Global climate change.......

[CarsonZi]

Forget about being a republican, democrat, oyster or whatever but instead let us all be what we really are, Vibrant Beings of Light and let us assume responsibility.

Best advice you could give to just about ANY question. I love it. YA Mu!

 

Love,

Carson

[Wayfarer64]

Seth, that's a pretty crappy, absolutist, and broad brush you just swathed across the canvas. Granted this tends to happen whenever a strong polarizing agent is introduced into the equation, but when rabid environmentalism goes haywaire, its every bit if not moreso destructive and disruptive than the side it purports to correct. Its like up in the missiquoi river in upstate VT where environmentalists made a stink about a new bridge being made because it might disrupt a little niche where these certain toads and turtles lived, when the fact of the matter was that the old bridge was of bad design and it propagated algae blooms so severe it made the water poisonous to drink (and it killed a few local dogs that swam in it.) Its this very myopic sense of misplaced do-gooderness that we're dealing with in this AGW movement. Just because you want something to be "cleaner" or "better" doesnt mean that you have the first inkling of what cleaner or better is, much less what getting from point A to B entails.

 

Wayfarer, I hope the heck you didnt interpret that as some source of information of mine. Seriously, now! To agree with a certain viewpoint is not to subscribe to A to Z. (but then again, I also believe in a free market society where the government isnt your nanny, so what does that make me? ) As to the swings of intensity...look outside the frame of the last 10-30 years...or century, even. As to places getting fouled, yes, I've seen that too, and in the same place I reference above where I used to go and enjoy the waters of lake champlain every year, but as of ~15, 20 years ago its just not the pristine place it used to be. Sad, to be sure, but its not going to get better by sequestering carbon or something silly like that.

 

No such interpretation made!-

 

I believe this idea of making carbon a commodity is a huge scam and a detriment to the long term improvement of our worlds' environment- which many seem to agree has deteriated remarkably...

 

I've been around 55 years... I see that lakes that I used to skate on as a teen ager have not frozen in a decade. The rich fields of soya and corn are now McMansions housing mostly Asian immigrants -this is a pure Malthusian nightmare...

 

Here in NJ, it was 60 degrees last week and we got 6 inches of snow last night. These are shifts that did not happen before in my own life time anyway - it may indeed be a purely "natural" occurence with no man made elements hampering the worlds organic modulations as it were - but I do not think that is the case.

 

I have visited 35 nations and 45 of these United States. Weather has become more extreme durring my time here - I could wish that humanity has been a boon to natures' bounty and profusion - but a quick look to the Rain Forests belies that notion... We have tended to be a destructive force -for the most part. And we should address that issue with responsibility and a humble questioning of what we are able to do -from our hearts -as Seadog suggests and using our heads as well...to harmonize our being here with the rest of life on our planet - fragile as it is ...

[Owledge]

The rich fields of soya and corn are now McMansions housing mostly Asian immigrants -this is a pure Malthusian nightmare...

Interesting that you brought Thomas Malthus up. That guy said the world couldn't sustain more than 300 million people. Pretty frightening when you consider that the rich and powerful elite of the world totally digs this idea.

 

To those who don't find Malthus' ideas frightening, you surely won't mind me telling a thought that came to my mind some time ago and that I'd call a good example of a Judgement of Solomon:

 

How about all the people on earth who think that there are too many people on earth kill themselves? This way they would work towards their goal and everybody would be happy.

 

 

 

P.S.: Should be unnecessary to mention, but don't take it too serious!

P.P.S: I'm using the word "frightening" rhetorically. Personally I'm not that easily frightened.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Hardyg

[Wayfarer64]

Interesting that you brought Thomas Malthus up. That guy said the world couldn't sustain more than 300 million people. Pretty frightening when you consider that the rich and powerful elite of the world totally digs this idea.

 

To those who don't find Malthus' ideas frightening, you surely won't mind me telling a thought that came to my mind some time ago and that I'd call a good example of a Judgement of Solomon:

 

How about all the people on earth who think that there are too many people on earth kill themselves? This way they would work towards their goal and everybody would be happy.

P.S.: Should be unnecessary to mention, but don't take it too serious!

P.P.S: I'm using the word "frightening" rhetorically. Personally I'm not that easily frightened.

 

 

I experience little fear in my life. Sometimes a cold steely resolve is forced upon me to address that which seems to be threatening me, but that is more of a thrill than a scare...

 

The issue for me is how to live in harmony - not in some self-absorbed existance. My druthers are of little use to others - as it should be...But when others' proclivities impinge on my wellfare I may take offense and suggest that they also try to be a bit more "harmonious" with the world around them, and myself in particular!

Such ideas are the basis for many laws. Laws tend to restrict rather than offer new manners of behavior. That is too bad in my view, it seems that law should open avenues of interaction rather than restrict them as they usually do...

 

The more we learn about the way we inter-act with the environment the better off we will be. Killing ones' self has little meaning for some and a great deal of meaning for others, as it may be construed as sinful-

 

I do believe that over-population is a problem rather than a laughing matter...But it does not scare me. Only what my own ignorance may lead me to stupidly say and do scares me.

[Owledge]

I think over-population is just a certain view on things, and not a very clever one, because as I tried to make clear several times, it is used as a means of control and oppression, and serves to distract people from seeing much more basic levels of the problem. I'm often looking at the past to see patterns and mistakes repeated, and to say it as precise as possible: There is no such thing as over-population except when you see all other present factors as unchangeable or changing other factors as less favorable.

 

This number game really is classic and has many examples in history. It's only a matter of time until estimations adapt to the new reality of more advanced technology and understanding. Wanting to apply the numbers of a guy who lived 200 years ago to our present day is an anachronism.

 

By the way... If you haven't already, and it seems that you haven't: I really recommend you take the time to watch the "Zeitgeist" movies. Just google for it! Very eye-opening.

[Wayfarer64]

I think over-population is just a certain view on things, and not a very clever one, because as I tried to make clear several times, it is used as a means of control and oppression, and serves to distract people from seeing much more basic levels of the problem. I'm often looking at the past to see patterns and mistakes repeated, and to say it as precise as possible: There is no such thing as over-population except when you see all other present factors as unchangeable or changing other factors as less favorable.

 

This number game really is classic and has many examples in history. It's only a matter of time until estimations adapt to the new reality of more advanced technology and understanding. Wanting to apply the numbers of a guy who lived 200 years ago to our present day is an anachronism.

 

By the way... If you haven't already, and it seems that you haven't: I really recommend you take the time to watch the "Zeitgeist" movies. Just google for it! Very eye-opening.

 

It often seems to me that being clever is the stupidest way to approach problems. The issue is not about numbers as much as quality of life as it opens into our mutual future.

 

Poverty in the USA is living in a home with hot/cold running water and usually some food in a fridge. In Much of the world it is a hovel with fleas and a few remnants of (once) utile articles...Amid starving kinfolk...The relative merits of opposing views is meaningless to people in actual poverty.

 

I see nothing but change as constant and have observed that we humans can often be irresponsible when it comes to our activities, be they monumantal or trivial...If we are responsible we should find out and make an attempt to address our destructive deeds. If that is not the case and we are just in a natural change that is pushing resources to worrysome levels -then we can address that reality as well. But we should make every effort to understand our place in the world and how to live harmoniously therein... But that is my way of seeing - not meant to be universal...

 

I'll see about this Zeitgeist flik-

[Seth Ananda]

Hardyg and Joeblast. Thank you for your responces.

 

I find it amusing to think that i completly agree with the logic you outlaid, and I live my life by these princaples, Truth and inteligent enquiri over one camp or another.

 

Maby I have just given up on Man kind. I believe 95% of humanity are cattle and need to be led.

 

When Genghis Khan decided Invade another country, he ignored any arguments about wether it was right or not and threw everything he had at them and did not stop untill they were on there knees, which was Supremly effective.

 

I think Rabid Enviorementalism is exactly what we need. I think most people are too stupid, or confused, or comfortable, or entrenched in a right wing perspective to take a quest for scientific truth or any other kind for that matter, So - They have to be led.-

 

I think its too late for niceties. I think a wave of Rabid Enviorementalism has to sweep the planet like Genghis's army for there to be any chance for a extended future on this planet.

 

Sure the leaders should look to the most effective ways available, but Pubicly Support all enviormental projects.

 

Peoples minds work like this: when caught between two polar perspectives, (as anyone not in a quest for truth is) Any thing which puts a chip in one side only serves to strenghen the other side.

One such polarity in the minds of the people is the Right Wing - Left Green polarity. Thus any argument that damages or challenges the greens, strengthens the rightwing, and they already have most of the power.

 

The war for the minds of the people is the war for our plannets survival, so i believe if we are going to challenge the greens we should be VERY carefull how we do it...

 

Maby recycling isnt as good as it could be, but it is a powerfull symbol in the mind of humanity. So rather than fighting it, offer improvements but from a Hurrah Recycling perspective...

 

you say you want to help the enviorement but then use terms like "Rabid Envioromentalists" which is a right wing slogan or catchphrase, designed to frame sincere people worried about the future more than they are worried about their wallets, in a negative light. Terms like this serve to turn off thinking. its like a magic switch.

If you drive past protesters, and you have a magic switch in your head like -Tree hugging hippies- Rabid enviorementalists...- you shout out the window "Tree huggin Hippies!!" and you dont think about it again.

 

Very dangerous.

 

Humanity is not in a place where it is ready to calmly and logicly asess the situation it is in, and then proceed in an intelligent way to remedy the situation, as only a small % of its members have that capability for themselves.

 

So again if any of us want to survive, lets use Mob mentality to our (and the planets) advantage

Lets fire up Envioremental Fervour, Use the passion that we all have since so many lack the logic...

Lets get a billion people planting tree's, Chanting Earth first!! putting Massive political pressure on whoever...

 

Seth.

 

Yay Rabid Envioromentalism!!!

[Owledge]

Edited March 3, 2009 by Hardyg

[Seth Ananda]

How about this: They are cattle and don't to be led. They have to learn to live without leadership, but that's not possible if they never get a chance.

 

It makes me believe that there really could be a fascist environmentalist dictatorship some day,

 

I dont believe we have time for the people to learn to live in that way. that would take 100's of years at least.

 

And I think a Facsist envioromental Dictatorship is probably exactly what its going to take to ensure the future of Humanity and the earth.

 

I really love and care about my Family, my neighbourhood, and my whole species, hence the fact I believe what I believe.

To save everyone I/we love, is going to take the most Humongus effort and unfortunatly will probably have to be enforced. No one will like this. Bitter medicine.

 

We dont have the time to sit around hoping everyone suddenly gets their shit together. Thinking we do is nice and comfortable and fluffy, but...

 

I really hope there is another option but I cant see one yet. If you have Ideas please share...

 

I forsee (if we are lucky and can pull it off in time) a return to sustainable eco villages, decentralised power structures, Permaculture and other advanced gardening processes, as many clean energy sources as can be managed, each village having a shared pool of higher technological equipment...

 

assuming you agree that survival will require a system like this or similar, then How do we implement it for a whole society without pissing off 95% of the population?

A population at that, that hasn't learnt to think for it self, or logically, and that doesnt have the time needed to learn?

I dont hate them for this situation. I see humanity as a work in progress, much like a baby. You dont hate a baby for not being able to walk, but you do stop it hurting it self and others.

If the baby is on a road and a car is hurtelling towards it, and you can see that it doesn't have the time it needs to learn to walk to get out of the way, you pick it up and move it, no matter how pissed off it gets.

 

I think we need to ban Planned Obselesence in any product anywhere, with serious consequences. Doing this will piss off nearly everybody. The now much better made items will rocket in price - consumers not happy. They will cost much more to make - Industry not happy. Can you imagine the outrage? "your taking away our freedom!!" Other countrys saying its breaking trade agreements.. Accusations of Facsism.. Greens ruining everything..

But This is just one small step of what needs to happen. Who is going to do this? The beer swilling red necks are not... The right wing Industry lap dogs are not... Politicions scared of loosing their voters are not...

Anyone to busy and caught up in a comfortable lifestyle is not either..

 

Who does that leave?

 

Seth.

[joeblast]

Hot damn. That is an absolute tragedy to have a mindset like that, Seth....that is just disturbing to me that people think like that. I may think I know better, but I'm not going to force my ideas an opinions on people....especially when the scope of reality encompasses far more than I conceive in my little worldview...

 

Seriously, take a good look at the repercussions of such a line of thinking. I'm not saying every tenet of your rationale is off, but stupid shit like forcing a mindset and lifestyle on a population is just a disgusting notion. Yes, it may take hundreds of years, but you change people's hearts and minds with truth and solid logical reasoning, not by force...for when its done by force it is merely but a prescription for backlash.

 

It doesnt matter if you think you are saving the world or not.

 

I mean really...I find that as offensive as my grandmother would find hardcore porn on the 6 o clock news. Goddam...I dont own a tv because I dont need to waste my time seeing all of the shit on it, and I cant seem to get away from it having an internet connection either...

Edited March 3, 2009 by joeblast

[Wayfarer64]

As many here know I threw out my TV when I was 20. I have not had a TV nor an Automobile for most of my adult life. The original idea I had was that I did not wish to be part of the usual social habits that are destroying our planet.

 

That was 35 years ago and the trend towards self-destructive human norms continues without me...

 

I am not for any form of totalitarianism, but environmentalism as something to abhore seems demonic to me.

 

What does anyone have to fear from nature-lovers if they themselves do not hate nature? If a tree-hugging hippy scares you, then your an incredibly weak person! How can such ideas create fear & loathing? What is it that you fear you are losing? Just where is the threat?

 

Lending ones' efforts to protecting wild places is an act of deep spiritual growth...

 

For a whimsical take on this, just read Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins - for a fine hippy take on some of these ideas- as well as some ideas about Immortality which is also a popular subject with many of the Taobums... this is a light and fun approach to serious issues...

[CarsonZi]

Hi Wayfarer.

For a whimsical take on this, just read Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins

I loved this book....I haven't read it in probably 10 years now, but I still actively eat a ton of beets (for liver tissue rejeneration) and take "hot then cold" showers (to try and lower the bodies normal body temperature)because of the ideas expounded on in the book. Thanks for reminding me about this one....I think it is time to revisit this classic.

 

Love,

Carson

[joeblast]

Wayfarer, I liken this current prevailing perversion of environmentalism in the same light I liken the current bout of islamic extremism facing the religion. Its the perversion (quasi-environmental fascism) I abhor, not the notion that one can do things that benefit the environment or contribute to more 'harmonious living.' Using bad science to bolster an argument (that is on shaky knee street to begin with) in order to propagate fear in order to force bad political and scientific policy on folks while at the same time demonizing anyone with a differing opinion and calling for debate to be over before it ever even began is what I'm talking about.

[Owledge]

@Seth

You are so full of fear. Call it "worries" if you can better relate to that, but fear is accurate. To win something that is not easily achievable, you might first have to let go. You care about the well-being of the environment so much. When you stop thinking that this is a must-be, and emotionally or egoistically disconnect from it, then you become enabled to really help the environment. You will not think "Finally! I reached my goal! I am good!", but you will see the environment recover and feel happiness ... unconditionally. Because what you right now really want is not to help nature but to bring victory to your ego, that calls itself environmentalist. You are confusing love with power.

 

Are you doing any kind of spiritual practice, yet? Maybe you should focus on one that deals with ego-deconstruction. (Actually, I think most of them do.)

[Wayfarer64]

I am here -(this forum) as much as I am because I look at my place in the world to some degree from a Taoist perspective, but there are also elements of existential, Buddhist and shamanic studies from many cultures some would mis-label "primitive"... The connection I feel to this earh is as strong as any other I have cultivated, to use a well-worn word ... I can associate the bond as akin to the linkage I feel with loved ones who have died. I have hugged trees, mostly as a child, but there was a group hug once around "General Sherman" a famous Red Wood (or is it Sequoia ?) well it was 40 years ago...

 

Anyway I do know there is a hell of a lot of farm land and undeveloped land where I once walked that has now been developed and some of it is already in decay...Abandoned. There has been massive stupidity and waste by treating the environment as if it weren't fragile. I see it as a whole system that can lose its balance when just a few elements collapse. We should be mindful of what we are doing. there has been too much waste and destruction.

 

The reality is that humans have destroyed unknown numbers of uncataloged plant and animal life -potential benifits in the medical and energy fields -maybe even curing aids if studied. There are serious concerns for wasted opportunity due to foolish management. The unthinking misuse of resources is what should bother any one. Waste is as close to a sin as anything I may think of.

 

I live in a deeply felt interaction with the world around me. I know I am connected to the rest of life on this planet as strongly as I have bonds connecting me with loved ones. It is not an emotional connection, it is of life and energy and deep understanding that we are all in this together. We are each and every one of us bound to all others. I feel it and see it and hear it and smell it.

 

I think of myself as a spirit having a human experience. I am a guest of this world and cherish it and think of it as the closest fullest representation of the creative being at one with the receptive (& thus as the begeter of whatever I am) - as I hope to know... that I can give reverance to and cultivate with/upon and amongst... Well you get the idea. Any abuse to any human, creature, critter or manifestation of the creator lessens us. I've done it, and lessened myself. What we destroy lessens us. That is the point.

[Seth Ananda]

Hot damn. That is an absolute tragedy to have a mindset like that, Seth....that is just disturbing to me that people think like that. I may think I know better, but I'm not going to force my ideas an opinions on people....especially when the scope of reality encompasses far more than I conceive in my little worldview...

 

Seriously, take a good look at the repercussions of such a line of thinking. I'm not saying every tenet of your rationale is off, but stupid shit like forcing a mindset and lifestyle on a population is just a disgusting notion. Yes, it may take hundreds of years, but you change people's hearts and minds with truth and solid logical reasoning, not by force...for when its done by force it is merely but a prescription for backlash.

 

It doesnt matter if you think you are saving the world or not.

 

I mean really...I find that as offensive as my grandmother would find hardcore porn on the 6 o clock news. Goddam...I dont own a tv because I dont need to waste my time seeing all of the shit on it, and I cant seem to get away from it having an internet connection either...

I would love an alternative mindset if you can offer me one, but here is a prerequisite:

 

It must take into account the time constraints we are under.

 

So it must offer alternative ways to create an info structure that is almost non existent at present for 6 Billion people.

 

You will have to give me something very practical, not something like (and i mean no offence) "Yes, it may take hundreds of years, but you change people's hearts and minds with truth and solid logical reasoning, not by force...for when its done by force it is merely but a prescription for backlash."

 

this is not a solution to a critical problem, and as i already said, we don't have time for this.

 

I would also like to point out That some of the argument seems to be suggesting that people are free to choose what to believe and they are, to a certain extent, but in another way they are not. The current world view has already been forced on the people. Our society has programmed us with a ton of false truths about what life is about, how we should live, and I don't believe there is any harm in using propaganda to our advantage to try and get things back into balance.

 

People choose to believe what serves them, what makes them comfortable, or what lets them feel right. What does this have to do with truth.

 

Thank you for engaging me in this debate, I truly hope you can show me an alternative I can see as achievable.

 

Seth.

[Seth Ananda]

@Seth

You are so full of fear. Call it "worries" if you can better relate to that, but fear is accurate. To win something that is not easily achievable, you might first have to let go. You care about the well-being of the environment so much. When you stop thinking that this is a must-be, and emotionally or egoistically disconnect from it, then you become enabled to really help the environment. You will not think "Finally! I reached my goal! I am good!", but you will see the environment recover and feel happiness ... unconditionally. Because what you right now really want is not to help nature but to bring victory to your ego, that calls itself environmentalist. You are confusing love with power.

 

Are you doing any kind of spiritual practice, yet? Maybe you should focus on one that deals with ego-deconstruction. (Actually, I think most of them do.)

I am sorry my friend. It is not fear to asses a dangerous situation practically and look for a solution.

I want to cross a 120mph busy 12 lane super high way on foot. do I:

(a ) just jump out and trust?

(B ) wait 100 years for everyone to have evolved enough to be driving really carefully so i can just stroll over?

[C ] just not think about it and give up?

(d ) Look for a foot crossing bridge?

 

lol, there are probably some funny options I overlooked like (e) use advertising to convince everyone to ride bicycles.

 

You can frame me however you want but I have been deeply involved in my spiritual practice for the last 16 years and I am considered a very Loving person within my community. I work as a healer and counsellor, I am a loving father, and Many people come to me for the help I can offer. I love life, people and nature, and more than anything I love Communing with the Divine in silent Meditation. (lol, head getting bigger!)

 

My perspective in no way condones Hurting anyone, in fact its the opposite. I would like to see the change happen as easy as possible for everyone.

I would almost say that your perspective which involves very little action and a lot of trust (but not path of no resistance as I see it) is going to cause Far more death and suffering than mine.

We must act very soon.. How do you propose we do that with 6 billion on board? they all have their own wants and desires, and beliefs and program constructs and are already completely brainwashed by whatever society they live in.

 

I would love for you to give me some well thought out practical alternatives.

I have been looking at this from every angle I can find for years and I came to my perspective Very slowly and reluctantly. Media programming is the only thing I can find that can successfully move a Huge mass of people. In the states 'free' Americans voted in bush. that was a media victory.

 

As I don't believe in 2012 or some kind of mass spiritual awakening, I will find it hard to accept arguments based on The power of love. I am a total believer in the power of love but I also believe that love has to be invited to work, or we wouldn't have the horrible situations all over the planet. I hope I am wrong and I will always continue to work on my vibration for the good of Humanity.

 

I am reminded of a story where Buddha forgave one of his monks for killing a few people to save a hundred.

and I don't want to see anyone killed. All I am suggesting is using some Counter Brainwashing on already Brainwashed people till they are ready to start thinking for them selves.

I think Lao Tsu would have loved it... He wrote a manual on how to lead the people. You might have heard of it

 

Thank you as well for engaging me in dialogue, please continue

 

Seth

Edited March 4, 2009 by Seth Ananda

[Owledge]

@Seth

Of course it is fear, because I'm assessing a dangerous situation practically and looking for a solution, too. But where does your aggressive intent come from? From fearing that the world might - in your lifetime - be even less enjoyable to you. What you say about time running out is a key and so familiar to me, because I'm dealing with that, too. Time is like the greedy, inhumane boss who tells you to give 110% when you already do your best. You set certain goals for yourself and if you think you won't achieve them with your current strategy, you further radicalize it. And there's a tendency towards that when people feel powerless and/or isolated. But you don't know what's really going on with all the 6 billion people on earth. You just see many more ignorant ones ... naturally.

 

There a lots of educational videos about sociology and history out there, both fictional and non-fictional, that deal with this. I mean, just look at 'islamic terrorism'. Much of it is or has been resistance against injustice. And because they felt so powerless, they called Allah for help and the powerful Islam is their ally now. And what did it bring them? Now the 'west' can call them religious radicals and terrorists and the masses believe it. And you know why? Because now it's true!

Another example would be Cuba. Why do you think the government became that oppressive? Well, when Castro has to fear every kind of CIA trick, media manipulation, assassinations and so on, then naturally he builds thicker walls around the bunker. And what did it do? More and more Cubans have trouble deciding whether the U.S. or the Cuban government is worse.

 

The 'enemy' has more control over you than you think.

 

Those who are in control can define the rules of the game, and as long as you play by their rules, they win. They use politics for their causes, you use politics. They do propaganda, you do propaganda, and so on. It's like the U.S.-illusion of two parties: When the repugnicans are in control, the democrats are the great hope. When the democraps are in control, the republicans are the great hope. And asking people why they don't vote liberal or green... "Oh, they won't win anyway, so what's it good for?" - "Ah! you don't want to stand for principles ... you just want to WIN!".

 

After all, I share your thoughts, the essential difference is that I just refuse to let me - due to the circumstances - coerce myself into letting negative feelings dictate my strategy. As is said in the Zeitgeist movies for example, highly strategic, peaceful action has to be taken. Because that would be clever. Violence is not so clever. But of course easier. It is worth every second to nourish genius, for it creates alternatives to violence.

 

Another thing that I'd like to add, because it's kind of enlightening:

I hand out info CDs about what's going on behind the curtains, and people are thankful and plan to show it to their friends, too, but then say: "But in the end, we can't do anything about it." How funny! They don't realize they already do.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

I would love an alternative mindset if you can offer me one, but here is a prerequisite:

 

It must take into account the time constraints we are under.

 

So it must offer alternative ways to create an info structure that is almost non existent at present for 6 Billion people.

 

You will have to give me something very practical, not something like (and i mean no offence) "Yes, it may take hundreds of years, but you change people's hearts and minds with truth and solid logical reasoning, not by force...for when its done by force it is merely but a prescription for backlash."

 

this is not a solution to a critical problem, and as i already said, we don't have time for this.

 

I would also like to point out That some of the argument seems to be suggesting that people are free to choose what to believe and they are, to a certain extent, but in another way they are not. The current world view has already been forced on the people. Our society has programmed us with a ton of false truths about what life is about, how we should live, and I don't believe there is any harm in using propaganda to our advantage to try and get things back into balance.

 

People choose to believe what serves them, what makes them comfortable, or what lets them feel right. What does this have to do with truth.

 

Thank you for engaging me in this debate, I truly hope you can show me an alternative I can see as achievable.

 

Seth.

Seth, your argument still postulates a crisis as a given! It seems the question you are framing is: What are positive steps we can take to avert this disaster? Well, the questions I'm framing are: Why is such a big deal being made over dire predictions made by incomplete and poorly understood climate models? Are we really going to spend trillions of dollars to fix this as soon as possible (and at the same time, we cant say with any measure of confidence that these measures will work,) or can we assimilate nature-benefiting technologies at a digestible rate as opposed to having something drastic forced upon us, especially in times where we cant really afford to so? Not only would that be easier on the economies (not only in terms of required investment capital, theirs or ours siphoned from our pockets, but in terms of the chokehold all of the regulation would put on the world,) but it would give us good developmental time to make sure the science and function of such technologies is sound, also meaning more bang for buck in terms of investment. And we wouldnt be paying for cats to get fat 'trading' around our hot air!

 

The sky is not falling, no matter how shrill the voices get....as yet another global warming protest gets snowed the fug out! Here's the alternative mindset: a realistic look at factors involved, and an honest look at the feasibility of possible courses of action. Here's part of the problem: your take on this demands an acceptance of the purported crisis as any prerequisite for you to 'be open to other solutions' - so if I subscribe to this crisis mindset, I have already stepped onto this slippery slope that fear-mongering climate alarmists tread, which for many reasons I refuse to do - least of which being there wouldnt be a ton we could do about it anyway. I know the retort to that is well you can do something...but *points back to poor understandings* sometimes something is as significant as sitting on the pier and pushing the cruise ship with your feet - even if you budge the thing, there's the problem of those dang ropes...

As to your free to believe quasi-quandary, 'belief' is only entering this equation on things that cant be understood mathematically, in theory, in practice. You seem to be choosing to believe the dire predictions moreso because they resonate with what you see and feel as opposed to any hard mathematical, theoretical, or real world evidence (I'm not talking about looking up at the sky here) - because any of those whacked out models that make dire predictions like that are incomplete (in some fashion or another, be it incomplete equations, bad data, outright sensationalism...) and well, simply put, wrong. If you havent already, check out that Noise and Timescales link I posted a page or three back - no data there, just a brief assessment of climate factors, though it doesnt get into poorly understood things like cosmic ray effects. The earth has a boatload of climate-balancing mechanisms built in and I'm all in favor of continuing the studies.

 

 

I feel at this point its almost like this debate needs to be re framed a bit and broken down. Because we really have a couple issues here, we have this pseduo-war on CO2, and its basically ballooned to such an extent that its (CO2) and (all the rest of the environmental concerns.) The demonization of carbon dioxide is a problem here. This is the biggest problem we face, simply because of not only how much the argument is focusing on this benign gas, but because of the ridiculous (not to mention ridiculously expensive) measures that are being proposed, replete with startup industries all too ready to start suckling on the teat of the world and local economies. Its the biggest problem because it has really politicized environmentalism, given it a bad name, brought dishonesty upon science (and politics well these days you can just about expect dishonesty,) and it has detracted from REAL efforts geared towards truly environmental concerns.

[Seth Ananda]

thanks Joe and Hardyg.

I feel I should tell you first that I don't totally believe the perspective I have been voicing. I was not trying to upset anyone, but I was trying to explore an Idea I wonder about, and I do that best by stepping into the position as fully as I can. I really was (and still am) looking for other ways of viewing the situation, and especially other strategies for fixing the problems we face.

 

Thanks Joe for offering what I was asking by presenting the Argument that the crisis is not real. I'll have to disagree on this one. I have red extensively on both sides of the argument, they both have sites dedicated to proving each other wrong, and usually both read well, but over and over again you Find the funding for the Anti-warming sites come from Petrol/oil/wood chipping Industry. Some times the sites are free scientists but they are drawing on the research of others who were Funded by above mentioned Impartial Institutions.

 

I am also sure that there are un-touched free scientists as well but in so many cases this is not true.

Plenty of people show really good arguments against the Anti perspective.

 

Maybe in another way I just don't care if Global warming is man made or not, as long as It inspires us to get to work on the real environmental issues we have.

 

Hardyg, you read me wrong again I was not coming from a place of Aggressive Intent. You did not like what I suggested and reacted emotionally (which is O.K.) and cast dispersions about me (which is O.K. too ) saying i was like this or like that. It's alright, but maybe learn to relax those emotions so we can engage in intelligent debate. Freedom must be able to engage Any Idea. Other than that thanks for your posts. Now speaking of propaganda, what about the Massive job done on Cuba. Every one 'KNOWS' Cuba is evil, but how many have actually been there? Have you?

 

My friends have spent years there and Love it. One friend, Aunty Tony, was partly responsible for helping Cuba go permaculture in the 70's. She spent 10 years there.

One thing is certain. Cuba may be the only self sufficient community on the planet and will probably be a model for the rest of us in the Future.

Sure it has its problems, like you can't speak out against the government, but what about its good side?

Free education, Free Hospital/medical care, fruit tree's in the streets, 7 million public bicycles, And Community consciousness everywhere. My friends say its the most Loving Helpful and Fun place on the planet. Music in the streets... and an abundance of good food.

No one really speaks out against Castro as nearly everyone their Loves him, and thinks he is a legend.

The discontents there are (you guessed it) the people who lost money or property in the change

I really find it hard to sympathise as I think creating a sustainable community like that is far more important than who owns what.

There is no place on earth I would Rather live. Partly for the sake of my Children.

Would you really want your Grand kids growing up in the U.S.?

 

Thanks again.

Seth.

[Owledge]

@Seth

- From a scientific standpoint it doesn't matter whether info comes from a lobbied or 'independent' scientist. What's relevant is whether it is true. Because otherwise all claims of scientists who a involved in environmentalism are dubious, too.

 

- Give me some of those really good arguments against the Anti perspective, preferrably some that don't delve deeply into things not easily provable but easily manipulable.

(And it would help if those arguments didn't come from people who have alreadly been caught lying or contradicting themselves or like-minded colleagues, 'cause that kinda ruins the credibility. )

 

- "Maybe in another way I just don't care if Global warming is man made or not, as long as It inspires us to get to work on the real environmental issues we have."

--> Which, like joeblast also explained already, it does not. It distances us from it by deception. When you only think you're helping nature when in fact you follow lies, you get farther away from that. And this behaviour creates people with a certain mind, who would kill really sincere and very influential environmentalists or prevent them from gaining influence in the first place. And thus, many environmentalists are damaging their own (stated) cause.

 

- Funny that YOU call MY writings emotional. And it really escaped me where you hinted to your writings as only thought experiments without real negative emotion behind them. Please point to that. You somewhat write like you're talking to yourself or play a game of role change.

 

- What you say about Cuba doesn't defy what I said. You can point out positive things about every country. Not being allowed to speak out against the government is a big issue, especially since you say that nearly everyone loves Castro. Something smells fishy there. Compare it to Venezuela, where speaking out against the government is allowed and the people are strong enough behind the government to make it work.

You got any weblinks with (tourist) reports about Cuba?

Edited March 5, 2009 by Hardyg

[Seth Ananda]

@Seth

- From a scientific standpoint it doesn't matter whether info comes from a lobbied or 'independent' scientist. What's relevant is whether it is true. Because otherwise all claims of scientists who a involved in environmentalism are dubious, too.

 

- Give me some of those really good arguments against the Anti perspective, preferrably some that don't delve deeply into things not easily provable but easily manipulable.

(And it would help if those arguments didn't come from people who have alreadly been caught lying or contradicting themselves or like-minded colleagues, 'cause that kinda ruins the credibility. )

 

- "Maybe in another way I just don't care if Global warming is man made or not, as long as It inspires us to get to work on the real environmental issues we have."

--> Which, like joeblast also explained already, it does not. It distances us from it by deception. When you only think you're helping nature when in fact you follow lies, you get farther away from that. And this behaviour creates people with a certain mind, who would kill really sincere and very influential environmentalists or prevent them from gaining influence in the first place. And thus, many environmentalists are damaging their own (stated) cause.

 

- Funny that YOU call MY writings emotional. And it really escaped me where you hinted to your writings as only thought experiments without real negative emotion behind them. Please point to that. You somewhat write like you're talking to yourself or play a game of role change.

 

- What you say about Cuba doesn't defy what I said. You can point out positive things about every country. Not being allowed to speak out against the government is a big issue, especially since you say that nearly everyone loves Castro. Something smells fishy there. Compare it to Venezuela, where speaking out against the government is allowed and the people are strong enough behind the government to make it work.

You got any weblinks with (tourist) reports about Cuba?

Thanks Hardyg.

I will have to fish around for a while to find the good Anti -Anti stuff. More, like Ill have to ask my friend who is an environmental scientist and has been studying this stuff for years. She showed it to me in the first place.

I only called the parts emotional that got personal. Then again maybe I didn't. That's what I meant. Sorry, I should have worded it better.

I think if you are interested I will ask one of my friends that's been to Cuba to join TTB's and do a thread. I at least find it fascinating and very relevant for our times.

I have never read a web link with a tourist report, so I don't have one of those.

On Venezuela as far as I know they have and are modelling themselves on Cuba, and Cheves has met Castro many times.

So far we will have to agree to disagree on the Environmental issues. Thats O.K with me

 

Thanks for the engaging conversation

Seth

[Owledge]

OK, concerning the climate science it sounds like not worth the effort.

I'm really interested in first hand reports from Cuba though.

Although there is the "Generacion Y" weblog, its degree of bias or spin is at times hard to determine.

 

(Via private message please, if you find something. I'm not regularly watching this thread anymore.)

Edited March 8, 2009 by Hardyg

[ZenStatic]

-waste aside, nuclear concerns are overblown

 

On this, I will have to say you are incorrect. As someone who lived 32 miles downstream of 3 mile island in 1979, I would say they aren't overblown. I'll never forget my parents packing us up at 6am to drive to NYC to go to my grandmothers. While luckily things were kept to a "reasonable" level, it showed the potential of just how bad things could be. My dad even still has some of the radiation detection cards they had everyone post in their houses in Marietta. And I was never allowed to swim in the Susquehanna ever again after that. I'm not saying we shouldn't have nuclear power; just that we better keep a huge fear of it right up front because that is how we will make sure things are done safely.

[Owledge]

You could say nuclear energy is a technology with way too much potential for disaster to give it to children. And with children, I mean the people who have been running the reactors with profit maximization as the main target.

 

There are interesting developments though, like miniature, kind of encapsulated, 'fail-safe', mobile reactors. Or ~99% regeneration of used nuclear fuel.

 

We can do a lot of development in nuclear energy. But when speaking of ALL that COULD be ... why should we? We could easily dump all the energy technlogies that are currently in use.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Hardyg