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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 07:08 PM

Hear,hear, Carol.

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: 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: 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: 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