Changing our ways
-
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
-
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.
Paul Watson wrote: 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. If you look ate the gas/oil used to drive the book from the factory to the distribution to the book store then to your house, vs. the electricity used per book, I would have to think it becomes favorable to use eBooks. Maintenance of the truck must be at least as much as server maintenance. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
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
brianwelsch wrote: While this is true, I don't see most European countries as being particularly friendly towards their environment either The thing though is that American markest itself a whole lot better than European countries. I see American consumption far more than I see European consumption. Also, and while this is probably wrong and more media spin, The American Way seems so determined to make Bigger the defining attribute of Good/Best/Number-One. Europeans on average seem more inclined towards fine workmanship, efficiency (hello Germans) and respecting the finer things in life, rather than just the big things. Americans however are seen as only seeing the big in everything. Big cars, big homes, big roads, big burgers, big stadiums, big porches, big penises etc. etc. Think SUV. Think Bigger. Think Better. I am just relating what the average non-American thinks of Americans. And the sad thing is we are aspiring to be like those American ideals, however media generated they are. brianwelsch wrote: 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. Sure. But you speak of Germany and it's river problems. Yet Germany has the worlds highest use of sustainable energy. Why is America, the so called technology leaders, not number one in this respect? The percieved attitude of Americans towards the environment is bad IMO.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
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 won't bore you all with a big reply to this but one thing really caught my eye in your (very good) post: Paul Watson wrote: The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement This is an amazingly selfish attitude to have, IMHO, and one that is the root cause of a lot of the problems you describe. I think most people who have been anywhere near an elephant would feel a sense of awe about such an amazing creature (OK, so I really like elephants) and we would all be the poorer if they were to vanish off the face of the earth. It's not a question of making the planet a zoo - even if they were to die out from natural causes, it would be a sad passing. My point is that the "pro-consumer" doesn't give a damn about anything that doesn't affect him personally. Millions of people die from hunger each year but that doesn't concern him. The twin towers come down but because he lives in Australia, it doesn't matter. But it does. We live in a big global community, more now than ever before, and just the same way that if we ignore bad shit going on at the end of our street, it will eventually come back to bite us on the ass, ignoring bad shit happening on the other side of the world will eventually come around to us.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
brianwelsch wrote: While this is true, I don't see most European countries as being particularly friendly towards their environment either The thing though is that American markest itself a whole lot better than European countries. I see American consumption far more than I see European consumption. Also, and while this is probably wrong and more media spin, The American Way seems so determined to make Bigger the defining attribute of Good/Best/Number-One. Europeans on average seem more inclined towards fine workmanship, efficiency (hello Germans) and respecting the finer things in life, rather than just the big things. Americans however are seen as only seeing the big in everything. Big cars, big homes, big roads, big burgers, big stadiums, big porches, big penises etc. etc. Think SUV. Think Bigger. Think Better. I am just relating what the average non-American thinks of Americans. And the sad thing is we are aspiring to be like those American ideals, however media generated they are. brianwelsch wrote: 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. Sure. But you speak of Germany and it's river problems. Yet Germany has the worlds highest use of sustainable energy. Why is America, the so called technology leaders, not number one in this respect? The percieved attitude of Americans towards the environment is bad IMO.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: Why is America, the so called technology leaders, not number one in this respect? I imagine it has something to do with space. We've got tons of it. Most countries do not. Germany, which has 3% of US land mass, but 33% of our population. It has to be more efficient. People just don't think the same way about owning what others own the way people in the US do. Everyone is this country dreams about having an acre or so of land with a spacious house, a car per person, all the modern conveniences. Most of my family in Germany lives in condos or multi-family homes. There is no thought about living large, because they can't do it. Plain and simple. I'm not saying its better to keep wanting more, but the options are here. They aren't everywhere else. So we consume more simply because we can. Just like most fish will grow as large as their environment allows them, so do we. I agree with when you say our overall attitude towards the environment is poor. It certainly is. I'm in a position where I can try to effect attitudes here, at least those people I know. But how do you keep people from consuming things, when its so damn easy to do? Are the effects of pollution discussed and shown to populations across the world more often maybe? How is energy efficiency dealt with as an issue in other places? I find its a difficult topic to breach without sounding like some tree-hugging hippie. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
I won't bore you all with a big reply to this but one thing really caught my eye in your (very good) post: Paul Watson wrote: The pro-consumer even brought up the "So what if all Elephants died, it would not affect my daily life" statement This is an amazingly selfish attitude to have, IMHO, and one that is the root cause of a lot of the problems you describe. I think most people who have been anywhere near an elephant would feel a sense of awe about such an amazing creature (OK, so I really like elephants) and we would all be the poorer if they were to vanish off the face of the earth. It's not a question of making the planet a zoo - even if they were to die out from natural causes, it would be a sad passing. My point is that the "pro-consumer" doesn't give a damn about anything that doesn't affect him personally. Millions of people die from hunger each year but that doesn't concern him. The twin towers come down but because he lives in Australia, it doesn't matter. But it does. We live in a big global community, more now than ever before, and just the same way that if we ignore bad shit going on at the end of our street, it will eventually come back to bite us on the ass, ignoring bad shit happening on the other side of the world will eventually come around to us.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: We live in a big global community, more now than ever before, and just the same way that if we ignore bad sh*t going on at the end of our street, it will eventually come back to bite us on the ass, ignoring bad sh*t happening on the other side of the world will eventually come around to us. Very true Taka. How do we change these people views though? We all know that people are very defensive about their thoughts, and are generally hesistant to admit they are wrong. So how can you educate people without preaching, or without seeming "holier than thou", and without being condescending? BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
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.
Paul Watson wrote: Wooops, I certainly did not mean that HIV was a homosexual only disease or that they caused it or anything Quit being so damned polically correct!:laugh: You didn't imply any such thing, but the fact remains that homosexual behavior was responsible for the bulk of its initial spread. Drug users were next, as needles are controlled paraphenalia in most places and so tend to be re-used. In time, it inevitably became a plague on all sectors of society, as all groups tend to overlap in real communities. It's said that "familiarity breeds contempt" - in this case "diversity breeds." HIV research probably got shortchanged in the beginning because it only affected undesirable elements that the "normal" majority secretly wished would go away any way. But we're all in this together now, and there's no turning that back. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: We live in a big global community, more now than ever before, and just the same way that if we ignore bad sh*t going on at the end of our street, it will eventually come back to bite us on the ass, ignoring bad sh*t happening on the other side of the world will eventually come around to us. Very true Taka. How do we change these people views though? We all know that people are very defensive about their thoughts, and are generally hesistant to admit they are wrong. So how can you educate people without preaching, or without seeming "holier than thou", and without being condescending? BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
brianwelsch wrote: How do we change these people views though? You can't. The best you can do is point out causes and effects and let people draw their own conclusions. Take the twin towers. There's no disagreement that this was a dreadful thing to do but why did it happen in the US instead of Sweden or Canada? Because the guys who did it really hate the US. And why? Well, you could come up with any number of reasons but a lot of it would have to do with American behaviour overseas, how they treat other countries, how they conduct themselves on the world stage. In the aftermath of that attack, and even now, there are so many people who are not willing to openly talk about the possible reasons behind this event. These terrorists are fanatics, they don't follow any rules of decency or normality, they're maniacs, they hate democracy, they hate the US. People who say this probably have a fairly closed mind already and you are unlikely to persuade them to think otherwise, no matter what you might say. There's such a culture of not taking personal responsibility in the US and this strikes me as more of the same. It's the Axis of Evil, these guys are Muslim fanatics, but few seem to be willing to entertain the possibility that it might have been something that the US has done over the past 10, 20, 50 years to piss these guys off so badly. But to get back on topic :-) We could say to pro-consumer "well, yes, having no elephants doesn't affect your daily life but so would having no tigers, leopards, seals. Anything other cats and dogs, really. Can you imagine living in such a world. Rain-forests and national parks don't really affect you either. Ditto for a couple million Africans dying of AIDS this year. But all these people suffering around the world are eventually going to get around to noticing you living in your middle-class suburb, throwing away food and chewing up natural resources so that you can buy un-necessary consumer goods and before you know it, somebody's going to be flying a few 747's into *your* office block."
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
brianwelsch wrote: How do we change these people views though? You can't. The best you can do is point out causes and effects and let people draw their own conclusions. Take the twin towers. There's no disagreement that this was a dreadful thing to do but why did it happen in the US instead of Sweden or Canada? Because the guys who did it really hate the US. And why? Well, you could come up with any number of reasons but a lot of it would have to do with American behaviour overseas, how they treat other countries, how they conduct themselves on the world stage. In the aftermath of that attack, and even now, there are so many people who are not willing to openly talk about the possible reasons behind this event. These terrorists are fanatics, they don't follow any rules of decency or normality, they're maniacs, they hate democracy, they hate the US. People who say this probably have a fairly closed mind already and you are unlikely to persuade them to think otherwise, no matter what you might say. There's such a culture of not taking personal responsibility in the US and this strikes me as more of the same. It's the Axis of Evil, these guys are Muslim fanatics, but few seem to be willing to entertain the possibility that it might have been something that the US has done over the past 10, 20, 50 years to piss these guys off so badly. But to get back on topic :-) We could say to pro-consumer "well, yes, having no elephants doesn't affect your daily life but so would having no tigers, leopards, seals. Anything other cats and dogs, really. Can you imagine living in such a world. Rain-forests and national parks don't really affect you either. Ditto for a couple million Africans dying of AIDS this year. But all these people suffering around the world are eventually going to get around to noticing you living in your middle-class suburb, throwing away food and chewing up natural resources so that you can buy un-necessary consumer goods and before you know it, somebody's going to be flying a few 747's into *your* office block."
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
I completely understand your point, however, I wasn't really addressing why people dislike the US. I was trying to get suggestions on how to move forward. How do you educate people to come to their own conclusion that efficient use of energy really would be better for everyone, including themselves? How can you convince people to put aside their own economics in order to make positive changes? People are starving because their own governments are corrupt, not because my neighbor, keeps his lights on, and drives an SUV. Are the Africans dying AIDS because of the US? or maybe because a lack of education and poor living conditions. The tactic that we should care because the rest of the world hates us is lame. We should care because its the right thing to do. A month or so ago, I put up two posts, one asked for people to illustrate to me how the US has poorly effected them, and the other asked for a list of current great leaders (Since Bush wasn't one). I got squat back for an answer. All this talk about the evil empire, and no one came up with reasonable illustrations on how they were effected. So it led me to believe much of it was perception. Not to say it isn't based on some solid facts, but our reputation seems to blown and taken a life of its own. I don't disagree that we have much to improve, I would just rather see discussion towards improving things rather than constant attacks. It seems a more productive route. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
I completely understand your point, however, I wasn't really addressing why people dislike the US. I was trying to get suggestions on how to move forward. How do you educate people to come to their own conclusion that efficient use of energy really would be better for everyone, including themselves? How can you convince people to put aside their own economics in order to make positive changes? People are starving because their own governments are corrupt, not because my neighbor, keeps his lights on, and drives an SUV. Are the Africans dying AIDS because of the US? or maybe because a lack of education and poor living conditions. The tactic that we should care because the rest of the world hates us is lame. We should care because its the right thing to do. A month or so ago, I put up two posts, one asked for people to illustrate to me how the US has poorly effected them, and the other asked for a list of current great leaders (Since Bush wasn't one). I got squat back for an answer. All this talk about the evil empire, and no one came up with reasonable illustrations on how they were effected. So it led me to believe much of it was perception. Not to say it isn't based on some solid facts, but our reputation seems to blown and taken a life of its own. I don't disagree that we have much to improve, I would just rather see discussion towards improving things rather than constant attacks. It seems a more productive route. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
brianwelsch wrote: I wasn't really addressing why people dislike the US. Yes, I was aware that my reply ended up a bit of an anti-US rant :-) but I was trying to make the point that the things we see happening today are caused by things that we did yesterday. brianwelsch wrote: How do you educate people to come to their own conclusion that efficient use of energy really would be better for everyone, including themselves? I'm not sure if it's a matter of education. Everyone already knows that recycling is Good, global warming is Bad, CFC's are Bad, conservation is Good. The trick is to make people care enough to do something about it and change their behaviour. For one, you have to make it easy to do. People will always take the path of least resistance and in the US, ridiculously cheap petrol, cheap cars, poor public transport means that SUV's are a viable option. But we in the west seem to think that we have a God-given right to burn up a non-renewable resource as if it cost nothing. Tax the crap out of cars, big, gas-guzzling cars in particular, take the money we spend on roads and put it into public transport, and so on. But there are political reasons why these things will never happen, because we will never be able to think and plan further ahead than the next election :-( Cultural attitudes also play a big role. I've never lived in Japan but I believe that recycling is really big there because 1) the Goverment makes it really easy to do and 2) everyone else does it. brianwelsch wrote: People are starving because their own governments are corrupt, not because my neighbor, keeps his lights on, and drives an SUV. Are the Africans dying AIDS because of the US? or maybe because a lack of education and poor living conditions. I wasn't suggesting that there was a *direct* link between these things but rather that the fact that these things happen in the world at all makes us the poorer for it. If somebody in my street was starving, I'd like to think I would do something to try help. And if somebody dies in Africa from hunger and I do nothing about it, well that reflects on me as well. I can't do something about all the problems in the world today but at the very least, I can give a shit. brianwelsch wrote: I would just rather see discussion towards improving things rather than constant attacks. It seems a more productive route. My previous post wasn't just a blind
-
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
Paul Watson wrote: 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. I see it somewhat different, as we don't need to machinegun slaughter, or poison water supplies of cities. Notice how Sweden and other countries are becoming depopulated now and you see the solutions are simpler. Paul Watson wrote: My hippy tree hugging friend made a good point; We seem to be trying to raise the rest of the world up to American standards. To get all African access to what Americans have access to. But we really should be trying to find a way to get Americans to drop their standards. Obviously not to the level of Africans, but to some basic level which we can live at. Lots of hippies have said similar stuff, and I must say I somewhat agree. 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.
-
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.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Do you use any special techniques or does it come naturally? I write like I think as much as possible. Thanks again for the compliments :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.