Topic 4 of 27: saving the world
Tue, Aug 27, 1996 (23:25) |
William (william)
I submit that the most critical question we have to face is how to bring
the planet into demographical and ecological balance before we inevitably
self-destruct. The problems are enormous and the solutions are diverse
and wide-ranging, from the spiritual to the material, from the ethereal
to the funky. Do we concern ourselves with preserving a habitat for the
next generations or not? What does that mandate, and how do we implement it?
45 responses total.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 1 of 45: snorg (marcury) * Thu, Aug 29, 1996 (22:58) * 2 lines
Beats me.
Snorg
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 2 of 45: William (william) * Thu, Sep 5, 1996 (00:52) * 2 lines
No one's interested in saving the world? Does that mean no one's aware of
what's going on? Surely there must be someone out there who has a clue?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 3 of 45: William (william) * Sun, Sep 8, 1996 (23:55) * 8 lines
How do we save the Headwater redwood grove for starters? (Does anybody
know of any recent developments with that?) And, for the larger picture,
how can we stop the ongoing devastation of the earth by clearcutting?
A recent visit to the Northwest coastal forests revealed a situation
beyond the worst imaginings. Defenders of the natural ecology have been
chaining themselves to big trees, even spiking them to kick back chainsaws
in loggers' faces. What's the answer?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 4 of 45: William E. Roland (KitchenManager) * Sat, Sep 14, 1996 (14:48) * 7 lines
The biggest solution to deforestation is the production of industrial grade
hemp. What one also needs to remember about the US forest service is that it
is part of the department of agriculture, so that needs to be fixed also.
Demographical balance? You mean like One World Race, One World Government,
One World Religion? I have to disagree. That would do the same to people
and ideas that commercial farming has done to plant differentiation.
Gotta run for now, peace, love, and sunshine.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 5 of 45: William (william) * Sun, Sep 15, 1996 (23:04) * 11 lines
Demographical balance means stabilizing the population of the world so
that it doesn't consume and destroy the natural environment which gave
birth to it -- and which still sustains it. Balancing the birth/death
ratio (otherwise known as ZPG) would at least give the planet a fighting
chance. Rather than encouraging world homogeneity, it would encourage
cultural diversity and the preservation of native cultures, by lessening
the rate of their absorption into a multinational economy of endlessly
explosive growth. Industrial-grade hemp to take the load off the forests
is a good idea, but one not likely to be realized for years to come, as
the silly debate about legalizing cannabis goes on and on. The last of the
virgin forests, meanwhile, are falling.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 6 of 45: William E. Roland (KitchenManager) * Wed, Sep 18, 1996 (14:29) * 7 lines
Dismissing an idea because it would take years to achieve is defeatist. ZPG,
or better yet, negative population growth will also not be realized in the
immediate future because of religion. However, much like decriminalizing
industrial-grade hemp, it is worthy of educating yourself and others about.
On the topic, are you familiar with the Church of Euthanasia? Sounds like even
if you disagree, you might get a kick out of their materials. They are on the
web, but their address is lost in my head at the moment. WER
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 7 of 45: William (william) * Fri, Sep 20, 1996 (00:18) * 5 lines
You're mostly right about ZPG being stymied by religion, but it's worthy of note that the Dalai Lama of Tibet -- our preeminent Buddhist -- has come out in strong support of planetary birth control. In light of Tibet's shrinking population and the forced
abortions and sterilizations imposed on Tibetans by the Chinese, one would imagine it would be even harder for the Dalai Lama to throw his weight behind that. But he has -- short of abortion encouragement.
Church of Euthanasia is a relevant topic. Buddhists, who believe in infinite future reincarnations, are down on any form of suicide, including by consent (a la Kevorkian), out of concern for messing up one's karma.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 8 of 45: Boyce will be Boyce (boyce2) * Fri, Sep 20, 1996 (17:45) * 4 lines
What's so great about old-growth forests? How many of them is enough?
Does anyone really know that ZPG is necessary? How can you know what
technology will be developed in the future? How can you know what population
that technology will enable the earth to support?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 9 of 45: Matthew McClure (mmc) * Mon, Sep 23, 1996 (12:39) * 18 lines
Good questions. The interesting thing about ecosystems like old-growth
forests and rainforests is that they are so rich in diversity. A friend
of mine is a biologist at the California Academy of Sciences, and he says
that biologists estimate that there are literally millions of unclassified
species of plants and animals. Since they're not classified, we have no idea
what their role in the biosphere might be, or what beneficial uses they might
eventually offer. Since we don't know, there's considerable risk in eliminating
them before we find out. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, which suggests
that, first, we do no harm.
Paul Ehrlich, who wrote *Population Bomb* in the late '60s or so, was a
persuasive apologist for ZPG back then. Since then we've added a couple of
billion people and watched the planetary ecosystem deteriorate, losing a
couple of species a day to extinction, experiencing global warming, hitting
the wall on the green revolution, having trouble finding enough drinking
water, etc. In order to enjoy the technological benefits that may be
developed in the future, it's necessary that we *have* a future; and at
the rate we're going, that's actually in question.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 10 of 45: Clif Figallo (fig) * Mon, Sep 23, 1996 (16:05) * 18 lines
Certainly, one approach is to "think globally and act locally." Doing so is necessary and makes a big difference. But in many cases, the greatest damage is being done on global scales through the use of industrial pollutants and industrial-level practic
es. This includes our American love affair with (and addiction to) the internal combustion engine, China's ramping up to a coal-powered industrial economy, Brazil's wholesaling of the rainforest and the general political climate that forces most underdev
loped countries to rely on subsistence farming practices that result in huge losses of arable land.
We cannot reach most of the people who would "act locally" outside of the U.S. and the wealthy developed world. And if we could, they would think us typical arrogant Americans to try and deny them access to what little wealth they could gain in the short
term at the expense of their immediate environment.
So, we should look at making a huge difference here at home, first, because our lifestyle uses far more resources per capita than do those of Chinese or Brazilian or Ethiopian peasant farmers. I know first-hand the huge gap between what I consumed on the
Farm and what I consume now. There is a happy medium level at which I could survive very well here. But how many Americans are willing to reduce their standards of living voluntarily? Not very many, I'll bet.
Maybe if we use the media we have access to as a microphone to educate and illustrate, we can begin to get the point across that if we don't change what we have the power to change in our own backyards, those changes will be made for our children in the f
uture in a much more brutal manner. Maybe we can use this medium to show how, in just over a century of industrialization, we have changed the course of Nature to a dangerous one for our children and grandchildren.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 11 of 45: Matthew McClure (mmc) * Mon, Sep 23, 1996 (19:20) * 20 lines
When I was listening to Helen Caldicott on the radio last week,
she said Australia had done a lot of work on photovoltaics,
and that the economic factors had changed in the last few
years, to the point where photovoltaics were feasible. She said
she'd talked to some people at Los Alamos National Labs about
using photovoltaics in the desert. She didn't say whether
they'd thought it was a good idea.
But that's the kind of technological assistance that we could
offer to the developing world--of course, you're right that we'd
need to adopt it ourselves first. But if we could have China
skip the coal-fired and nuclear power plants and go directly
to photovoltaics to power their rising standard of living,
we could mitigate the negative impact of that many people
increasing their demands for goodies.
I used to think Al Gore would work in that direction. I'm not
so sure any more. I know he understands the science behind
energy and population and viability; but I think he figures
the politics are against it.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 12 of 45: Clif Figallo (fig) * Mon, Sep 23, 1996 (19:55) * 8 lines
Let's hope ol' Al was just waiting for a second term. (Of course, then, he won't want to ruin his chances to be president. Damn.)
Whoever can get China to go along with a sane development plan will be one hell of a diplomat. Orville Schell, a China expert, seems completely pessimistic about the future there as new industry is creating pollution already on a monumental scale. And p
ower generation is just a small part of it. The Yellow River and the Yangtse are on fast tracks to being ruined. Capitalist fever has struck bigtime and nobody wants to follow the Gradual School.
This is a case of the U.S. getting what it always wanted diplomatically and now realizing how you have to be careful what you wish for. Where have you gone, Confucius and Bodhidharma?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 13 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Tue, Sep 24, 1996 (06:07) * 26 lines
China and India represent, what, 2 billion out of 6 billion people. And
each of these people has a yearly income of a couple hundred dollars. I
don't know the exact figures. It's about a third of the worlds
population and a tiny fraction of the worlds gnp and goods.
If you take these massive numbers and add in expectations of a better
life, like the one Clif has in Mill Valley or I have in Austin, then
these coal plants have to rev up to provide electricity for all the tvs,
computers, telephones, answering machines, refridgerators, microwaves,
hair dryers, and other goods that have now become basic necessities.
The answer is clearly in low voltage appliances (12 V), solar power, and
wireless. China and India don't need massive power and telephone grids,
they need cellphones and notebooks with wireless packet. And they
need household appliances that use direct current powered by rooftop solar
panels. This would make much more sense than coal plants everywhere
(though boyce, being a nuclear expert, might recommend another alternative).
I hope Gore win will in 2000 and come out of the closet. I hope that the
"closet", in this case, is a man who cares about the environment as the
book he wrote (assisted by Albert Bates) tends to indicate. But I also
know that getting elected is the name of the game now and for the next
four years he's going to be issuing sound bytes that turn into percentage
points in the polls.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 14 of 45: William (william) * Wed, Sep 25, 1996 (00:20) * 18 lines
What's so great about old-growth forests? What's so great about old people? What's so great about highly evolved species? Or pure water? Or clean air?
What's so great about high consciousness or clear light?
Some things allow for more life and love, and some things allow for less.
"First do no harm." I read occasional pieces in the NYTimes about such things as the prison camps in North Korea and the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre of elephant families in Zaire (? one of those elephant countries in Africa) and wonder if we don't do collective harm as a species by simply existing.
China will do nothing to ameliorate the effects of its conversion to fossil-fuel self-indulgence. There's no more recalcitrant a great power on the planet. Our only hope for future environmental preservation is to set so shining an example of how to co-exist wisely and compassionately with the rest of the world that it will be charmed -- yes, charmed and allured and inexplicably compelled -- into joining us.
I think Gore has the capacity to do that, but our capacity to endure the prevailing cynicism of another four years of Clinton is hard to imagine. Gore has had to backtrack so hard from his visionary environmental politics of the late 80s and early 90s in order to co-exist to Clinton that one wonders if he could ever reach up high enough to get it back. I was moved by his story of his sister's death from cancer, but I was also repelled by his political exhibitionism, and his willingness to do or say anythi
g to sway the crowd.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader and adding another iota of legitimacy to the Green Party.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 15 of 45: Boyce will be Boyce (boyce2) * Thu, Sep 26, 1996 (13:03) * 65 lines
> The interesting thing about ecosystems like old-growth forests and rainforests
> is that they are so rich in diversity. A friend of mine is a biologist at the
> California Academy of Sciences, and he says that biologists estimate that
> there are literally millions of unclassified species of plants and animals.
> Since they're not classified, we have no idea what their role in the biosphere
> might be, or what beneficial uses they might eventually offer.
I doubt you'll find any biologist who believes that any unclassified species plays a crucial role in the functionality of the biosphere as a whole. As to what uses we may find in the future for these species, you're absolutely right, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating them. But like everything else, you have to weight the potential costs against the potential benefits, otherwise we'd all have to stay in our houses for fear of stepping on the last belgian sand flea.
> Since we don't know, there's considerable risk in eliminating them before we
> find out. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, which suggests that, first,
> we do no harm.
Impossible. You can't live your life without doing harm to some other creature and impacting in some way some part of the biosphere. You eat, you breathe, you drink, all of these actions change the planet irreversibly, and make life harder for some species and more difficult for others; there's no way around it. That's why the question of RISK is so important, of each action we take we must ascertain the potential benefits, costs and the probabilities of the potential outcomes, and make an informed dec
sion based on this information.
> In order to enjoy the technological benefits that may be developed in the
> future, it's necessary that we *have* a future; and at the rate we're going,
> that's actually in question.
Technological benefits will not only be enjoyed in the future, they will ENABLE the future of humans on earth. There's no way the earth, even in its most pristine past could have supported 6 billion hunter/gatherers for a year. Technology (primarily agriculture) has enabled this population growth. Future technology may make the earth capable of sustaining even larger populations.
> When I was listening to Helen Caldicott on the radio last week,
> she said Australia had done a lot of work on photovoltaics,
> and that the economic factors had changed in the last few
> years, to the point where photovoltaics were feasible. She said
> she'd talked to some people at Los Alamos National Labs about
> using photovoltaics in the desert. She didn't say whether
> they'd thought it was a good idea.
I'm consistently surprised that people who advocate environmentally safe power
continue to suggest photovoltaics as an alternative. The fact is, no existing technology even comes close to nuclear power in terms of low environmental impact. They're small and clean. Even with 100% conversion rate, the photovoltaic plant necessary to replace a nuclear power plant would be enormous
(tens of square miles). The environmental impact of keeping that large a surface area of the earth from ever again seeing the light of day is unknown, but it would certainly involve wholesale changes in the local biosphere. The plant necessary to build the photovoltaics would be considerably smaller, but the chemical processes therein aren't what you'd call clean, involving large volumes of caustic chemicals and toxic solvents.
> What's so great about old-growth forests? What's so great about old people?
> What's so great about highly evolved species? Or pure water? Or clean air?
> What's so great about high consciousness or clear light?
Old forests? I don't know, they're fun to hike through, if they're public land.
But as far as substantive benefit to the biosphere goes, new growth might be better...
Old people? They're fun to have around, they have all that wisdom and stuff. Plus there's their ability to enter into a social contract, and for that they get protected status, as all sentient beings do, at least in this country.
Highly evolved species? In a word: sentience.
Pure water? Doesn't exist in appreciable quantities, never has.
Clean air? Sentient beings seem to like to breathe it, as do their pets.
High consciousness? How high is high?
Clear light? What the hell is clear light?
> "First do no harm." I read occasional pieces in the NYTimes about such things
> as the prison camps in North Korea and the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre
> of elephant families in Zaire (? one of those elephant countries in Africa
> and wonder if we don't do collective harm as a species by simply existing.
Bingo, but I'm disenchanted with the alternative...
> I'm voting for Ralph Nader and adding another iota of legitimacy to the Green
> Party.
I think you'll find a world run by Luddites to be dirtier and more violent than you expected.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 16 of 45: William E. Roland (KitchenManager) * Fri, Sep 27, 1996 (13:18) * 8 lines
Extropian, are you boyce2? Or just a very vocal technocrat? It was hard to
tell from your responses and dis-(or just mis-)information. What is your
ideal carrying capacity for the earth? How about the maximum sustainable
population of humanity? At what point do negative returns start because
humanity is too large a percentage of the biomass. There is a finite mass
to the earth, therefore a finite amount of building materials for more
biomass. Anyway, I gotta run for now,
WER
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 17 of 45: Matthew McClure (mmc) * Fri, Sep 27, 1996 (13:58) * 8 lines
Terry said something about you being a nuclear engineer, boyce2?
Do you count the fossil fuels used in mining, transporting, refining,
transporting, disposing (oops, we don't really have a place to dispose
of the stuff yet) of the nuclear fuel in your calculation that it's the
cleanest power source in sight?
Tens of square miles isn't such a big deal when you look at the Mojave.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 18 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Sep 27, 1996 (15:10) * 7 lines
I may have misrepresented boyces calling, he's an ME grad student with a
strong focus in nuclear energy.
Photovoltaics appeal is the fact that it eliminates the onerous grid of wires
that run all over our landscape and localizes energy at the household level.
I would be curious about boyces response to the disposal issue.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 19 of 45: Boyce will be Boyce (boyce2) * Sun, Sep 29, 1996 (20:16) * 25 lines
> Do you count the fossil fuels used in mining, transporting, refining,
> transporting, disposing (oops, we don't really have a place to dispose
> of the stuff yet) of the nuclear fuel in your calculation that it's the
> cleanest power source in sight?
In a word: Yes. Pick any other source, and you'll find it has similar associated costs. In general these costs are going to run higher because of the comparatively higher volume of machinery (in the case of wind and solar power) or fuel (in the case of coal, oil and natural gas). The only things that're even close in terms of cleanliness are geothermal and hydroelectric power, both of which are intrinsically limited by location and the amount of power that can be generated over time.
The key feature of nuclear power as a low contributor to extraneous pollution (that coming from points in the fuel cycle other than the use stage) is the energy density of nuclear fuel. There is as much retrievable energy in a thimbleful of nuclear fuel as in a couple railroad cars full of coal. Hence mining costs, transportation costs, and refining costs are all proportionately smaller, as is fossil fuel use in each of these processes.
> Tens of square miles isn't such a big deal when you look at the Mojave.
That's true, unless you're an engineer looking to build what would be the largest engineered system ever designed, or an environmentalist looking to stop the devastation of tens of thousands of acres of pristine desert ecosystem, then it starts looking very big indeed. Oh, and another thing, those tens of square miles could replace ONE nuclear power plant, so you'd need 500 times that to service the electrical needs of the entire US.
> Photovoltaics appeal is the fact that it eliminates the onerous grid of
> wires that run all over our landscape and localizes energy at the household
> level.
I agree, the most promising use of photovoltaics, and solar power in general, is in the small capacity end use situation, the home. Industrial power almost certainly has to come from a more concentrated source than solar power, which at the distance of earth's orbit, is woefully diffuse. However, I doubt that we'll ever be free of the grid, it enables dependable electricity from disparate sources: energy security. You don't want to lose your hot water because it's overcast in the dead of winter.
> I would be curious about boyces response to the disposal issue.
Waste disposal? Sure, I can tell you anything you want to know about it.
I submit that Yucca mountain, on the Nevada test site, is the ideal place for civilian high level radioactive waste. The surrounding desert is already so crapped up from decades of subterranean nuclear weapons testing that a couple million extra curies in a highly engineered repository is the pollution equivalent of peeing in Boston harbor. The issue at this point is purely political. Get this, the same Nevada legislators that don't want a waste repository, in the past have gotten bent out of shape at
lans to curtail bomb testing on the same soil. Clinton will probably veto the current legislation aiming to establish the repository in Nevada in exchange for political favors from these legislators, as most Americans believe that putting high level waste in one national repository is far safer than keeping it onsite at 100 different facilities across the country. The technical problems are essentially solved, the political ones have proven to be more complex.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 20 of 45: Mika-Petri Lauronen (Mixu) * Mon, Dec 2, 1996 (02:35) * 24 lines
Hmm... this is going to be a collected answer to the previous topics, since I've
been away for some time...
I think the world population isn't the problem at the moment, it is the consuming of goods. By producing the food ecologically, not economically, would enable the world to support at least 10 billion people. There aren't too many
people, but too many cars, meat factories and modern fishing vessels.
The problem of fresh water is another thing. Theoretically you could clean the
water, but in practice it would be impossible. Water is as essential to life as oxygen, but we are wasting both of them carelessly. There's limited amount of both, and actually the amount of oxygen is decreasing, since some molecules
gain escape velocity all the time.
And, of course, there's the issue of energy. Our culture requires ridiculous amounts of energy in the form of electricity and heat. A Finnish researcher pointed out that using electricity for heating is a great fallacy, since the
electricity is at first produced by heat. IT's like re-inventing the wheel.
He also said that using fission energy to produce electricity is
uneconomical because of the low gain ratio. According to him, the only plausible use of fission is heat production. In our discussion we found it quite strange
that many scientist dislike nuclear power, and the situation with engineers is
just the opposite...
Saving of the world begins from your own head. After all, there are about 5.8
billion of those heads... The main point in the western countries is of course
to cut down consumption. I find it strange, that the Chinese or the Africans live in poverty, while some of us have two cars, two houses and surplus of preprocessed food...
Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi. When a reporter asked him what was his opinion about the western civilization, he replied: "I think it would be a good idea."
Yes, it would.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 21 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Dec 2, 1996 (18:06) * 1 lines
What a great Ghandi quote.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 22 of 45: Matthew McClure (mmc) * Mon, Jan 6, 1997 (16:37) * 8 lines
Indeed.
Mika-Petri, do you have any ideas on how to move the "advanced"
countries more towards restraint in their consumption?
The U.S. made some token efforts under Jimmy Carter - tax credits
for solar energy, for example - but I haven't seen anything since
then.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 23 of 45: Robert (Bob) A. Steingart (bob99) * Thu, Jan 9, 1997 (21:51) * 1 lines
What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 24 of 45: Robert (Bob) A. Steingart (bob99) * Thu, Jan 9, 1997 (21:51) * 1 lines
What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 25 of 45: Robert (Bob) A. Steingart (bob99) * Thu, Jan 9, 1997 (21:51) * 1 lines
What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 26 of 45: Robert (Bob) A. Steingart (bob99) * Thu, Jan 9, 1997 (21:51) * 1 lines
What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 27 of 45: Mika-Petri Lauronen (Mixu) * Fri, Jan 10, 1997 (09:56) * 11 lines
(TO mmc)
Well, I am growing more and more cynical day by day. I fear that the
only thing that really makes the "advanced" countries to cut down their
consumption is the to-be invasion of the chinese and indian people.
It is a sad vision, but I'm afraid it CAN happen (of course, that
wouldn't be a problem in the USA - you are protected by the oceans...)
When 3 billion people run out of food, they can get it by simply walking
to somewhere where food exists. And they will walk over the previous
inhabitants. Scary thought, isn't it?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 28 of 45: Matthew McClure (mmc) * Thu, Mar 6, 1997 (12:21) * 17 lines
Not the kind of thing one wants to think about in this day and age.
But not necessarily how things are going to happen, either. For one
thing, the "advanced" countries have all these lovely weapons to
keep the starving multitudes at bay. And who knows, the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse may still have their mounts. Or, on a more
cheerful note, perhaps China's birth-control policy will bear fruit
and their pepole will bear fewer children. And there's always the
dream that China will skip some of the unfortunate portions of the
Industrial Revolution and move directly into the Information Age.
Of course, they'll still have to figure out how to feed all their
people, and the more they participate in the Information Age, the
more they're going to want chickens instead of rice, which is going
to be a problem.
Maybe we should all get together and form a venture capital fund
and start a company in Guangzhou making solar cookers...
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 29 of 45: Charles Lin (Everest) * Sat, Jul 5, 1997 (14:19) * 31 lines
response to Boyce:
old growth, new growth, I don't care, take your pick. Plants produce photosynthesis that supply all of us something to breath.
Unfortunately, Boyce, has it occured to you that almost all of the logging and forest clearing are to create new land for human expansion, not to plant new trees?
Forests also moderates temperature. In hot weather it keeps the surroundig cool, and in cold weather it keeps the surrounding warm. Just spend enough time between forests and a barren land or city and you will know.
Forests also keeps our landscape from eroding, provides habitats for other life and creatures. And I believe that most biologist (if not all) think there is an incredible amount of "hidden tresures" in the rain forest, and therefore, do everything to preserve them.
To say that we can continue to do whatever as we please because some solution will be developed in the future to sustain more human population is dangerous and fallacious. As one reader puts it, we must do something now to guarantee that we have a future. Who is to promise that a solution will be developed? What we do to remedy the deteriorating environmental situation today, we can see and benefit immediately, and that is what counts in the long run.
The advent of industrial revolution had accelerated the rate at which we populate this planet and our consumption of natural resources. This planet has supported human for hundreds of millions of years, so don't sweat, it will "somehow" deal with the problems human created and continue to sustain human (and other life on earth)? Maybe, but I don't think it's a pretty scenario.
In fermentation, as in jar of crushed grapes and some yeast, the yeast consumes the sugar and produce (or you can say "excrete") aldehyde, alcohol (and perhaps other things), but when the amount of alcohol becomes to much, it kills the yeast and your fermentation process stops.
In a petri dish with agar as food and some bacterial culture, if you have various species of bacteria, some might kill off other, but in the end, those dominant strain still die out (or at least stopped expanding, maybe fall into dormant mode)when the agar is all gone.
I am not a biologist (but reasonably good in biology back in school), but that's how I understand the nature world.
I am for nuclear enengy, but at the same time, we need to "roll back" our lifestyle, reduce consumption, recycle what we can (including re-using things that are still functional). Save the planet begins in our own home and backyard. There are 6 billion people, if each one re-use or recycle just one item in their household a year, we have 6 billion fewer pieces of junk in our landfill (not counting other resources comsumed to produce the replacement for those 6 billion items). Well, in my book, 6 billio
items is quite a lot, no matter how small the items are.
On a different note: I think manufactures show be required to recycle what they produce, not just the end product, the the raw material they use to produce the goods, including those chemicals. And I think government should only give company license to produce something when all ingredients can be properly recycled or reclaimed.
I cringe everytime I have to throw away those plastic contains with recycle number 3, 4, 5, or 6 because no company reclaim them for recycling. They are labled such supposedly for future use, when the technology (or more economical technology) becomes available. Why in hell are we making it if we don't know how to re-use it or reclaim it? And given the availability of #1 and #2 recyclable plastic, why don't governments just require company to use those two for the time being? Now I try my best to avoi
buying things in plastic containers other than #1 and #2.
I think it will also do good for most people in developed countries to visit poor countries to see how wasteful we are in our lifestyle.
Charles
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 30 of 45: Jason Black (Jason) * Fri, Jan 30, 1998 (00:22) * 1 lines
I lean towards more of the Greenpeace/Edward Abbey school of thought when it comes to this issue. Opinions vary... Even if no direct action is taken at all, the potential for it exists. This, of course, won't change the lifestyles of billions of people. I do believe that we are as a species inherently destructive. I'd like to see widespread negative population growth. This, of course, will likely happen due to our own stupidity. More people=more environmental destruction. So far it's been a valid theory.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 31 of 45: Riette Walton (riette) * Tue, Jun 23, 1998 (16:21) * 3 lines
I can't help but think that if there were a solution, it would be communism - but
that didn't work, unfortunately. On the other hand, the USA is so good at capitalism - perhaps they could make it work?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 32 of 45: Roan Carratu (Roan) * Fri, Feb 5, 1999 (03:40) * 15 lines
Actually, there is a force involved beyond the human mind, and it is what is powering the changes towards sanity. Ego based thought is a dead end for solutions.
We didn't evolve to fail. We evolved for a purpose, and it is evident if social axioms are reviewed and rejected.
First, We are Universe being aware of itself. Locally, we are this planetary ecosystem being aware of itself. We are not designed to destroy it or ourselves. All the stuff going on is much like a birthing. It is very intense and for the child, powerful. The struggle is between artifical and unnatural human GIGO systems and the force that evolved us. We are far more than we can THINK we are and can change in the blink of an eye.
I have seen, personally, that force in operation, and to my amazement, saw thousands of human beings with all kinds of personal opinions and convictions change their mind in the face of something invisible but mind and heart changing. The world was at stake, although none of the people at the time knew it, and to save the world, all those people had to change their minds and do the right thing in the face of a life behind bars, and they did it! Observing this changed my life, and years later, as the rest
f the story came to me from various sources, I realized what it was that I perceived.
The idea that there are greater forces affecting Humanity than individual egos and cultural habits is rejected by almost everyone, but I know it to be true and see it now in a lot of what goes on in the world behind the scenes. It does not show in the media, but it does on the Internet. The Farm was right in there in the effects of that force.
Yes, I think the birthing could fail, but it is unlikely. That doesn't mean we can sit back and wait for things to happen, because it still works through human behavior, through us. I am being a bit vague, I know, but I don't want to write a book on here. (g)
Peace and Good Health,
-Roan
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 33 of 45: wer (KitchenManager) * Fri, Feb 5, 1999 (22:51) * 2 lines
go ahead and write the book...
we don't mind
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 34 of 45: Alexander Schuth (aschuth) * Mon, May 10, 1999 (07:15) * 5 lines
You cannot "save" the world. It *is* and will be. Just different, either way. But you can't "save" it, unless you'd stop time. What would that gain?
You would have saved the world from changing.
Great. No changes. Just frozen like tha
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 35 of 45: wer (KitchenManager) * Mon, May 10, 1999 (13:45) * 1 lines
so our actions are unimportant in the grand scheme of things then?
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 36 of 45: Alexander Schuth (aschuth) * Tue, May 11, 1999 (06:06) * 9 lines
Who said that? Not me! I was just nitpicking on the phrase "Save The World". You can't do that, unless you'd freeze it in time to stop changes. Somebody else might be able to do that, but I'm surely not.
The questions coming out of your question are:
(a) Is there a Grand Scheme Of Things ?, and
(b) Are our actions important or not?
As to (a), I love conspiracy theories for their entertainment value, but I have no answer "YES!" to that question. Only another question: "So what?", or rather "What difference would it make?" Would I lead a different life if there were (or weren't)? Would I stop trying?
From this results for (b) that our actions might not have impact on any scheme, but surely impact on our lifes and the lifes of those around us (even in virtuspace). In our social and ecological and economical environments, our actions of course are important (maybe a mikroimportance, but still).
But I don't need a scheme to see that, whether or not it exists.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 37 of 45: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, May 11, 1999 (10:53) * 2 lines
oh, I've always thought
to scheme's the theme...
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 38 of 45: Alexander Schuth (aschuth) * Wed, May 12, 1999 (10:03) * 5 lines
Some people are into that. "Scheming bastards", they're called on tv. I wouldn't want to be called that. How about you?
The theme might be: Make it to the end of the day with as little suffering as possible, while creating as little hurt as possible. You'll meet everybody again next morning.
And you don't need any karma-story or superior being or the like to understand that concept (though it doesn't collide with that either, if you hold those ideas dear).
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 39 of 45: Marcia (MarciaH) * Tue, Feb 8, 2000 (21:41) * 2 lines
This is amazing stuff and a lot of idealism and even a little realism here and there. Right about the industrial hemp, negative population and all that.
I think unless we abliterate the place, the ants and roaches will inherit the earth long after human kind has done their worst, if Hawaii is any indication...
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 40 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Wed, Feb 16, 2000 (08:20) * 1 lines
See my comments in the Farm Net News topic about Karen Flaherty and what she's dowing these days.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 41 of 45: (sprin5) * Wed, Jul 19, 2000 (12:30) * 1 lines
Missed ragweed again, doggone.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 42 of 45: Maggie (sociolingo) * Wed, Jul 19, 2000 (15:51) * 1 lines
Please explain - or is this in code??? *grin*
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 43 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Apr 30, 2001 (00:18) * 1 lines
It's old Farmie code, Ragweed is a big annual harvest festival. There's a whole Farm jargon, Maggie, you do need a translator at times.
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 44 of 45: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Tue, Sep 18, 2001 (14:12) * 51 lines
From the Farm's Phillip Schweitzer
We got together Sunday morning in the meditation meadow, meditated,
aumed, sang, read and talked. We learned that many of the Farm kids
in new York have been volunteering at the site. Carol's daughter Kim
is on the scene with her crew from Florida trained to search for
victims using dogs. Michael Gavin's cousin is missing. We talked
about our role, our commitment to peace and our desire to take the
air out of terrorism rather than make war against civilian
populations. We talked about our sorrows and fears, and what to do
with anger. We talked about our draft-age kids. William and Deborah
Devoursney's son David is in the Navy and just shipped out to the
Middle east. We talked about US complicity in terrorism that leads
to provoking such acts against America. We talked about oneness and
we talked about death. Finally, we talked about the need for us to
speak out, now, and that cooler heads, even in a small minority, can
encourage other cooler heads to speak out and that by speaking out,
writing letters and emails to politicians and the media especially,
we can deflate some of the more irrational posturing for revenge.
Bush is beginning to use the word "crusade" over and over and the
Christian "Right" is saying things like "kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity" while blaming liberals, gays, lesbians
and the ACLU (Jerry Falwell) or Clinton (Pat Robertson) and the
Washington Times, the Moonie paper in DC is calling for the use of
tactical nuclear weapons. Gratefully, other nations, particularly
our allies in Europe are beginning to try to put the breaks on
Bush's war machine (see attachment-A Pause to Ponder...).
I think there is beginning to seep into this national nightmare a
growing realization that, hey, maybe violence is incendiary, maybe
violence breeds violence. After all, we've been spectators to the
intractable wars in Northern Ireland and the Middle East for many
years and now that we know what it's like for an Israeli or
Palestinian or an Irish Catholic or Protestant day in and day out,
maybe we're beginning to wake-up. When I was in Philadelphia the
most popular rock station, WMMR, spent Tuesday and Wednesday playing
songs of peace while the DJs talked about the futility of violence.
Driving home, listening to NPR late at night, young folks called in
and talked about their opposition to revenge and vengeance and so
impressed the moderators that the entire tone of the program changed
from saber rattling to introspective and intelligent discourse. You
don't hear the families of victims crying for blood. As usual it's
politicians and the talking heads and columnists. Not all. I think
the vote in the House was 422 to one for giving Bush permission to
politicians and the talking heads and columnists. Not all. I think
the vote in the House was 422 to one for giving Bush permission to
use any force necessary. The one was a California congresswoman
(Barbara Lee-Oakland) who deserve a medal of honor.
-P
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 45 of 45: Don James (beatnick) * Fri, Jun 13, 2003 (11:18) * 12 lines
Topic 4 of 27 [farm]: saving the world
Response 3 of 44: William (william) * Sun, Sep 8, 1996 (23:55) * 8 lines
How do we save the Headwater redwood grove for starters? (Does anybody
know of any recent developments with that?) And, for the larger picture,
how can we stop the ongoing devastation of the earth by clearcutting?
A recent visit to the Northwest coastal forests revealed a situation
beyond the worst imaginings. Defenders of the natural ecology have been
chaining themselves to big trees, even spiking them to kick back chainsaws
in loggers' faces. What's the answer?
-I think the only way we'll stop the clearcutting is by changing the supply/demand thing. By coming up with an alternative to using wood so much. As long as there is a need, trees will be cut. Recycling helps, but not enough. As long as paper and houses are made from wood, they'll be cutting down trees. Perhaps some kind of synthetic material could be developed? The development that I live in is a feeble attempt at maintaining a natural balance, there are covenants against the owners clearcutting there own property, cutting is limited to 1/3 of their property and then only for thinning purposes, no mature trees can be cut. This helps, but then everyone there has houses built of wood, and uses paper products. Any chemists in the crowd?
farm conference 
Main Menu