remarks are being a bit irrational is being a hypocrite? Sign me up then, I am just making an observation. You are the one who is struggling with civilized discussion today. And I commonly see this type of response about this topic, the same sort of sensitivity akin to religious or racial debates...

[BoringSupreez]

There has been a mostly slow and steady temperature increase. Now, saying humans cause it is dubious. The temps and environment have natural cycles. But there is financial and political gain to be had from it, so it has been made to be a huge issue. It has almost become like a religion thing now. You can't discuss or dispute it without someone irrationally yelling at you like above when it was compared to genocide...

I agree with all of this.

Also, to clarify: by the "used games debate," I am referring to the arguments here and all over the gaming internet over whether used games are fine and should be allowed, or if they harm the industry. In other words, the debate in general, not a specific thread here. The environmental aspect is no one's main focus in this debate, of course, but this thread was just bringing up the fact that for some reason it hasn't even been mentioned. I figured that someone would have by now.

[o.pwuaioc]

But there is financial and political gain to be had from it, so it has been made to be a huge issue.

Thanks for supporting my irrational religious point... instead of debating the issue you attack the other person, question intelligence and motives.

Hypocrite, thy name is Jmustang1968.

How so? Saying your scathing remarks are being a bit irrational is being a hypocrite? Sign me up then, I am just making an observation. You are the one who is struggling with civilized discussion today. And I commonly see this type of response about this topic, the same sort of sensitivity akin to religious or racial debates...

No, I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite in questioning the motives of others and yet getting angry when others question your own motives.

[Jmustang1968]

How so? Saying your scathing remarks are being a bit irrational is being a hypocrite? Sign me up then, I am just making an observation. You are the one who is struggling with civilized discussion today. And I commonly see this type of response about this topic, the same sort of sensitivity akin to religious or racial debates...

No, I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite in questioning the motives of others and yet getting angry when others question your own motives.

No, what motives? To look at the situation and try to make a clear judgment without blindly believing all the ads and what is attempted to be forced down our throats? Or to be the conscientous one who looks at the big picture? Politicians have made money off this and gained power. Scientists gain government grants and recognition. Companies make huge profits and government assistance by selling new 'environment friendly' items and such.

You didn't question my motives. You said if I even consider debating it or looking at it from both sides, then I am lazy, evil, and a coward. People who argue like you do for a cause I think actually harm your cause more than help as it almost reflexively puts people on edge and defense...

[MrNash]

If used games are good for the environment, wouldn't that make digitally distributed games even better for the environment since they leave no physical product that can potentially have a negative impact on the environment?

[mjmjr25]

The scientific consensus is that (1) Billion years ago the earth was very very hot - particularly north america, largely in part to volcanic activity. There was a volcano from Nebraska to Canada that spewed non-stop for appx. 22 million years.

It then became extremely cold - as in, majority of all bodies of water on N. America Froze. It was frozen for millions of years.

It slowly began to thaw (warming of the globe). It slowly warmed this entire time. 10,000 years ago the glaciers in N. America began to recede and melt (much like the arctic glaciers are melting today).

8,000 years ago they had receded to the point they carved massive swaths of land and as it got even warmer, those receding glaciers melted into the carved out land (we call these the great lakes, btw).

It has continued to warm for the past 10,000 years, much as it has done for long before that, which of course, followed the global cooling, which of course followed the previous global warming.

Now that we can accurately record temperatures for 200 years, we (the scientific we) say with assertiveness that it is heating up at unprecedented rates. Can you fathom 200 years of statistics on a scale of a billion years. Or 66 billion years? I can't. It is beyond the pale of silly to think any of us can.

Seriously, 200 years of temperature recordings are a sufficient sample size when (many) of us (not me) would contend the Earth has been around for billions of years? It is on the scale of saying one grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is exhibiting a peculiar behavior - we must do something now.

I of course don't believe any of ^that. However, that is the consensus of the scientific community. So if we are going to be straight about "global warming", let's be straight.

I'm all for responsible and managed fishing / tree farming / etc - but not because I believe it has any effect on the planet, at all. But rather, it is simply smart to be sustainable. There are plenty of sustainable tree farms where I live. Please get me a manual w/my new game. And puhleeze make a supportive plastic case - no more of this punch out every other 1/2 inch of plastic. They aren't doing that for the environment, it's to save plastic / thus costs - meanwhile, my backart suffers.

[cookie monster]

If used games are good for the environment, wouldn't that make digitally distributed games even better for the environment since they leave no physical product that can potentially have a negative impact on the environment?

That is a good point. I think that alot of people on limited incomes though buy used so that they can trade it in down the line. Alot of people as well like to have a hard copy if for no other reason to show it of in there collection.

[J T]

NASA has a nice and easy to understand summary of the evidence for global climate change here (with citations for fuller explanation):

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think people generally want to deny the data for global warming because of the cognitive dissonance that arises from confronting the fact that the way modern humans have been living has damaged the world around us. It's hard to change and people don't want to change, so they deny evidence and search for rationalizations.

I think used games and digital distribution are a nice and simple way to help reduce waste within the gaming industry.

[Jmustang1968]

NASA has a nice and easy to understand summary of the evidence for global climate change here (with citations for fuller explanation):

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think people generally want to deny the data for global warming because of the cognitive dissonance that arises from confronting the fact that the way modern humans have been living has damaged the world around us. It's hard to change and people don't want to change, so they deny evidence and search for rationalizations.

I didn't necessarily deny. I question the validity of how severe it is and I am not sold we are the cause.

Now, do I want trash on the side of the road, poisonous air, and filthy unsanitary water systems? No, of course not. But I think some take it to the next level and zealously campaign about it when I think a lot of it is fueled by personal gain and self serving motives.

Didn't they say every email (or subsequently) forum post leaves some measurable carbon footprint? So in effect aren't we doing harm to the environment by just accessing our computers online and using our cell phones? Now I know I am being drastic, but where to draw the line? It seems some only want to better the environment when convenient, or for things they don't care about. No accusing anyone directly, just speaking generally. I find a lot of hypocrisy and questionable ethics in the environmental cause and movement is all.