> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious > response, you ought to change your nick.
> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack > scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
> Credentials from a Crackerjack box.
> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice > cap) > -- > mad
Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle we get the truth. And the real truth is that there's no stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
>> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious >> response, you ought to change your nick.
>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack >> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box.
>> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice >> cap) >> -- >> mad
>Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the >middle we get the truth. And the real truth is that there's no >stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been >happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger >Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, >but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet >before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
And which side are you on considering your original post?
Pollution kills. We can see that. The ice caps are melting. We can see that.
The earth has been here how long? And man?
How many species have been made extinct? Do you exempt man from the possibility? -- mad
>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack >> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box. >********************************************************************** >It might surprise some people here, me being a "Fox News" kind of a >guy ...
>But I saw Gore's movie ("An Inconvenient Truth" ) (and drank the Kool- >Aid too !)
>Now ? ...I'm not so sure !
>I DO know that Al Gore has refused all invitations to debate the >Global Warming >issue with scientists who have challenged him !
>What does that say about Gore ? >Chickenshit ? >Knowing they would expose all the flaws in his precious theory ?
freshfeces wrote: > On Nov 3, 3:03 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:20:43 -0800 (PST), freshfeces
>> <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm >> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious >> response, you ought to change your nick.
>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack >> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box.
>> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice >> cap) >> -- >> mad
> Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the > middle we get the truth.
That's pretty much a canard's bollocks. "Truth" often (maybe mainly) lies outside the usually simple statements we see as "polar opposites." For instance, global warming is NOT a debatable question, except for those who have ulterior political and economic goals. There are the oceans, and each year their temperature is measured. That temperature is going up and has been for quite some time now. Also, the pace of that rise has increased. All verifiable facts: you could do it yourself if you were so inclined. Other evidence would be disappearing glaciers, vanisging snow cover on mountains, and on the poles, changes in weather patterns, and so on. All observable and not really debatable. Now - whether or not all that, or part of it, or none of it is caused by human activity is - in some ways - open to discussion, although even if we are not driving the heating, it might behoove us to find a way to lessen its impact. And so on. But whether there actually IS global warming: that's simply a testable fact. > And the real truth is that there's no
> stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been > happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger > Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, > but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet > before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
Actually, men (and animals) have destroyed their environment (and subsequently themselves) over and over and over throughout history. And we're not really talking about "destroying the earth": even your Daltry quote (and why he would be considered an expert witness is beyond me) implies that the real thing is we might destroy OURSELVES. I have no doubt the Earth can survive us, but we might not survive us.
On Nov 3, 6:35 pm, freshfeces <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And as Roger > Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, > but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet > before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
He also has an uncanny ability to deceive himself.
What Daltrey says is true. But the idea is to preserve the earth in such a way that we can still support ourselves on it.
>freshfeces wrote: >> On Nov 3, 3:03 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:20:43 -0800 (PST), freshfeces
>>> <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm >>> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious >>> response, you ought to change your nick.
>>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack >>> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
>>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box.
>>> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice >>> cap) >>> -- >>> mad
>> Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the >> middle we get the truth.
>That's pretty much a canard's bollocks. "Truth" often (maybe mainly) >lies outside the usually simple statements we see as "polar opposites." >For instance, global warming is NOT a debatable question, except for >those who have ulterior political and economic goals. There are the >oceans, and each year their temperature is measured. That temperature is >going up and has been for quite some time now. Also, the pace of that >rise has increased. All verifiable facts: you could do it yourself if >you were so inclined. Other evidence would be disappearing glaciers, >vanisging snow cover on mountains, and on the poles, changes in weather >patterns, and so on. All observable and not really debatable. Now - >whether or not all that, or part of it, or none of it is caused by human >activity is - in some ways - open to discussion, although even if we are >not driving the heating, it might behoove us to find a way to lessen its >impact. And so on. But whether there actually IS global warming: that's >simply a testable fact. > > And the real truth is that there's no >> stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been >> happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger >> Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, >> but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet >> before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
>Actually, men (and animals) have destroyed their environment (and >subsequently themselves) over and over and over throughout history. And >we're not really talking about "destroying the earth": even your Daltry >quote (and why he would be considered an expert witness is beyond me) >implies that the real thing is we might destroy OURSELVES. I have no >doubt the Earth can survive us, but we might not survive us.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:41:43 -0600, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> > wrote:
> >freshfeces wrote: > >> On Nov 3, 3:03 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:20:43 -0800 (PST), freshfeces
> >>> <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm > >>> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious > >>> response, you ought to change your nick.
> >>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack > >>> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull.
> >>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box.
> >>> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice > >>> cap) > >>> -- > >>> mad
> >> Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the > >> middle we get the truth.
> >That's pretty much a canard's bollocks. "Truth" often (maybe mainly) > >lies outside the usually simple statements we see as "polar opposites." > >For instance, global warming is NOT a debatable question, except for > >those who have ulterior political and economic goals. There are the > >oceans, and each year their temperature is measured. That temperature is > >going up and has been for quite some time now. Also, the pace of that > >rise has increased. All verifiable facts: you could do it yourself if > >you were so inclined. Other evidence would be disappearing glaciers, > >vanisging snow cover on mountains, and on the poles, changes in weather > >patterns, and so on. All observable and not really debatable. Now - > >whether or not all that, or part of it, or none of it is caused by human > >activity is - in some ways - open to discussion, although even if we are > >not driving the heating, it might behoove us to find a way to lessen its > >impact. And so on. But whether there actually IS global warming: that's > >simply a testable fact. > > > And the real truth is that there's no > >> stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been > >> happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger > >> Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, > >> but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet > >> before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt.
> >Actually, men (and animals) have destroyed their environment (and > >subsequently themselves) over and over and over throughout history. And > >we're not really talking about "destroying the earth": even your Daltry > >quote (and why he would be considered an expert witness is beyond me) > >implies that the real thing is we might destroy OURSELVES. I have no > >doubt the Earth can survive us, but we might not survive us.
> >dmh
If you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, you may have a different opinion. His footnotes are excellent and shed light on many areas concerning the supposed Global Warming Theory. The only reason the debate is over, is because Al Gore, who is raking in millions, says it is. Quit being sheep.
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:41:43 -0600, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> >> wrote:
>>> freshfeces wrote: >>>> On Nov 3, 3:03 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:20:43 -0800 (PST), freshfeces >>>>> <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm >>>>> Wrong newsgroup, old chap, and if you expect to get a serious >>>>> response, you ought to change your nick. >>>>> Anyway, despite all the evidence, the other side have their quack >>>>> scientists who say global warming is a lot of bull. >>>>> Credentials from a Crackerjack box. >>>>> (We now have a clear northwest passage thanks to the melting polar ice >>>>> cap) >>>>> -- >>>>> mad >>>> Sorry bloke, but there's two sides to every story and somewhere in the >>>> middle we get the truth. >>> That's pretty much a canard's bollocks. "Truth" often (maybe mainly) >>> lies outside the usually simple statements we see as "polar opposites." >>> For instance, global warming is NOT a debatable question, except for >>> those who have ulterior political and economic goals. There are the >>> oceans, and each year their temperature is measured. That temperature is >>> going up and has been for quite some time now. Also, the pace of that >>> rise has increased. All verifiable facts: you could do it yourself if >>> you were so inclined. Other evidence would be disappearing glaciers, >>> vanisging snow cover on mountains, and on the poles, changes in weather >>> patterns, and so on. All observable and not really debatable. Now - >>> whether or not all that, or part of it, or none of it is caused by human >>> activity is - in some ways - open to discussion, although even if we are >>> not driving the heating, it might behoove us to find a way to lessen its >>> impact. And so on. But whether there actually IS global warming: that's >>> simply a testable fact. >>>> And the real truth is that there's no >>>> stopping the natural order of things. Climate change has been >>>> happening long before mankind appeared on the scene. And as Roger >>>> Daltrey once said in an interview, "Man will never destroy the earth, >>>> but earth will destroy man." But unlike those that roamed the planet >>>> before us, mankind has the uncanny ability to adapt. >>> Actually, men (and animals) have destroyed their environment (and >>> subsequently themselves) over and over and over throughout history. And >>> we're not really talking about "destroying the earth": even your Daltry >>> quote (and why he would be considered an expert witness is beyond me) >>> implies that the real thing is we might destroy OURSELVES. I have no >>> doubt the Earth can survive us, but we might not survive us. >>> dmh
> If you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, you may have a different > opinion. His footnotes are excellent and shed light on many areas > concerning the supposed Global Warming Theory. The only reason the > debate is over, is because Al Gore, who is raking in millions, says it > is. Quit being sheep.
I DID read Crichton's book, and (like most of his work) I found it grandly unimpressive, both as a compendium of "facts" and as an example of good prose. Michael - as a writer - is firmly in the middle layers, and - as a thinker - he's just a bit lower.
As for being "sheep": unlike sheep I can read a thermometer, read a book, and read a photograph. It is more likely you are the metaphorical sheep here, as you sound no brighter (or less insulting) than the average rightwing radio barnacle. Even a child can look at a picture of the world's glacial areas and see that they are shrinking. Whether or not you are willing (or able) to link all that to human activity, it doesn't take a genius to understand that ice melts from rising temperatures. It isn't magic, and it isn't liberal fairies with a thing for thawing icefields. As far as whether or not the globe is warming - the facts are all in on that. You are welcome to argue as the ark begins to refloat about what agency is at the bottom of it, but I'm afraid arguing that there is - in fact - no temperature rise AT ALL is the work of a very inefficient brain...
freshfeces <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The only reason the debate is over, is because Al Gore, > who is raking in millions, says it is. Quit being sheep.
Sorry old chap, Gore has nothing to do with the science, although he does make a nice bugaboo for the right-wing types. He simply *popularizes* the science (sort of like Carl Sagan, although Sagan actually knew the science).
Don't let politics stand in the way of learning something. Read about the *science*.
The debate's not over in the same sense that the evolution debate's not over. Some people resist being dragged into the modern world. The *scientific* debate is pretty much settled, although, like evolution, there's detail yet to be learned.
In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. Glaciers are disappearing.
Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating the change.
>In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the >snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. >Glaciers are disappearing.
>Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air >pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating >the change.
> >In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the > >snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. > >Glaciers are disappearing.
> >Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air > >pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating > >the change.
> In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the > snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. > Glaciers are disappearing.
> Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air > pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating > the change.
And most scientists would agree with that. I've read quite a bit on this, and - frankly - I'm not so certain myself about the connection between human activity and global climate change. The climate changes are clear enough (those who deny that are worse than ostriches, because ostriches don't have such naked political and cultural biases), but the reasons given for it are not as convincing (to me) as they might be. But I do think that most of the social adaptations being called for are worthwhile no matter if that connection is real or imagined. I think world societies would be better places if we moved away from massing millions of people in energy-wasting mega-cities, if we learned how to live WITH rather than AGAINST nature, if we re-imagined transportation (both mass and individual), if we had a food industry less geared toward stuffing our fat faces at the expense of animals' lives, and more geared toward humane farming and less factory food.
>> >In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the >> >snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. >> >Glaciers are disappearing.
>> >Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air >> >pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating >> >the change.
>> Spot on. >> -- >> mad
>Thanks.
Don't forget CO2 (fossil fuels) emissions and bovine-flatulence.
> > In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the > > snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. > > Glaciers are disappearing.
> > Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air > > pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating > > the change.
> And most scientists would agree with that. I've read quite a bit on > this, and - frankly - I'm not so certain myself about the connection > between human activity and global climate change. The climate changes > are clear enough (those who deny that are worse than ostriches, because > ostriches don't have such naked political and cultural biases), but the > reasons given for it are not as convincing (to me) as they might be. But > I do think that most of the social adaptations being called for are > worthwhile no matter if that connection is real or imagined. I think > world societies would be better places if we moved away from massing > millions of people in energy-wasting mega-cities, if we learned how to > live WITH rather than AGAINST nature, if we re-imagined transportation > (both mass and individual), if we had a food industry less geared toward > stuffing our fat faces at the expense of animals' lives, and more > geared toward humane farming and less factory food.
> dmh
I agree with much of what you say.
IMO one of the biggest problems facing the planet is the huge growth of the human population combined with westernized life styles. People tend to want more and more to ease their lives. Just the basic food and housing alone consumes land, destroys habitats for animals, destroys rain forests, etc.
China and India have huge populations which are making strides toward a western style middle class lifestyle. If we think there is a problem now with pollution and greenhouse gasses, wait until the more than 1 billion people in China and India start buying cars and other modern conveniences at the same rate as Americans . . . .
>> In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the >> snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. >> Glaciers are disappearing.
>> Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air >> pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating >> the change.
>And most scientists would agree with that. I've read quite a bit on >this, and - frankly - I'm not so certain myself about the connection >between human activity and global climate change. The climate changes >are clear enough (those who deny that are worse than ostriches, because >ostriches don't have such naked political and cultural biases), but the >reasons given for it are not as convincing (to me) as they might be. But >I do think that most of the social adaptations being called for are >worthwhile no matter if that connection is real or imagined. I think >world societies would be better places if we moved away from massing >millions of people in energy-wasting mega-cities, if we learned how to >live WITH rather than AGAINST nature, if we re-imagined transportation >(both mass and individual), if we had a food industry less geared toward > stuffing our fat faces at the expense of animals' lives, and more >geared toward humane farming and less factory food.
>dmh
I've driven from coast-to-coast several times, and the U.S. is one huge country with a lot of growing space. I agree with you, and we ought to start developing some of these wildernesses and giving folks tax incentives (or something) to relocate.
Fattuchus wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:35 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote: >> Fattuchus wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 5:20 pm, freshfeces <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm >>> In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the >>> snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. >>> Glaciers are disappearing. >>> Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air >>> pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating >>> the change. >> And most scientists would agree with that. I've read quite a bit on >> this, and - frankly - I'm not so certain myself about the connection >> between human activity and global climate change. The climate changes >> are clear enough (those who deny that are worse than ostriches, because >> ostriches don't have such naked political and cultural biases), but the >> reasons given for it are not as convincing (to me) as they might be. But >> I do think that most of the social adaptations being called for are >> worthwhile no matter if that connection is real or imagined. I think >> world societies would be better places if we moved away from massing >> millions of people in energy-wasting mega-cities, if we learned how to >> live WITH rather than AGAINST nature, if we re-imagined transportation >> (both mass and individual), if we had a food industry less geared toward >> stuffing our fat faces at the expense of animals' lives, and more >> geared toward humane farming and less factory food.
>> dmh
> I agree with much of what you say.
> IMO one of the biggest problems facing the planet is the huge growth > of the human population combined with westernized life styles. People > tend to want more and more to ease their lives. Just the basic food > and housing alone consumes land, destroys habitats for animals, > destroys rain forests, etc. > China and India have huge populations which are making strides toward > a western style middle class lifestyle. If we think there is a > problem now with pollution and greenhouse gasses, wait until the more > than 1 billion people in China and India start buying cars and other > modern conveniences at the same rate as Americans . . . .
Populations do have a way of eventually "sorting themselves out" although plague and war and errant asteroids are probably not at the top of anyone's "to do" list. The truth is, the planet is more than capable - right now - of sustaining the population it has, and what is coming for the foreseeable future. My biggest fear (unfolding before our eyes) is that we are set on a course for "The New Feudalism": a very few people owning most of the world's resources, while most of us just wok on their property until we get sick and die, all with very little social flexibility or a chance for human contemplation. We have got to "spread the world's wealth" a lot more equitably, and slowly ease huge corporations out of the mix. What's the likelihood? Almost nil I think. So you combine all that pointless greed/drive to control with the short sighted management that IS capitalism, and you've got a recipe for an ugly future.
The point isn't so much is there global warming. The point is...is it man made? Can/should man try to stop it? If the USA (and allies) do something about it...will China and India follow? Will we all be blown up or instantly incinerated before then? These are the important questions. As far as the facts. There are lies on both sides. Start with Al Gore, scientist extraordinaire, filmaker of the God's, and inventor of this here internet thing we all love. Oh wait...I better stop writing...isn't this causing some carbon or something.
> The point isn't so much is there global warming. The point is...is it > man made? Can/should man try to stop it? If the USA (and allies) do > something about it...will China and India follow? Will we all be blown > up or instantly incinerated before then? These are the important > questions. As far as the facts. There are lies on both sides. Start > with Al Gore, scientist extraordinaire, filmaker of the God's, and > inventor of this here internet thing we all love. Oh wait...I better > stop writing...isn't this causing some carbon or something.
Al Gore is doing nothing but making money off this perceived unproven notion the humans are the cause of Global Warming. As I said on an earlier post, Climate Change has been occurring since day 1 of this planet. There is no way to change it and the proposed solutions will harm the planet more. Hydrogen cars will cause massive humidity increases and warm the planet quicker. All electric cars is also no solution. We don't have enough electricity to charge them and what will we do with the expired batteries? Absorbing the heat from the sun will again warm the planet at an accelerated pace. Wind seems nice until you consider the amount of concrete needed to secure each turbine, the acreage trampled and the amount of slaughtered bird life in their wake. And then there's the question of the Mercury waste from the billions of florescent bulbs we're supposed to convert to. So those who call me an ostrich for questioning the facts, I advise you to pull your head out of your ass and answer the questions I have posed.
> Fattuchus wrote: > > On Nov 4, 10:35 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote: > >> Fattuchus wrote: > >>> On Nov 3, 5:20 pm, freshfeces <freshfe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm > >>> In another thread I posted a link to an article which shows how the > >>> snowy tops of high mountains such as Kilimonjaro are melting. > >>> Glaciers are disappearing. > >>> Yes, the earth does go through cycles, but I believe that air > >>> pollution combined with the destruction of the forests is accelerating > >>> the change. > >> And most scientists would agree with that. I've read quite a bit on > >> this, and - frankly - I'm not so certain myself about the connection > >> between human activity and global climate change. The climate changes > >> are clear enough (those who deny that are worse than ostriches, because > >> ostriches don't have such naked political and cultural biases), but the > >> reasons given for it are not as convincing (to me) as they might be. But > >> I do think that most of the social adaptations being called for are > >> worthwhile no matter if that connection is real or imagined. I think > >> world societies would be better places if we moved away from massing > >> millions of people in energy-wasting mega-cities, if we learned how to > >> live WITH rather than AGAINST nature, if we re-imagined transportation > >> (both mass and individual), if we had a food industry less geared toward > >> stuffing our fat faces at the expense of animals' lives, and more > >> geared toward humane farming and less factory food.
> >> dmh
> > I agree with much of what you say.
> > IMO one of the biggest problems facing the planet is the huge growth > > of the human population combined with westernized life styles. People > > tend to want more and more to ease their lives. Just the basic food > > and housing alone consumes land, destroys habitats for animals, > > destroys rain forests, etc. > > China and India have huge populations which are making strides toward > > a western style middle class lifestyle. If we think there is a > > problem now with pollution and greenhouse gasses, wait until the more > > than 1 billion people in China and India start buying cars and other > > modern conveniences at the same rate as Americans . . . .
> Populations do have a way of eventually "sorting themselves out" > although plague and war and errant asteroids are probably not at the top > of anyone's "to do" list.
Well, yes, populations "sort themselves out" through tragedies such as famine, plague, etc. But I would rather there be fewer babies to start with.
The truth is, the planet is more than capable
> - right now - of sustaining the population it has, and what is coming > for the foreseeable future. My biggest fear (unfolding before our eyes) > is that we are set on a course for "The New Feudalism": a very few > people owning most of the world's resources, while most of us just wok > on their property until we get sick and die, all with very little social > flexibility or a chance for human contemplation. We have got to "spread > the world's wealth" a lot more equitably, and slowly ease huge > corporations out of the mix.
What's the likelihood? Almost nil I think.
> So you combine all that pointless greed/drive to control with the short > sighted management that IS capitalism, and you've got a recipe for an > ugly future.
> dmh-
Yes, of course it is unfair if a few people or corporations or nations have a near monopoly on natural resources and wealth. However, IMO here is the dilemma: as we try to make the world's resources more democratic and share things more equitably, this will "cause" better health care, more access to food and housing, more desire to use the earth's resources, etc. The bottom line is people will live longer and will use more and more and more of the earth's resources, spreading pollution, destroying ecological systems, using land previously reserved for animals, making certain species extinct, etc.
In my opinion, China is a perfect example of this scary trend. It's no secret that as American manufacturing has declined and as American jobs have disappeared, the Chinese have been "taking over." A large per centage of toys, clothes and other items purchased in the US are made in China. And the Chinese have 1 billion people happy to oblige making plastic toys and other cheap plastic things.
I read a frightening article just the other day . . . I forget the magazine. National Geographic???
Where does all this plastic go? Well according to this article, China and other Asian nations have been dumping huge quantities of plastic waste into the ocean. And because it is plastic, it lasts a long long time. It doesn't melt and it doesn't disappear for years. At best it breaks up into small pieces and floats around and the currents take it to in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Now all this trash is carried from from China and far from dense human population areas, but the birds don't know and don't care. So when baby birds see something floating on the surface of the water, they think it's food, and they eat it, or perhaps they eat a fish and also swallow a small piece of plastic that is floating nearby. And after a while, they die. IIRC the article mentioned that some baby bird populations are dying at a rate of about 40% or more.
It's an ecological disaster. And I think humans are foolish to think that all of this won't eventually come home.
|
