BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:07 PM

Unfortunately though, it's not the people reading and writing this thread, or who come to Mudcat at all, who need to do the rethinking.

It's people who would never come here who need to rethink the uses to which they put their tools.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:32 PM

Let's not assume that technology is necessarily a 'sophisticated' thing. Technology is really the use we put a tool to. Maybe we have to rethink this then.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 09:53 AM

I think you are saying that there is no way to live sustainably with technology. I definitely dissagree with you on that point. It really isn't technology, in and of itself, that is unsustainable. It's how we use technology that is unsustainable. We can, if we want, use technology to help us live sustainably on the earth. It just takes a little shift in how we think about things to make that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:50 AM

Well, Carol, we are agreeing with each other. It is just that I'm a little more despairing than you.
Yes, I live in God's Own Country. GodZone for short. The population growth here is mainly immigration, somewhat ameliorated by emigration, mostly to Oz, by people born here or who have gained citizenship here and are using NZ as a back-door channel to there, under our special relationship system. Under 3 million in '75, over 4 million in '04.
    We are heavily into forestry, and having cut down most of our native timber, we now have californian Pinus Radiata, plantation grown, which supports little but timber producers. Not much birdsong in a plantation. I don't think much of the timber, either.
    The trigger for my outburst was the idea that anyone in the world was living a sustainable lifestyle, because I don't think anyone is, but on relection, I can think of three peoples. Pigmies, (If there are any left) 'Indians' in the Brazilian rainforest, (if influenza and loggers have left any) and Kalahari bushmen.(No-one wants their place.)
    Everyone else takes to technology like a duck to water, including those Native Americans in the early parts of the string. They rapidly adopted metal and firearms, as did the huge majority of 'Native peoples.'
The inverted commas are because I contend that everyone is an immigrant everwhere, except Oldavi Gorge.   Chris.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 07:08 PM

Hear,hear, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 11:06 AM

Erm... the first sentance in my last paragraph should read:

There is no reason for those of us who know better to not do what we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 10:57 AM

CarolC, I'll agree with you that we should live more sustainably, but I just can't see how we can do more than use less, which is still wasting stuff, and I'm quite sure we won't use less until we are forced to.

There's all kinds of other things people can do. It's not just using less that matters. It's also what we use that can really make a difference. There are a lot of new and innovative materials that are more environmentally friendly, as well as old materials that have fallen in to disuse. Hemp and bamboo are two plants that have all kinds of uses that we currently are using trees for. Plant derived oils can be used instead of petroleum for plastics and things like that.

Re: farming, there is a new kind of agriculture that is being used mostly in third world countries so far, but that will probably be used in industrialized countries eventually, called agro-forestry that has a lot of potential to make agriculture much more sustainable. And here in the US, the small family farms, which cannot compete economically with the large agri-businesses, understand that organic farming can save their way of life by giving them a niche in which they can compete and in which the large agri-businesses cannot.

You are in New Zealand? Is the population growth there more from immigration from other countries, or is it from the local birth rate? I agree that the people of the world really need to address the problem of population growth.

I applaud you for being someone who fixes things. We need more people who can do things like that.

So, in the democratic countries, greed (or artificial need) is promoted by those who want to sell things, and in the totalitarian countries there is no accountability for the controllers.

There was a time when people said that "organic" food would never catch on with the mainstream public. But there is now a chain of stores here in the US that are as big as regular grocery stores, that sell a wide variety of organic and natural foods and other environmentally responsible products. These stores are mostly found in large urban centers, but they are becoming more and more common all the time. The stuff they sell is at least as good as, and usually better than what you can get in regular grocery stores, and they are using economy of scale to make their products economically competitive with products sold in regular grocery stores.

We can make a huge difference with our purchasing decisions. Things are changing, even if you can't see it right now where you live.

This is no reason for those of us who know better to not do what we can. And when enough of us do, others will eventually follow along. At some point, even those who are the most resistant to change in this regard will know that they don't really have any other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 10:35 AM

Right. One of the reasons the electoral colege was installed is the obvious size of this country if extended to its natural borders.

To make an immeditae, direct-vote democracy work you have to have non-repudiable identification of the voter, electronically verifiable. You also have hug3e cultural education to go through -- laws would have to be broken down into comprehensible segments that coulld be individually voted on. The whole concept of piggybacking non-relevant parts ontot he backs of bbills, which is anathema to clear lawmaking anyway, would have to go away. People would have to be willing to take responsibility themselves for their votes rather than handing it odff to a professional representative. All these add up to a lot of inertia , which is the answer to your question IMO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 09:33 AM

Amos -
The Athenian Assembly consisted of all 50,000 freeborn male adult Athenians.
The Assembly had approval and veto powers over every piece of city-state legislation.

Democracy today is necesarily many steps removed from that kind of immediacy, and the reason is the logistics required in dealing with huge populations.
I didn't understand your suggested solution, but I have often wondered why, with the I.T. we have available today, our democracy isn't a lot more immediate than it is.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Gurney
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 04:36 AM

CarolC, I'll agree with you that we should live more sustainably, but I just can't see how we can do more than use less, which is still wasting stuff, and I'm quite sure we won't use less until we are forced to.
Personal freedom is going to bring us down, freedom to have lots of kids, freedom to buy lots of goods,(especially those nicely presented ones,) freedom of fast travel, freedom to upgrade the computer, etc.

So, in the democratic countries, greed (or artificial need) is promoted by those who want to sell things, and in the totalitarian countries there is no accountability for the controllers.

Farming in the West also seems to me to be an artificial system (Mono-culture, is it called?) although oriental peoples seem to be able to sustain the land by intensive cultivation. However, as they become more 'advanced' they are demanding more consumer goods (what a descriptive term).
I too try to live reasonably frugally, and I help others to do so, I fix things for a living. Rapaire, more power to your elbow.

Since I emigrated to this country in 1974, the population has increased 34%. I wonder if there is a country in the world where the population has decreased, apart from maybe China.   Chris.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:38 AM

John Lennaine makes an argument down thread that effectively states that democracy is not scalable. WHile a large-scale democracy obviously has serious issues that have to be designed around, it is, IMHO, absolutely not the case that democracy itself is not scalable. The most obvious scaling solution is an architecture in which hierarchical units aggregate their votes seamlessly, which also provides near real-time dissemination of information throughout the voting pool and provides the lowest hierarchy with some channel for redress and petition.

But these are details, really; the fundamental argument that modern nations are too populous for democracy to work is in my opinion indefensible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: MMario
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:30 AM

Rapaire - maybe you should campaign to plant some cedar trees to replace the ones that will die when your shingles are replaced?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:10 AM

The only way we will ever get back to nature is to go to Africa and lurk about naked, scavenging and gathering. You first.

I don't see anyone on this thread suggesting that we "go back to nature". I think you're the only one who has said that. What I do see is several people talking about learning to live in harmony with nature, which is an entirely different thing, and can include still having things like computers and motor vehicles.

It's just as possible for us to use technology to help us live more sustainably on the earth as it is for us to use technology to help us destroy the earth. The choice is ours.

P.S. "You first" ...Ok. I've already made quite a few adjustments to my lifestyle to live more gently on the earth. Now it's your turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 09:25 AM

I am NOT proposing getting naked and "returning to nature." Went through that in the '70s.

Not do I think that anyone is proposing that. What I AM in favor of is using less, being more personally responsible for what and who I am and what I do, making what I have last longer and do more.

Here's an example. The roof on the library where I work is cedar shakes. It was, as far as we can tell, put on in 1907 when the place was built. It's not leaking, but it does need maintenance.

We can either replace it, and since it's on the National Register we have to replace it with something that will meet historic standards for the exterior of the building, or we can prolong its life with powerwashing and an application of shingle oil.

Powerwashing will use detergent, water, and electricity. Shingle oil is made from linseed oil and some petroleum products.

Replacing it with cedar shakes will mean trees will die. Replacing it with, say, a good metal imitation will mean that somewhere the earth will be torn up, metals extracted, waste created, electricity used, etc. In any case petroleum will be used to transport the material.

We're going to wash and oil. Not only is it the least expensive option, but the residue can be cleaned up and the roof life prolonged. We'll have to do this every five years or so and eventually we will have to replace the roof (donations for this will be GRATEFULLY accepted, and if you cover the entire cost we'll name the roof after you). But we don't have to do it NOW. (By the way, there's some wonderful copper flashings up there.)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,hungry
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 09:17 AM

women's mags have diets up the front and cake recipes down the back?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: 42
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM

...schools suspend students for skipping class.
j

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Gurney
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:21 AM

Look, we are going to hell in a handbasket, but...

We are all sitting in front of a piece of technology that took the world to build.
It is worked by generated and distibuted electricity.
We all have a motor vehicle except those of us who CATCH the motor vehicle.
Virtually every item on earth is manufactured (using fossil fuel) and distributed (using fossil fuels.)
All of us are ready to buy a cheaper item, although we KNOW it won't last as long.
I could continue in this vein, but won't.

Humans are a tropical animal who developed a system to live elsewhere. The system was to change the diet to omnivore and wear clothes and use tools and weapons to hunt, and even the odds with carnivores.

The only way we will ever get back to nature is to go to Africa and lurk about naked, scavenging and gathering. You first.    Chris.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:45 AM

Aren't they making little plastic-like baggies out of biodegradable cornstarch now? I know they've been making packing peanuts like that for awhile. What about wrapping a sammich in waxed paper? Is waxed paper biodegradable, or does the wax not break down?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:08 AM

Just down the road from me is a delicatessan. They have biodegradable plastic bags there - and said they don't cost that much more. Making those bags popular and then compulsory would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:29 PM

I agree that enough studies have been done. I also think that the PEOPLE are ready to adapt to changes that will improve the environmental impact. When the 100th monkey re-cycles and changes their mode of transportation it will become the social thing to do.

As far as studies and planning goes - I haven't heard any mention of the Kyoto accord on this thread. It goes a long way to address international pollution and sets pretty high standards. Canada is attempting to implement it but the U.S. is dragging its heels. As far as I'm concerned, its the least we can do but its a start.

We can all do our part as individuals but until environmental standards are made law and enforced, the industrialists will continue to pollute the planet at our expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:28 PM

Observations:

1) It would seem to be financially advantageous to someone with a lot of clout to have snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park in the Winter months.
I expect there will continue to be studies done until one comes up with the right result.

2) Guilt is inappropriate and unnecesary.
Determination would be fairer to the current generation (who are not to blame), and more useful to future generations.

3) We need some kind of powerful but limited hereditary voice in, or alongside government.
Democracy was intended for a population the size of ancient Athens, not for modern Anywhere.
The Iroquois matrilineal system was intended for an even smaller population but to my knowledge has never been tried on a larger scale.
It has been successful elsewhere, but strangely susceptible to annihilation, unfortunately.
Some innovations would undoubtedly be required.

("Innovations? Now you're talking my language. Let's set aside some money for an independent study...")

John

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:12 PM

Sorry Bill. Looks like I did misunderstand.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:57 PM

Carol C...seems we have had a misunderstanding

having had a house concert here last night, I had not kept up with this thread, nor had I composed a 'serious' comment on the issues. My comment was a frivolous takeoff on Amos' remark, and was NOT meant to "dismiss" anything. Nor was it cynical. There are lots of things to fret about these days-- more than any of us can deal with at any one time. I did put a ;>) at the bottom, but I didn't realize I needed a special disclaimer to make a weak joke.

I am concerned about war, stupid politicians, environmental disaster, social problems (including the status & rights of the Native Americans), overpopulation, the decline of educational standards, and 14 more national & international issues---and thats BEFORE I list my own personal concerns with Medicare, advancing age and the price of peanut butter!

I certainly agree that today's society has flaws that are scary and urgent, but I simply do not have the stamina and time for 24/7 righteous indignation about ALL of it! I have to make jokes on the side now & then...and if we had been in the same room and I had tossed off that remark, I doubt you would have taken it seriously....When typing in Mudcat, I try to be as close to what I really am, and more than most, I use visual aids to attempt to not be mis-understood.

You said back up there:^ "A more constructive use one's energies is to help people to understand what the problems are, and to help correct them"
.....yep, and always with the realization that not everyone, even those who share your basic outlook, will automatically see YOUR viewpoint or agree with YOUR interpretation or solution. (You wanna see some steam rise? See some of MY posts when folks claimed "there IS no 'overpopulation problem'")

I suppose you 'could' argue that one shouldn't post if one is not prepared to debate and defend and dig up evidence and follow up every remark.....but some days it just don't work out. I'll try to show proper deference to **important** issues, but guarantees? Nope....

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:17 PM

"Killing them [the buffalo] did deprive the Indians of food and also their culture but I am not sure it was intentional."

Yes it was. General Phil Sheridan encouraged the slaughter of the buffalo under the premise that if the Indians had nothing to eat, they would be forced onto the reservations.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:25 PM

However, we really don't have lots of time to long-range plan. We need some short-rage stuff immediately, or there won't be all that much left to plan for.

I'll ask again: what kind of creature could live in the world we are creating?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:22 AM

Looks like I crossposted with several people, but I think you have all made good points.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:19 AM

CarolC,
I think it's a sound idea. Now just how to we convince the powers that be to implement it?

I think the internet will help with that. I think the internet is helping to democratize the way information is shared. When people are more informed about what is really going on, they can at least take more responsibility for the decisions they make in their own lives. When enough people make sustainable decisions locally (in their homes, workplaces, and communities), the "powers that be" will eventually have to follow their lead.

And of course, the 'reality on the ground' will also (eventually) force them to do things differently.

But I think it's we who will have to make the real changes, at least initially. We need to make our own decisions based on the impact they will have on future generations. Even the smallest things like using compact flourescent bulbs and not buying products that have a lot of wasteful packaging can make a big difference if enough of us do them.

Think Globally
Act Locally

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM

Sounds like a wonderful job, Larry, and one which directly and immediately impacts on others.

I felt that when I taught children. There again you can see your influence on how they will think, and care about not only their own future, but the worlds'. At least I really need to believe that's the case.

Rapaire, I do completely agree with what you've said about the OBSCENE amounts of money wasted on those kind of "studies". I have heard some that have made me laugh and scream at the same time because they are so inane, and you just know someone somewhere is gleefully making a wad of dough for nothing more than coming up with something unutterably idiotic and convincing someone else to give them money for it. BILLIONS wasted each and every year that could have been spent on education, the enviornment, inner city programs...

I also agree that we no longer think in terms of time as a continuum. A tree takes years to reach it's maturity, and an hour to be cut down.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:00 AM

Is the glass empty or is it half full.    It is easy to find fault with society of today.   However, health and medicine keep improoving.    People are living longer than every before.   My father was told he has two years to live about 5 years ago.    He is still going strong.   20 years ago he would have been dead by this time.

Polution is bad, but we are far more concerned about it that ever.   Have you ever looked at plants and factories 100 years ago or what they dumped into the river.   I think we are making progress.

Diseases used to wipe out entire populations.   Today they are mainly controlled.   Take a pill and never get chicken pox or measles.

On a macro sense, we all very helpless.   It is hard to believe you can make a difference.   On a micro sense, I believe individual people make a great difference.    I work for a large utility, but have the coolest job in the company.   I teach people and low income groups how to save money on their bill, which in turn saves energy, which in turn helps the environment.   I train all the case managers for THAW (the heat and warmth fund) Family independence agency, legal aid, society for the aged, etc. and do about 20-50 consumer presentations a year.   After one presentation, a woman came up to me and said that if everyone would just follow one of my suggestions, and just saved 5% of their energy use, what effect that would have on the country.   It was a profound thought that stayed with me.

Is is easy to be part of the solution.   It is far harder to realize that what you do makes a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:00 AM

Oh, no! But here's an example of what I mean:

There have been two studies, done at considerable cost, on whether or not snowmobiles should be allowed in Yellowstone NP during the winter. Both of them, one done under Clinton and the other under Bush, concluded that snowmobiles should NOT be allowed into the park during the winter months. Now USD 10 million has been set aside for yet another study on the same topic.

I have no problem with talking about a problem or thoroughly studying it. But to conduct study after study gets you nowhere towards actually solving the thing. A time comes when you must act or slide into an abyss, and for too many problems the time is fast approaching when it will be too late to stop sliding.

CarolC, for years one of my biggest complaints has been that there is no true long-range planning done. Politicians plan from election to election and call it "long term." Business people might - might! - plan for five years out. I'm thinking in terms of fifty years...a hundred years. It can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:52 AM

It seems clear that decisions based on short-term benefits only, and based on local benefits only (one individual, or one company) are as lot lower quality as decisions than those which examineimpact over longer periods and wider scope. CarolC is absolutely right about that.

Another aspect deserving some attention is msaking decisions based on their substantive effect on things -- what they really do -- rather than the effect on perception, PR, opinion, status, or image.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM

CarolC,
I think it's a sound idea. Now just how to we convince the powers that be to implement it?

Rapaire,
You sound very angry, and imply that no one need talk about the issues but just go ahead and do what has to be done. Would it were that simple. Unfortunately there are laws and regulations, and often both or either may be standing directly in the way of accomplishing real and wide-spread change.

Of course it's often down to the individual to do what he/she can..but the ripples that need to be started to really change what needs to be changed, and in time, can only be caused by big and loud splashes by a whole lot of people (ie-The anti-war marches during Viet Nam)...and even then, unless it's to the advantage of those in power, we often will continue to be beating our heads upon corporately greedy walls.


..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:26 AM

Rapaire,,, I don't understand your point..

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:20 AM

Well, that's not exactly correct. I do have a secondary point which is that our current way of making decisions is not sustainable and we need to correct it if we are going to survive as a species.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:17 AM

People keep trying to divert attention away from the possible solution I gave- to consider our decisions in terms of the impact they might have on future generations, by trashing the Indians or by saying let's not talk about it because it makes people feel guilty. My main point was that this practice, considering future generations when making decisions, is a good one. Anything else you guys want to read into it is your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:37 AM

GUEST, if you truly cared about the things you blather on about you'd be actively working to correct those which can be corrected instead of rehashing them on Mudcat. You're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:25 AM

Native north americans spen a fair amount of time conducting warfare against other tribes..people are people..sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:07 AM

Bravo, maestro.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:58 AM

I cannot feel guilt over what my ancestors may or may not have done.

I think that we're wasting time and energy trying to assign blame, in this and in many other things.

I think that our problems have been studied to death.

I think that we know what has to be done to correct the problems.

I think that we ought to stop yammering and get on with fixing a sinking ship.

That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:45 AM

Why do we not ban automobiles...they are one of the worst polluters. Why do retired people go to the bank at noon ?
What earthly use is an ATV ?
Why do we need three hundred kinds of cereal, soap, toothpaste candy bars....etc ?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:41 AM

sense, or sensual?

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:38 AM

To answer your initial question...

Nope. Never did, never will.

..xx..e

But I still love reading you all discussing it ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:34 AM

And people go skydiving, mountain climbing etc, even though (usually because) they know they are dangerous (possibly because they are addicted to the adrenalin rush accompanied by the sense of danger). And we consider these people brave and people to look up to. Lazy people who do the same thing with a lot less effort (drugs) are the scum of the earth. Aren't they both as foolish/deluded as eachother?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 02:04 AM

As an afterthought: I wonder what kind of creature could live in the world we seem to be creating?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:50 AM

The thing is, we are very fu#kin' culpa, and the sooner we come to grips with that notion the sooner we can begin to effect change. We are on the verge of a global catastrope, and to quote Doug R, "The sky IS falling." What we are facing is the Hard Rain ol' Bobbie talked about. This is NOT going away all by itself. The environmental disaster we face will make The Flood look like a warmup for the full meal deal. If it is already too late, I would like to think that some new homosapien sapien in a future world will retrieve our remains and artifacts and be able to piece together that we tried to alter the course of events in a positive manner. I saw 55 below zero once in the Arctic. I don't even want to imagine that without heat. And I don't think I have the guts to watch children starve to death, not if I'm thinking that the people of my time were so preoccupied with TVs and hairdryers, we allowed the worst to happen. Don't mean to preach. Sorry if it sounds that way. Basically, our planet is in deep shit, and we better realize it soon (read, right now).

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:28 AM

Thanks, Carol C... I feel much better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:23 AM

How can we correct our practices, and hence our situation, if we don't recognise and understand them (and it)?

Feeling guilty is one choice people have available to them, but I don't think it's necessary. There are other choices that can be made. Guilt is a waste of one's energies, in my opinion. A more constructive use one's energies is to help people to understand what the problems are, and to help correct them. Everyone can help if they want to. But dismissing the problems by making cynical references to guilt and hair shirts accomplishes nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Mudlark
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:45 PM

Amos...I sympathise. It's not easy being us. (Just watched a program on LINK TV about global warming, our reprehensible unwillingness to even go along with the miniscule reduction in emissions, as the already beleagured Marshall Islanders are well on their way to losing their islands to the sea. All those important looking white guy suits, adamantly against any change that might infringe on our sacred right to "growth." Gah!)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:39 PM

if I had the proper entrepreneural spirit, I could make some big bucks selling hair shirts and "mea culpa" pins to readers of these threads. I'm sure Amos would buy a couple...

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:10 PM

Carole C. - I think most of the buffalo were killed to make way for the railroad. Killing them did deprive the Indians of food and also their culture but I am not sure it was intentional. When 'whitey' decides to expand, nobody can stand in the way - not buffalo, or Indians or white settlers either. Same goes for trees and salmon and wolves and bears and birds, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 07:04 PM

SOmetimes, coming to the Mudcat, I feel personally responsible for every bad thing that has happened in North AMerica. The guilt is relentless! Unfortunately, my capacity toe experience it is limited, let alone my ability to remedy it!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:36 PM

That, plus the US government's policy of exterminating the bison as much as possible in order to try to deprive the Indians of their most important food supply.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:31 PM

From what I've read, such species as the wooly mammoth, the mastodon, and so forth were on their way to extinction before humans arrived in the NA. Climate change, from Ice Age to post-Ice Age, was one big reason cited for the decline. Humans helped, but were not the sole cause.

By the way, the same case can be made for the buffalo (bison bison). Not climate change, but brucellosis, with the "hunters" helping them along. And yes, I'm aware that the brucellosis was most likely brought in by cattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:04 PM

Wolfgang, I'm sure those animals went extinct a long time before the North American tribes arrived at their philosophy of "Seven Generations". The fact that the pre-Columbian people of North America did eventually arrive at a point when they understood the need to take into account future generations in their deliberations means they, at least, were capable of learning from their mistakes.

It was indeed the Europeans (and now the USAns) with their selfish decision making habits that have brought North America to this point of being on the verge of making the whole human race extinct. Hopefully we will be able to learn to take future generations into account before that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 05:38 PM

Several large mammals disappeared from America shortly after the first humans arrived. The moas disappeared from New Zealand shortly after the Maoris arrived.

No, it's not the Europeans with their imperialistic decision making habits, it's the humans of all kinds at many different places.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 04:33 PM

The tribe that measured their actions in terms of its impact on the future up to the seventh generation was (is) the Iroquois. My husband wrote a book on ecology recently in which the Iroquois model was featured. Unfortunately for us, the Iroquois had less impact with their civilization than we have with ours, due to technological advances and unbridled greed.

The Iroquois government manifesto also inspired the US constitution, by the way -- it's nearly a direct copy.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Megan L
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:03 PM

Rapaire we have a story of a highland wife who decided she was not going to lose her man for any prince. She tried pleading but met with the same answer wives and mothers still get today "I have to everyone else is going" Eventually she capitulated and said that it would be o long walk and she had best wash his feet before he went. She laid out the basin and put in a little water but it was to cold so she fetched water straight from the fire, but in her distress instead of pouring it into the cold water she poured it all over her mans feet scalding him so he could not walk. Ah well a burn will mend a life once lost is gone forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 02:46 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 12:35 PM

Oh, I think we have hit on something here. The exclusion of women from the decision-making that occurs in this world. Of course that is changing but its changing slowly.

In another thread I mentioned that when the British arrived on the westcoast, they realized that the center of trade was at the mouth of the Columbia River and that the trade was controlled by women. They wanted beaver and otter pelts but the women were too hard to bargain with. The first thing they did was introduce guns and alcolhol and the matriarchy slowly unraveled. The final blow was, of course, those nasty blankets - some gift. Here, wrap your family in this.

I too, cringe at depictions of the noble savage. I'm glad that the five nations on the east coast were so strong. On the west coast, after the introduction of firearms, the men would set fire to an island, wait in their canoes for the animals to swim away and then shoot them and tow them home. It didn't take long for the destruction of cultural norms.

brucie - It has only been recently that we have realized that we are polluting our planet. We do need a place to dump the garbage, the trick is to eliminate, by law, the toxins that are dumped. Of course that would mean severely limiting the profit margin of many big businesses. Of course their answer is to get the PEOPLE to clean up their act at home by recycling. Sure it helps a little but not nearly enough.

I wonder the same thing about fuel emissions. What good will it do to eliminate gas guzzlers when there is no attempt to do anything about jet fuel and war machinery? Why bother with treatment plants when Cruise Lines dump raw sewage in our waterways? Seems to me the effort will have to be massive and it will have to include measures to control industry and the barons of industry as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 10:10 AM

I was at a meeting where an Elder of the Couer d'Alenes spoke. He said that the whites never understood that they NEVER went to war without the permission of the women Elders, and that only they could grant such permission and men had no voice in it other than to explain the need.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 10:00 AM

Thanks freda. You saved me some work.

I am a really cynical bastard when I read this "Noble Savage" stuff.

That term, "Noble Savage" and the concept behind it, really is one of the more reprehensible and racist things the Europeans have used to lable what was a civilization made up of human beings just like you and me. But it was necessary to tar them with lables like "savage" in order to justify the campaign of genocide that the Europeans waged against them in order to take all of their land. I'd say it was the Europeans who were the savages in this case.

And now look at their legacy. They (we) haven't really learned much of anything since then. Just killing and more killing. Waste and more waste. And pissing in the drinking water (metaphorically speaking). The native North Americans at least knew that you shouldn't piss in your drinking water.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 05:31 AM

Hrothgar

I found 89,200 references to this concept in google, including a comment by Bill Clinton:

In an address to tribal leaders at the April 29, 1994, meeting at the White House, President Clinton said, "The Great Law of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy contained this advice: 'In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decision on the next seven generations.' We are stewards; we are caretakers. That standard will keep us great." The USDA (The U.S. Department of Agriculture) produced a poster "For We Are the Keepers of the Seven Generations" ... www.usda.gov/news/pubs/indians/preface.htm

Before 1600, five indigenous nations -- the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca -- formed the Haudenosaunee Confederation, or League of the Iroquois, with homelands then covering what is now upper New York State. (Since then, the Tuscarora and remnants of other indigenous nations have joined.)
In the Haudenosaunee system, there has never been a concept of a dictatorial leader, let alone a male one. The Haudenosaunee were, and continue to be, matrilineal. When a man and woman marry, the man moves to the woman's family, and newborn children enter the clan of their mother. The clan mothers select the political leadership of the nations, and possess the authority to remove leaders from office for malfeasance. In addition to leadership selection and removal, the clan mothers also serve as the judiciary. A centuries old Haudenosaunee philosophy states that that all major decisions of a nation must be based on how those decisions will affect at least the next seven generations.

http://www.ic.org/pnp/cdir/1995/30morris.html

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Hrothgar
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 04:18 AM

Carol, which Indian tribe was that, and can you substantiate the story?

I am a really cynical bastard when I read this "Noble Savage" stuff.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Mudlark
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:54 PM

I think the same things that have made humans the most powerful animals in the world, are the same things that will eventually lead to our destruction. Except for a few old cultures, we are endlessly inventive, enough is never enough, and we are endlessly adaptable, seemingly able to put up with the mess we are making until it's way too late to do anything about it. That we find it easier to contemplate complex nanotechnology than simply creating less waste is a case in point, to my simple way of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:57 PM

And then we will face a brave new world in which we burn coal and wood. Think we gotta haze now?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Megan L
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:55 PM

never mind we will soon run out of fossil fuels so no more airplanes plastics, synthetic materials etcthat should clean things up a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:51 PM

Ebbie: What I meant is this: Create less garbage, and use biodegradable packaging. We knew lead was a poison when we used leaded gas. We still used it--victims of the world's Detroitts who couldn't change the motors quickly enough. We KNEW it was toxic. But we continued to do it anyway.

Electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, homes at 21 degrees (which we have come to call room temperature, my gawd). Chemicals that get poured into rivers, and fines for polution that are cheaper than fixing the problem.

That's what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:34 PM

Hang around and watch, Ebbie. I plan to.

We toss things that we could use or reuse. Right now, it's cheaper to extract or make from scratch than to recycle. That's slowly changing, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's becoming cheaper NOT to mine or make new.

Why mine bauxite, for instance, when something like 85% of our aluminum needs are being met by recycling (at least in the US)? The aluminum is already extracted and made, all you have to do is melt it down and reuse it (yeah, I know, I know).

Polarfleece is made from recycled plastic pop bottle.

Make it economic to recycle and reuse and I think you'll find the mindset changing.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:09 PM

That's a nice thought, Amos. I like to contemplate the eventual coming-right of so many things that have gone awry. Most of them will probably not happen in my lifetime, of course. Maybe I can kind of hang around and watch? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:56 PM

We are working on achieving a technological level that will enable us to deconstruct garbage into its elements and then re-use those elements or compounds. A search on "nanotechnology" will bring up far more than you ever wanted to know about it.

This ability, it seems to me, is at most twenty or thirty years in the future. How rapidly it gets deployed is questionable, of course. Depends on how rapidly it can be made profitable.

At that point there will be a landrush to get mining permits on old garbage dumps, especially those from the Age of Plastics, and those where electronic devices have been dumped.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:46 PM

There was (or maybe still is) a tribe of original Americans (American Indians) who had a saying that every decision should be weighed in terms of the impact it would have on the planet and all of its inhabitants for seven generations into the future. Of course that society was mostly (if not entirely) wiped out by European imperialistic decision-making habits. (I'll get mine and to hell with everyone else.)

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:46 PM

brucie, you say there are three places to put garbage: land, water and air. Then you imply it is illogical of human beings to put our garbage in one of those places. If there are only three places to put it, where do you expect us to put it?

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:01 PM

The big question is (to me) understanding the origins of irrationality. Does it come from within? Are we so ill-adapted to the environment that our brain maps to it only irrationally? That is an intriguing possibility but kind of degrading to the noble vision that I would like to have of mankind (being one myself! :>) )

I prefer to believe that it is not structurally generated, but comes from two sources. One of these is simply un-education. It takes cumulative experience and insight to learn, for example, that the worst criticism comes from he who has the most to hide, and that secrets often make people critical of others. Or, for another example, to understand that the deepest upset is found between those who first loved each other the most, proportionally to the prior affinity. Or just to learn a simple counter-intuitive lesson that more communication--of some sort-- is always indicated when a problem persists. These are tough lessons int he absence of which people will act "illogically" because they acquire their governing policies from dramatization they have been exposed to. So they learn, for example, that the right thing to do is puff up and yell loudly and pound the table. Well, that's what Dad did, right? Must be sensible, I guess...

The second big source is the internalization of force in amounts that overwhelm the individual analytical ability. Trauma, emotional loss, and even moments of great confusion can really mess up analytical ability, and when we then internalize these and carry them forward with us, they just continue to confuse things. Compound them a few hundred fold and it really gets confused (and most folks have several hundred moments, I expect, which qualified).

Keeping all that at bay is a major effort in itself. An effort which adds to the overall picture.

That's my 2 cents' worth on the issue.


Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:57 AM

Does it make sense to you that . . . .

it's the people who already receive large amounts (and sometimes obscenely large amounts) of money for doing their jobs who appear on the honours list for being jolly good eggs.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:35 AM

It occurs to me that perhaps the natural order of things of behaving irrationally will be our undoing as a species. Mother Nature (Or G-d or Goddess or the Council of G-ds) put us here with a lot of potential. Sadly, we have squandered that potential while overhwelming the Earth with our children and outstripping her ability to sustain us.

It makes sense to me to carefully evaluate our place in the world of plants and animals and to act as if we are *part of* a larger family, all members of which are entitled to live. Mother Nature, after allowing us to see what we have wrought and seeing that our little species is "not playing nicely with others" is allowing us to bring about our own demise by our own hand so that some of her other children can survive. But to many, this attitude is just leftist drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:07 AM

if someone discovered a new, delicious fruit that science said was cumulative poison and would 'eventually' kill you, some folks would nibble at it, promising themselves they would stop if they felt like they were dying.

I guess we could explain 'short attention span' and 'deferred gratification' and 'taking the long view' and 'cost-benefit analysis' until we were blue in the face, and it wouldn't make a dent in the behavior of those who have short attention span and can't 'defer gratification'...etc.

ummm...'scuse me, I need my coffee and something with LOTS of sugar before I can type more...

Subject: RE: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 10:44 AM

I think we can pretty well agree that human behavior, both individual and as a society is often illogical. I am amazed that we have survived this long in spite of ourselves. I do not think we have much longer, however.

Subject: BS: Does it make sense to you that . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 10:31 AM

The things people do amaze me. I wonder if anyone would care to add to this list of things that people do that make absolutely NO sense. A few starters:

1) There are three places to put garbage: in the water, on the land, in the air. We create lots of garbage and put it in one of these three places. Humans are slowly poisoning themselves by doing this. We continue to do it.

2) Humans built over 50,000 nuclear weapons--the use of which would have severely limited our time on this planet. We knew that, and we built them anyway.

3) We know that cigarettes are a killer. The people we elect collect taxes from the sale of a toxin. Then they fund advertisements telling us how bad cigarettes are.

Does this make sense to you? I know people will give the reasons for each of the above, but that will not answer the question. I would like to know what we can derive from this particular aspect of human behaviour. Thank you.