Changing our ways
-
Paul Watson wrote: HIV originally was a homosexual environment born disease specifically because the environment was a good breeding ground at first. That's one theory. There was one floating around the US in the '80s that claimed that HIV was a biological weapon that was deliberately created by one or another government agency (ranging from CIA to Mossad to KGB, depending on the storyteller). It supposedly was tested in Africa on monkeys and, human nature being what it is, "somehow" spread to human hosts. Open international travel assured that it would spread to the rest of the planet (an article here long ago documented the tracking process that identified the sole African visitor - long since dead - that brought the virus to the US). Variants of the theory proposed that it was intended to wipe out blacks, homosexuals, or drug addicts without appearing to involve any government policy. Don't you just love paranoid conspiracy theories?:-D Fortunately, this theory has died out, though I'll bet I can find a bunch of rednecks here in Arizona who still believe it in one form or another... For that matter, it might even be true! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
hmm... I've never heard the weapon theory but I have heard the the story from the monkey on.
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02 -
Got into a heated "debate" the other week with some friends over just what is needed to "save the planet." The good thing was that the friends ranged from a hippy tree hugger to a wannabe-American pro-consumer. The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement which just naturally enraged the normally peaceful hippy. We eventually got around to discussing just what was required to make humanity live in better harmony with the rest of the planet. Recycling, cycling to work, paper not plastic, being less of a consumer etc. where all comments bandied about. I agreed that yes they were admirable and worthwhile things to do, but they simply were not enough to save the planet. They are more a stop-gap IMO. After the debate I was thinking about what was really needed to change. It struck me then that the change required would be monumental, a total and utter paradigm shift, something 90% of humanity simply would not accept. Take books for example. Wonderful things. Basis of many an intelligent and knowledgable person. I have never heard of books been accused of being environmentally unsound. Yet they are if you really think about it. Books are made in factories. They involve paper from trees, ink from chemicals and energy from coal power plants. They need distribution and marketing to get to us. All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. What about organic foods, that so called environmentally sound food that health concious consumers boast about eating, to save the planet and themselves you know. Phhfff! You ever seen how organic foods are made? Huge factories dedicated to cleaning, sealing, packing and distributing the stuff. Sure the end product is lovelu and all, but the consumer does not see the smoke belching factory next to the farm from whence it came. Yes, better than non-organic foods, but not by much. The list goes on. Everything we rely on basically needs to change... but to what? How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? More harmonious and sustainable simply won't cut it. It has to be totally, end-to-end, sustainable and harmonious. Some may say that at least being more harmonious and sustainable is a good step... but is it really? Won't we be taking a smiling step forward but not realising the full extent of what we eventually have to sacrifice? Like a bluff it would be, self delusion. And t
It comes down to seriously asking ourselves, what is necessary? Basically just food and shelter really. But we can quickly agree that a global change back to such basics would never happen. Technology is the best way for us live in more harmony with our planet while still preserving our need to satisfy our constant curiosity. The problem lies in the fact that we are easily bored. We can supply power today using solar energy, wind energy, or hydro-power, but it isn't "economically feasible". It's economically feasible to ride around in an SUV, but not to pay a little extra to power your home with cleaner energy. Why not? Well, because I want to use that money to buy food I don't really even need to eat, or buy new CDs, or clothes, or go to the pub, or whatever... (ie. spend it to get rid of my boredom). I think the more efficiently we can consume the less of an impact we will have on the rest of the world. Also if we could be intelligent enough to not bicker and argue over stupid stuff we wouldn't spend all our energy on warfare, which has a huge impact on the environment, both manufacturing and actually bombing. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Got into a heated "debate" the other week with some friends over just what is needed to "save the planet." The good thing was that the friends ranged from a hippy tree hugger to a wannabe-American pro-consumer. The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement which just naturally enraged the normally peaceful hippy. We eventually got around to discussing just what was required to make humanity live in better harmony with the rest of the planet. Recycling, cycling to work, paper not plastic, being less of a consumer etc. where all comments bandied about. I agreed that yes they were admirable and worthwhile things to do, but they simply were not enough to save the planet. They are more a stop-gap IMO. After the debate I was thinking about what was really needed to change. It struck me then that the change required would be monumental, a total and utter paradigm shift, something 90% of humanity simply would not accept. Take books for example. Wonderful things. Basis of many an intelligent and knowledgable person. I have never heard of books been accused of being environmentally unsound. Yet they are if you really think about it. Books are made in factories. They involve paper from trees, ink from chemicals and energy from coal power plants. They need distribution and marketing to get to us. All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. What about organic foods, that so called environmentally sound food that health concious consumers boast about eating, to save the planet and themselves you know. Phhfff! You ever seen how organic foods are made? Huge factories dedicated to cleaning, sealing, packing and distributing the stuff. Sure the end product is lovelu and all, but the consumer does not see the smoke belching factory next to the farm from whence it came. Yes, better than non-organic foods, but not by much. The list goes on. Everything we rely on basically needs to change... but to what? How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? More harmonious and sustainable simply won't cut it. It has to be totally, end-to-end, sustainable and harmonious. Some may say that at least being more harmonious and sustainable is a good step... but is it really? Won't we be taking a smiling step forward but not realising the full extent of what we eventually have to sacrifice? Like a bluff it would be, self delusion. And t
I think people are too lazy to go back. And our economy can't afford the luxuries in a planet-friendly way. Someone has to be exploited for all these luxuries we are used to. Apparently the actual people who work in the Nike shoe factories (or other brands too) earn less in a year than one pair of the shoes cost. Things like electronics and cars must be as bad. It seems we have outgrown ourselves suddenly. Everything was going along basically nicely, and then communication speeds were improved upon. Suddenly everyone could share ideas, no matter where they were in the world. And now we sit in this mess where we are basically dependant upon all these inventions we have grown to love - supermarkets, fridges, fuel, cars, central heating, air conditioning, etc. It would be very interesting to see the world in 300 years - if it survives till then.
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some-it won't hurt you'... -Christian Graus on Code Project outages His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a tumble dryer. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to he wall**-Shaun Wilde**
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: In answering your initial question your ending statement was my response. Things do change naturally, now what does that mean. Man's impact is not natural and a meteor's or what ever killed off dino was natural? I argued for the "but humans are just as natural as the rest" side. Nature destroys, nature plays havock, nature extenguishes. Nature actually does not give a toss, it just does. It boils down to physics, actions and reactions and all that. In the grand scheme of things nothing we can do really is very bad. We could nuke every inch of earth, but in a million years or so life will come back. Life would continue, nature would restore balance and diversity. That leads to the fact that what environmentalists, naturalists and all are really trying to save is not the planet, but ourselves, humanity. They are trying to prevent us from killing off so much that we start killing off ourselves. Preventing us from chopping off the legs that hold us up so high. We fool ourselves in our big cities into thinking we are masters of this planet and masters of providing for our needs. We are not even close to being able to provide for ourselves without the help of the rest of the living planet. We cannot even self-sustain three astronauts in 10x4 space station. Farms, the bread baskest of America, China, Europe, Africa etc. rely on a myriad of ultimately living natural products. Fertilisers, polination vectors, soil re-vitilisation. They rely on machinery which comes from mines through factories. I know you know of this but just take 10 minutes to try and figure out how we can do without the planet in a stable and living condition? We cannot. I guess that means my question is; What do we need to change to stabilise and sustain the living planet to provide for the continuation of the human race?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
I'll make my argument short, sweet, and simple. Though many of you seem to be focusing upon the life and death of other creatures that live upon this starship we call earth, I assure you, there is much more at stake here than meets the eye. Granted our deforestation takes away the homes of countless animals, who can not survive outside of the wilderness of the jungle, there is still more, that we don't see. We see the deforestation caused by our need for paper. We see the pollution in the air, caused by our factories. We see the dirty water, from overrun sewage treatement plants, and chemical spills. But what are we not seeing? We constantly drill for oil, all over the world. As that oil is used up, it leaves a pocket of emptiness in the earth. We constantly dig for diamonds, gold, and other minerals, once again, leaving pockets in the earth. One would argue that the planet has also created it's own pockets of emptiness, thus refering to caverns and caves. While this is true, it still doesn't justify the fact, that we're destroying the planet from the inside out, as well as the outside in. You see, each day, as we're digging up the earth, we're putting more and more of what was inside the earth, on the top of the earth. Over a vast period of time, this will cause the earth to become larger, and hollow. Being hollow, there will thus be less gravity. Less gravity, means that there will be less pressure on the inside of the planet, thus the world will experience what I like to call, "Freeze over". Although the sun will warm the surface of the planet by day, the chill from under the ground, will cause the planet to freeze overnight. No, this prediction will not come in the next thousands of years. But rest assured, it will happen in the scope of time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about all the rest of the problem, because, they are more important than this one. I'm just throwing some information, that many people might not have thought of already. In my opinion, the overall best way to "Heal" the world, from the destruction that we have caused, is to get rid of "Humans" all together. Yes, take us out of the picture, and the planet will fix all the wrongs we have done itself. No, it won't happen overnight either. You see, for the planet to fix the damage that we do in one day, it would take approximately 1,000 years. This means, that the longer we remain upon this planet, the longer it will be before it can fix itself, through natural means. Before you flame me for this post,
-
Got into a heated "debate" the other week with some friends over just what is needed to "save the planet." The good thing was that the friends ranged from a hippy tree hugger to a wannabe-American pro-consumer. The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement which just naturally enraged the normally peaceful hippy. We eventually got around to discussing just what was required to make humanity live in better harmony with the rest of the planet. Recycling, cycling to work, paper not plastic, being less of a consumer etc. where all comments bandied about. I agreed that yes they were admirable and worthwhile things to do, but they simply were not enough to save the planet. They are more a stop-gap IMO. After the debate I was thinking about what was really needed to change. It struck me then that the change required would be monumental, a total and utter paradigm shift, something 90% of humanity simply would not accept. Take books for example. Wonderful things. Basis of many an intelligent and knowledgable person. I have never heard of books been accused of being environmentally unsound. Yet they are if you really think about it. Books are made in factories. They involve paper from trees, ink from chemicals and energy from coal power plants. They need distribution and marketing to get to us. All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. What about organic foods, that so called environmentally sound food that health concious consumers boast about eating, to save the planet and themselves you know. Phhfff! You ever seen how organic foods are made? Huge factories dedicated to cleaning, sealing, packing and distributing the stuff. Sure the end product is lovelu and all, but the consumer does not see the smoke belching factory next to the farm from whence it came. Yes, better than non-organic foods, but not by much. The list goes on. Everything we rely on basically needs to change... but to what? How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? More harmonious and sustainable simply won't cut it. It has to be totally, end-to-end, sustainable and harmonious. Some may say that at least being more harmonious and sustainable is a good step... but is it really? Won't we be taking a smiling step forward but not realising the full extent of what we eventually have to sacrifice? Like a bluff it would be, self delusion. And t
This is your best post for a while Paul !! Well done !! I dispute one arguement though. Paul Watson wrote: Which is largely true. North America was quite well populated by animals 13000 years ago. Then over the next few thousand years as groups crossed the straits into NA many species became suddenly extinct, before their time. So even bands of hunter gatherer humans screwed things up. What about the Ice Age and the after Ice Age effects that would have ravaged the USA far more then any other global area excluding the north Atlantic ? My solution to ecology is that we need to depopulate the planet of humans by a large factor. Humans are currently using too many resources per individual unit. Any good Sims gamer could tell you that though. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
I'll make my argument short, sweet, and simple. Though many of you seem to be focusing upon the life and death of other creatures that live upon this starship we call earth, I assure you, there is much more at stake here than meets the eye. Granted our deforestation takes away the homes of countless animals, who can not survive outside of the wilderness of the jungle, there is still more, that we don't see. We see the deforestation caused by our need for paper. We see the pollution in the air, caused by our factories. We see the dirty water, from overrun sewage treatement plants, and chemical spills. But what are we not seeing? We constantly drill for oil, all over the world. As that oil is used up, it leaves a pocket of emptiness in the earth. We constantly dig for diamonds, gold, and other minerals, once again, leaving pockets in the earth. One would argue that the planet has also created it's own pockets of emptiness, thus refering to caverns and caves. While this is true, it still doesn't justify the fact, that we're destroying the planet from the inside out, as well as the outside in. You see, each day, as we're digging up the earth, we're putting more and more of what was inside the earth, on the top of the earth. Over a vast period of time, this will cause the earth to become larger, and hollow. Being hollow, there will thus be less gravity. Less gravity, means that there will be less pressure on the inside of the planet, thus the world will experience what I like to call, "Freeze over". Although the sun will warm the surface of the planet by day, the chill from under the ground, will cause the planet to freeze overnight. No, this prediction will not come in the next thousands of years. But rest assured, it will happen in the scope of time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about all the rest of the problem, because, they are more important than this one. I'm just throwing some information, that many people might not have thought of already. In my opinion, the overall best way to "Heal" the world, from the destruction that we have caused, is to get rid of "Humans" all together. Yes, take us out of the picture, and the planet will fix all the wrongs we have done itself. No, it won't happen overnight either. You see, for the planet to fix the damage that we do in one day, it would take approximately 1,000 years. This means, that the longer we remain upon this planet, the longer it will be before it can fix itself, through natural means. Before you flame me for this post,
Well said. However I don't think Mother Nature will kill is when she has had enough. I think whatever survives what we have done to the planet will be stronger than we are. Now it could be what moves on is Homo Nextus and we will just die off, too weak to survive even with the prevailing technology. Nature doesn't give a damn about me, or even humans as a species. All she is bothered about is life and improving what was before in whatever form it may take. Survival of the fittest is part of that weaning process but in the end but in the end the survival of the individual or even a species is nothing. Nature likes variety, experimentation of different forms, what works what doesn't. In fact we might be good for nature, we destroy, we create change, we wean the weakest and promote the strongest. Maybe we are just clearing the board for a new series of natures experiments, useless in oursleves, just a mean to an end to be used and then dispose of when we are no longer required.
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02 -
I'll make my argument short, sweet, and simple. Though many of you seem to be focusing upon the life and death of other creatures that live upon this starship we call earth, I assure you, there is much more at stake here than meets the eye. Granted our deforestation takes away the homes of countless animals, who can not survive outside of the wilderness of the jungle, there is still more, that we don't see. We see the deforestation caused by our need for paper. We see the pollution in the air, caused by our factories. We see the dirty water, from overrun sewage treatement plants, and chemical spills. But what are we not seeing? We constantly drill for oil, all over the world. As that oil is used up, it leaves a pocket of emptiness in the earth. We constantly dig for diamonds, gold, and other minerals, once again, leaving pockets in the earth. One would argue that the planet has also created it's own pockets of emptiness, thus refering to caverns and caves. While this is true, it still doesn't justify the fact, that we're destroying the planet from the inside out, as well as the outside in. You see, each day, as we're digging up the earth, we're putting more and more of what was inside the earth, on the top of the earth. Over a vast period of time, this will cause the earth to become larger, and hollow. Being hollow, there will thus be less gravity. Less gravity, means that there will be less pressure on the inside of the planet, thus the world will experience what I like to call, "Freeze over". Although the sun will warm the surface of the planet by day, the chill from under the ground, will cause the planet to freeze overnight. No, this prediction will not come in the next thousands of years. But rest assured, it will happen in the scope of time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about all the rest of the problem, because, they are more important than this one. I'm just throwing some information, that many people might not have thought of already. In my opinion, the overall best way to "Heal" the world, from the destruction that we have caused, is to get rid of "Humans" all together. Yes, take us out of the picture, and the planet will fix all the wrongs we have done itself. No, it won't happen overnight either. You see, for the planet to fix the damage that we do in one day, it would take approximately 1,000 years. This means, that the longer we remain upon this planet, the longer it will be before it can fix itself, through natural means. Before you flame me for this post,
Magius96 wrote: We constantly drill for oil, all over the world. As that oil is used up, it leaves a pocket of emptiness in the earth. We constantly dig for diamonds, gold, and other minerals, once again, leaving pockets in the earth. One would argue that the planet has also created it's own pockets of emptiness, thus refering to caverns and caves. While this is true, it still doesn't justify the fact, that we're destroying the planet from the inside out, as well as the outside in. You see, each day, as we're digging up the earth, we're putting more and more of what was inside the earth, on the top of the earth. Over a vast period of time, this will cause the earth to become larger, and hollow. Being hollow, there will thus be less gravity. Less gravity, means that there will be less pressure on the inside of the planet, thus the world will experience what I like to call, "Freeze over". Although the sun will warm the surface of the planet by day, the chill from under the ground, will cause the planet to freeze overnight. Ummm... Unless we start eject this stuff into outer space with sufficient velocity to garauntee it does not fall back the there is no net change in the mass (or the gravitational field). And I think things will get quite warm once we penetrate the rather thin skin and try to tap the magma layers... volcanically warm... Magius96 wrote: In my opinion, the overall best way to "Heal" the world, from the destruction that we have caused, is to get rid of "Humans" all together. Doesn't solve the problem (how can humans co-exist) at all.
-
Got into a heated "debate" the other week with some friends over just what is needed to "save the planet." The good thing was that the friends ranged from a hippy tree hugger to a wannabe-American pro-consumer. The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement which just naturally enraged the normally peaceful hippy. We eventually got around to discussing just what was required to make humanity live in better harmony with the rest of the planet. Recycling, cycling to work, paper not plastic, being less of a consumer etc. where all comments bandied about. I agreed that yes they were admirable and worthwhile things to do, but they simply were not enough to save the planet. They are more a stop-gap IMO. After the debate I was thinking about what was really needed to change. It struck me then that the change required would be monumental, a total and utter paradigm shift, something 90% of humanity simply would not accept. Take books for example. Wonderful things. Basis of many an intelligent and knowledgable person. I have never heard of books been accused of being environmentally unsound. Yet they are if you really think about it. Books are made in factories. They involve paper from trees, ink from chemicals and energy from coal power plants. They need distribution and marketing to get to us. All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. What about organic foods, that so called environmentally sound food that health concious consumers boast about eating, to save the planet and themselves you know. Phhfff! You ever seen how organic foods are made? Huge factories dedicated to cleaning, sealing, packing and distributing the stuff. Sure the end product is lovelu and all, but the consumer does not see the smoke belching factory next to the farm from whence it came. Yes, better than non-organic foods, but not by much. The list goes on. Everything we rely on basically needs to change... but to what? How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? More harmonious and sustainable simply won't cut it. It has to be totally, end-to-end, sustainable and harmonious. Some may say that at least being more harmonious and sustainable is a good step... but is it really? Won't we be taking a smiling step forward but not realising the full extent of what we eventually have to sacrifice? Like a bluff it would be, self delusion. And t
Paul Watson wrote: All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. I have great hope that sites like 'Safari' will start to pay authors for content and become prevelant over paper books. I am buying less books because of Safari, a fact I'd be happy about from every angle if not for the fact that the authors are not paid. Paul Watson wrote: How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? We can't, every proposed change is compromised by humans who blindly want to live as they have done. Example - cutting greenhouse emissions by x% over x years. If we were serious we would simply stop and deal with the economic consequences. Paul Watson wrote: Can we sacrifice enough to reverse till a point from where we can progress again, but in harmony? No - we're stuffed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
Got into a heated "debate" the other week with some friends over just what is needed to "save the planet." The good thing was that the friends ranged from a hippy tree hugger to a wannabe-American pro-consumer. The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement which just naturally enraged the normally peaceful hippy. We eventually got around to discussing just what was required to make humanity live in better harmony with the rest of the planet. Recycling, cycling to work, paper not plastic, being less of a consumer etc. where all comments bandied about. I agreed that yes they were admirable and worthwhile things to do, but they simply were not enough to save the planet. They are more a stop-gap IMO. After the debate I was thinking about what was really needed to change. It struck me then that the change required would be monumental, a total and utter paradigm shift, something 90% of humanity simply would not accept. Take books for example. Wonderful things. Basis of many an intelligent and knowledgable person. I have never heard of books been accused of being environmentally unsound. Yet they are if you really think about it. Books are made in factories. They involve paper from trees, ink from chemicals and energy from coal power plants. They need distribution and marketing to get to us. All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. What about organic foods, that so called environmentally sound food that health concious consumers boast about eating, to save the planet and themselves you know. Phhfff! You ever seen how organic foods are made? Huge factories dedicated to cleaning, sealing, packing and distributing the stuff. Sure the end product is lovelu and all, but the consumer does not see the smoke belching factory next to the farm from whence it came. Yes, better than non-organic foods, but not by much. The list goes on. Everything we rely on basically needs to change... but to what? How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? More harmonious and sustainable simply won't cut it. It has to be totally, end-to-end, sustainable and harmonious. Some may say that at least being more harmonious and sustainable is a good step... but is it really? Won't we be taking a smiling step forward but not realising the full extent of what we eventually have to sacrifice? Like a bluff it would be, self delusion. And t
This is a bit off topic. Your written english is very good. Have you ever considered being a writer? -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
-
Paul Watson wrote: HIV originally was a homosexual environment born disease specifically because the environment was a good breeding ground at first. That's one theory. There was one floating around the US in the '80s that claimed that HIV was a biological weapon that was deliberately created by one or another government agency (ranging from CIA to Mossad to KGB, depending on the storyteller). It supposedly was tested in Africa on monkeys and, human nature being what it is, "somehow" spread to human hosts. Open international travel assured that it would spread to the rest of the planet (an article here long ago documented the tracking process that identified the sole African visitor - long since dead - that brought the virus to the US). Variants of the theory proposed that it was intended to wipe out blacks, homosexuals, or drug addicts without appearing to involve any government policy. Don't you just love paranoid conspiracy theories?:-D Fortunately, this theory has died out, though I'll bet I can find a bunch of rednecks here in Arizona who still believe it in one form or another... For that matter, it might even be true! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
Roger Wright wrote: That's one theory Roger Wright wrote: Variants of the theory proposed that it was intended to wipe out blacks, homosexuals, Wooops, I certainly did not mean that HIV was a homosexual only disease or that they caused it or anything. I guess I should have added in that the one particularly prevelant string of HIV evolved to be specialised in homosexual communities and that it was able to evolve faster in that community because homosexuals tended to have far more partners (and therefore far more chances for the disease to spread and live longer to replicate more) than in other sexual communities. I was reading Almost Like A Whale and HIV was touted as a great example of evolution in action on a human time scale. The author mentioned the possible origin of HIV being monkeys but said there is very little conclusive proof still. Roger Wright wrote: Fortunately, this theory has died out, though I'll bet I can find a bunch of rednecks here in Arizona who still believe it in one form or another... For that matter, it might even be true! You only have to come to Africa and listen to someone like Rob Mugabe to hear that theory of HIV being a disease made by The White Man intended to wipe out The Black Man. He, and other black leaders, use it to rally the troops against The Evil Westerners.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
I'll make my argument short, sweet, and simple. Though many of you seem to be focusing upon the life and death of other creatures that live upon this starship we call earth, I assure you, there is much more at stake here than meets the eye. Granted our deforestation takes away the homes of countless animals, who can not survive outside of the wilderness of the jungle, there is still more, that we don't see. We see the deforestation caused by our need for paper. We see the pollution in the air, caused by our factories. We see the dirty water, from overrun sewage treatement plants, and chemical spills. But what are we not seeing? We constantly drill for oil, all over the world. As that oil is used up, it leaves a pocket of emptiness in the earth. We constantly dig for diamonds, gold, and other minerals, once again, leaving pockets in the earth. One would argue that the planet has also created it's own pockets of emptiness, thus refering to caverns and caves. While this is true, it still doesn't justify the fact, that we're destroying the planet from the inside out, as well as the outside in. You see, each day, as we're digging up the earth, we're putting more and more of what was inside the earth, on the top of the earth. Over a vast period of time, this will cause the earth to become larger, and hollow. Being hollow, there will thus be less gravity. Less gravity, means that there will be less pressure on the inside of the planet, thus the world will experience what I like to call, "Freeze over". Although the sun will warm the surface of the planet by day, the chill from under the ground, will cause the planet to freeze overnight. No, this prediction will not come in the next thousands of years. But rest assured, it will happen in the scope of time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about all the rest of the problem, because, they are more important than this one. I'm just throwing some information, that many people might not have thought of already. In my opinion, the overall best way to "Heal" the world, from the destruction that we have caused, is to get rid of "Humans" all together. Yes, take us out of the picture, and the planet will fix all the wrongs we have done itself. No, it won't happen overnight either. You see, for the planet to fix the damage that we do in one day, it would take approximately 1,000 years. This means, that the longer we remain upon this planet, the longer it will be before it can fix itself, through natural means. Before you flame me for this post,
Wow. Well at first I thought you were taking the piss, but you may be serious after all. Ummm. How to answer. Hmmm. First off there is no mother nature. No divine spirit guiding hedgehogs and platypuses etc. There is no force biding it's time to wipe us out. Nor will it suddenly appear when we cross some threshold. Nature is not fighting back as we have come to think things fight back, i.e. led by some rhetoric or common cause which is distributed amongst the individuals. Every component of nature, of which we are, fights for itself and the propogation of itself. If cutting down trees helps savanah loving buck, then no problemo from the buck, they will cheer us on. But the lesser spotted tree hugging lemurs will fight back, however feebly. Anyway, point, don't hold your breath waiting for mother nature to come out of her cave to open a can of whoopass on us. The only can of whoopass that can be opened is by us on ourselves. As for the whole "hollow earth" deal I am no geologist but I don't think you fears are grounded on anything. Mt. Everset, and the Himalayas, for instance constitute a sizable chunk of mass. Far greater than any amount we have dug out of the Earth and placed on the surface, way, way more. Yet the difference in gravity around the Himalayas, and on the other side of the earth, is only measurable by very sensitive equipment. You don't get to Mt. Everest and suddenly feel heavier. Also you can't exactly hollow out the earth. The middle happens to be molten rock, not a solid chunk at all. Our mines reach down to a maximum of 6 kilometres, pretty far but the core is hundreds of kilometres down. Far further than we can ever conceive of digging, plus of course we only dig in the mantle which is just a thin crust. Our earth is far larger than many of us seem to think. I will give you merit for a great imagination though, you should write a sci-fi book or movie script :) (no sarcasm intended, at least you had guts to reach out and say what you thought)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Paul Watson wrote: All in all a book is just as bad as a plastic bag, a tin can or a six-pack-binder. I have great hope that sites like 'Safari' will start to pay authors for content and become prevelant over paper books. I am buying less books because of Safari, a fact I'd be happy about from every angle if not for the fact that the authors are not paid. Paul Watson wrote: How on gods green earth can we change from what we are now to something that will be totally harmonious and sustainable? We can't, every proposed change is compromised by humans who blindly want to live as they have done. Example - cutting greenhouse emissions by x% over x years. If we were serious we would simply stop and deal with the economic consequences. Paul Watson wrote: Can we sacrifice enough to reverse till a point from where we can progress again, but in harmony? No - we're stuffed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
Christian Graus wrote: I have great hope that sites like 'Safari' will start to pay authors for content and become prevelant over paper books. I am going to assume that you are saying Safari books dot com is a good alternative to paper books for environmental reasons (e.g. no more paper mills, chemicals for ink and distribution etc.), seeing as I did use books as an example of something innocuous but which are actually harmful to the environment. If my assumption is wrong and you just latched on to the books thing to have your say about Safari books, then ignore the following. Safari books dot com is not a good alternative to paper books, environmentally. In fact, it is probably a lot worse. Think about it. What do you need to access Safari books dot com? An electronic device (normally a desktop PC.) Access to the internet via telephone lines, which require huge copper and optical networks with large switching boxes. You need electricity as well. All of that comes at a high cost to the environment. Producing circuit boards is a messy, chemical ridden process. Producing electricity is largely also bad for the environment. You need distribution to get the computer to your door, distribution of repair men for the phone networks and switching boxes. Sure, most of those components have a high initial cost but then a low maintenance cost. Unlike books which have a low initial cost and then if you do maintain them, quite a high maintenance cost (or at least a big percentage of the initial books production cost.) But that initial cost is much lower than that of a computer and the maintenance is far lower than that of a phone network. But we tend to upgrade our computers, often once a year. Phone networks are being constantly maintained and replaced with new lines, all which come from factories. What would have to change to make distribution of the words that books or electronic documents contain environmentally sound? I have no idea because my only idea is unacceptable as it would revert us back to just on Guttenbergs day and age. Unacceptable. Christian Graus wrote: If we were serious we would simply stop and deal with the economic consequences Very telling point you make CG. Good example of showing people that while sure they want cuddly lion cubs to still be around in a hundred years, that they simply do not realise the sacrifice, nor will they accept it, they would have to make.
-
Christian Graus wrote: I have great hope that sites like 'Safari' will start to pay authors for content and become prevelant over paper books. I am going to assume that you are saying Safari books dot com is a good alternative to paper books for environmental reasons (e.g. no more paper mills, chemicals for ink and distribution etc.), seeing as I did use books as an example of something innocuous but which are actually harmful to the environment. If my assumption is wrong and you just latched on to the books thing to have your say about Safari books, then ignore the following. Safari books dot com is not a good alternative to paper books, environmentally. In fact, it is probably a lot worse. Think about it. What do you need to access Safari books dot com? An electronic device (normally a desktop PC.) Access to the internet via telephone lines, which require huge copper and optical networks with large switching boxes. You need electricity as well. All of that comes at a high cost to the environment. Producing circuit boards is a messy, chemical ridden process. Producing electricity is largely also bad for the environment. You need distribution to get the computer to your door, distribution of repair men for the phone networks and switching boxes. Sure, most of those components have a high initial cost but then a low maintenance cost. Unlike books which have a low initial cost and then if you do maintain them, quite a high maintenance cost (or at least a big percentage of the initial books production cost.) But that initial cost is much lower than that of a computer and the maintenance is far lower than that of a phone network. But we tend to upgrade our computers, often once a year. Phone networks are being constantly maintained and replaced with new lines, all which come from factories. What would have to change to make distribution of the words that books or electronic documents contain environmentally sound? I have no idea because my only idea is unacceptable as it would revert us back to just on Guttenbergs day and age. Unacceptable. Christian Graus wrote: If we were serious we would simply stop and deal with the economic consequences Very telling point you make CG. Good example of showing people that while sure they want cuddly lion cubs to still be around in a hundred years, that they simply do not realise the sacrifice, nor will they accept it, they would have to make.
Paul Watson wrote: Sure, most of those components have a high initial cost but then a low maintenance cost. Isn't that the point ? Once I have the PC, I have access to unlimited books. Plus I have the PC already. You could as easily complain about the trees cut down to build houses. I dunno about you, but I think that sleeping outdoors and eating raw meat ( wood required to cook it ) is not an option. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
This is your best post for a while Paul !! Well done !! I dispute one arguement though. Paul Watson wrote: Which is largely true. North America was quite well populated by animals 13000 years ago. Then over the next few thousand years as groups crossed the straits into NA many species became suddenly extinct, before their time. So even bands of hunter gatherer humans screwed things up. What about the Ice Age and the after Ice Age effects that would have ravaged the USA far more then any other global area excluding the north Atlantic ? My solution to ecology is that we need to depopulate the planet of humans by a large factor. Humans are currently using too many resources per individual unit. Any good Sims gamer could tell you that though. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: This is your best post for a while Paul !! Well done !! :-O ta Colin Davies wrote: What about the Ice Age and the after Ice Age effects that would have ravaged the USA far more then any other global area excluding the north Atlantic ? Ok I cannot remember exact dates (this was from that book Guns, Germs and Steel) but there was that mini ice age and even after that North America contained a good share of large animals which are today very much extinct. Hazy on the details but when the humans crossed the strait into NA there were large populations of these animals which they proceeded to wipe out, even having the primitive weapons that they did. Fossil records show a rapid decline in these animal populations which coincided very well with the introduction of humans. Apparently also NA was heavily populated, for a hunter gatherer life style, by humans right up until Mr. Columbus and his merry disease carrying troupe arrived. However not much longer after that the Europeans who moved westward reported that the continent was quite sparsely populated. All because the epedimic diseases the Europeans brought with them traveled like a huge ripple through the continent wiping out huge populations of Native Indian Americans who were not resistant in anyway to the new diseases. Quite sad really and now whenever some yank tells me that my ancestors wiped out blacks by the score when we landed here in South Africa I can show them they did just the same, even if they did not know it. Knowledge is power! :-D Colin Davies wrote: My solution to ecology is that we need to depopulate the planet of humans by a large factor. Humans are currently using too many resources per individual unit. Any good Sims gamer could tell you that though. But it is not an acceptable solution, is it? Who gets to choose which populations get wiped out? I will bet the States would have first say and Africa and it's lot the last say. Yet do we want the States to be the human legacy that goes forward while Indians, Chinese and Aborigines do not? On what criteria do we choose? Nobody would ever agree. Colin Davies wrote: Humans are currently using too many resources per individual unit. Compare the consumption of a US citizen vs. an Ethiopian citizen. An incredible and frightening difference. I think most estimates show that if every human lived at the level of the average US citize
-
This is a bit off topic. Your written english is very good. Have you ever considered being a writer? -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Your written english is very good. Have you ever considered being a writer? Thanks Jörgen, you have no idea how much that compliment means to me :-D I actually really do want to author a book one day and have it published. Whether people will like it or not... well that is not so important. But to get published you do need someone who think you can write to publish it for you. So thanks for the confidence boost :) * And if you are taking the piss... then shame on you, you break my heart...
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
I think people are too lazy to go back. And our economy can't afford the luxuries in a planet-friendly way. Someone has to be exploited for all these luxuries we are used to. Apparently the actual people who work in the Nike shoe factories (or other brands too) earn less in a year than one pair of the shoes cost. Things like electronics and cars must be as bad. It seems we have outgrown ourselves suddenly. Everything was going along basically nicely, and then communication speeds were improved upon. Suddenly everyone could share ideas, no matter where they were in the world. And now we sit in this mess where we are basically dependant upon all these inventions we have grown to love - supermarkets, fridges, fuel, cars, central heating, air conditioning, etc. It would be very interesting to see the world in 300 years - if it survives till then.
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some-it won't hurt you'... -Christian Graus on Code Project outages His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a tumble dryer. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to he wall**-Shaun Wilde**
Megan Forbes wrote: Everything was going along basically nicely, and then communication speeds were improved upon. Suddenly everyone could share ideas, no matter where they were in the world. And now we sit in this mess where we are basically dependant upon all these inventions we have grown to love Is it not perverse though that the very communication advances which allowed us to share ideas have also allowed us to see the state our planet is in, and see the effects we are having? Without it we would not have a very good overall idea of what we are doing. I have to disagree though in that we were doing damage long before the world became hyperconnected. The industrial revolution just kicked our destructive force into higher gear. Even before that we were destroying habitat, polluting and all sorts. Right back to 9000 years ago when food production started actually. Frightening no?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
It comes down to seriously asking ourselves, what is necessary? Basically just food and shelter really. But we can quickly agree that a global change back to such basics would never happen. Technology is the best way for us live in more harmony with our planet while still preserving our need to satisfy our constant curiosity. The problem lies in the fact that we are easily bored. We can supply power today using solar energy, wind energy, or hydro-power, but it isn't "economically feasible". It's economically feasible to ride around in an SUV, but not to pay a little extra to power your home with cleaner energy. Why not? Well, because I want to use that money to buy food I don't really even need to eat, or buy new CDs, or clothes, or go to the pub, or whatever... (ie. spend it to get rid of my boredom). I think the more efficiently we can consume the less of an impact we will have on the rest of the world. Also if we could be intelligent enough to not bicker and argue over stupid stuff we wouldn't spend all our energy on warfare, which has a huge impact on the environment, both manufacturing and actually bombing. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
brianwelsch wrote: I think the more efficiently we can consume the less of an impact we will have on the rest of the world I agree, efficiency is a big part of the key. I think this is very much why America is seen as such a bad boy, environmentally speaking. America is not viewed as being anything close to efficient in the use of it's resources. We see America as consuming for consumptions sake, without heed to waste or superflous usage. That lack of efficiency also gives us a bad impression of Americans. Loud, big, big, big, big, big for no other reason than to be big. brianwelsch wrote: warfare, which has a huge impact on the environment, both manufacturing and actually bombing. I wonder what the stats on that are. Also I imagine the materials used in warfare are far more inherently environmentally unsound. So even if pound for pound warfare is the same as, lets say, car manufacturing, the materials used are pound for pound more destructive.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Paul Watson wrote: Sure, most of those components have a high initial cost but then a low maintenance cost. Isn't that the point ? Once I have the PC, I have access to unlimited books. Plus I have the PC already. You could as easily complain about the trees cut down to build houses. I dunno about you, but I think that sleeping outdoors and eating raw meat ( wood required to cook it ) is not an option. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Isn't that the point ? Once I have the PC, I have access to unlimited books. Plus I have the PC already Sure I think that is the idea, but I wonder if the actual economics of it are valid. Most 1st world PCs are upgraded quite often, so the low maintenance cost is negated. If the PC lasted, and was suitable, for more than 5/10/15 years then it probably would justify its high initial cost to access all those books. Plus the PC requires almost constant electricity. Then there is the distribution of the electronic books to the PC. Though yes of course to distribute one electronic book is far less costly than one physical book. But the eletronic network requires constant maintenance and is often upgraded. Hmmm. I just don't know enough about either system to really judge. But my gut feel would be that eletronic books do not offer much of a lessening in cost to physical books overall. Christian Graus wrote: I dunno about you, but I think that sleeping outdoors and eating raw meat ( wood required to cook it ) is not an option. Exactly why I think 90% of "lets save the planet" people actually have no idea what they are saying, what they will have to sacrifice. They think all it means is Bush signing the Kyoto protocol and doing school runs in one car rather than three.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Your written english is very good. Have you ever considered being a writer? Thanks Jörgen, you have no idea how much that compliment means to me :-D I actually really do want to author a book one day and have it published. Whether people will like it or not... well that is not so important. But to get published you do need someone who think you can write to publish it for you. So thanks for the confidence boost :) * And if you are taking the piss... then shame on you, you break my heart...
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: So thanks for the confidence boost I was just being honest :) You use a language which is very easy to comprehend (especially noticable for me since my mother tongue is Swedish), and I think you present your arguments in a credible way. Do you use any special techniques or does it come naturally? Paul Watson wrote: * And if you are taking the piss... then shame on you, you break my heart... :~ There goes the comprehensible english. :-D -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.
-
brianwelsch wrote: I think the more efficiently we can consume the less of an impact we will have on the rest of the world I agree, efficiency is a big part of the key. I think this is very much why America is seen as such a bad boy, environmentally speaking. America is not viewed as being anything close to efficient in the use of it's resources. We see America as consuming for consumptions sake, without heed to waste or superflous usage. That lack of efficiency also gives us a bad impression of Americans. Loud, big, big, big, big, big for no other reason than to be big. brianwelsch wrote: warfare, which has a huge impact on the environment, both manufacturing and actually bombing. I wonder what the stats on that are. Also I imagine the materials used in warfare are far more inherently environmentally unsound. So even if pound for pound warfare is the same as, lets say, car manufacturing, the materials used are pound for pound more destructive.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: America is not viewed as being anything close to efficient in the use of it's resources. We see America as consuming for consumptions sake, without heed to waste or superflous usage. While this is true, I don't see most European countries as being particularly friendly towards their environment either. For a simple example look at the floods this past year in Germany. The entire river is totally incased and rerouted by humans. Eventually this restructing wreaks havoc. As was seen by the enormous amounts of chemicals that were dumped into the river during the flood. Also, fuel is generally cheap here. If we paid $1 per liter of Gas rather than $.35 per liter maybe people would consider it more in their vehicle purchases. I'm not trying to excuse US consumption, but it really isn't unique to this country. I recycle a large percentage of my plastic/glass/ and paper used at home, and know many of my friends do as well. Also, the BMW factory near my house is starting now to reuse methane from a local landfill to help power its facilities. So things are making progress in this way, just painfully slowly. I've often wondered how society would be different if the effort put into war were used for more productive purposes. Granted many technological advances are spurred by needs for better militaries, the computer included, but there is a lot of creativity being used to destroy rather than improve the way we live. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius