Joined: Oct 07, 2003
Posts: 19087
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
Posted:
Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:34 am
Well MG, no worries, you are much more active on this board than I am. You'll have more chances to be nice here.
_________________ Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2008 Presidential election!
sushil_yadav Newbie
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 13
Location: India
Posted:
Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:31 am
MockingGods wrote:
SvZurich wrote:
Welcome Sushil! :)
Damnit Kimmy, you keep reminding me how poorly mannered I am.
Sorry Sushil, I should have welcomed you first before jumping your case... so a big belated
welcome
:!:
Edit: Partly in my defence I thought that first post was spam and didn't really expect a responce.
Thank you, MockingGods.
It is a fact that I have posted in many forums - but it is not random posting. I have always tried to search for forums that are relevant to my article - and I have also managed to engage in discussion in some of the forums.
sushil_yadav
Cygnus Graduate Thinker
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 581
Location: Caught Somewhere in Time
Posted:
Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:58 am
MockingGods wrote:
Cygnus wrote:
It is impossible to kill water. Water never leaves earth. It stays here in some form or another.
Technically, it is possible to split the water molecule into is constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen, and not return them to its compound state. This of course, isn't what our friend here is talking about
What I was getting at was that it is impossible to kill something that is not living. And yes, what Sushil was talking about has more to do with waste and poor conservation but my point was that water does not simply disappear from the face of the earth like that.
Eon The Learned
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 182
Location: Nottingham, England
Posted:
Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:34 pm
Cygnus wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
Cygnus wrote:
It is impossible to kill water. Water never leaves earth. It stays here in some form or another.
Technically, it is possible to split the water molecule into is constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen, and not return them to its compound state. This of course, isn't what our friend here is talking about
What I was getting at was that it is impossible to kill something that is not living. And yes, what Sushil was talking about has more to do with waste and poor conservation but my point was that water does not simply disappear from the face of the earth like that.
What happens to water supplies taken into space then?
_________________ By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
For several decades environmentalists have been warning modern society that ecosystems are getting destroyed - that consumerist lifestyle is not sustainable.
But modern society which was busy chasing progress, growth and development did not listen. It refused to believe there was any environmental crisis or problem. It said science and technology will always find a solution - if earth gets destroyed we will move on to another planet.
Impossible dreams were sold to people in the name of science and technology.
Moving to another planet would probably rank as the most impossible of all impossible things.
One space shuttle exploded during take off - another exploded on the return journey.
So far man has not been able to go beyond the moon. There is no other life sustaining ecosystem/ planet within the solar system. Outside the solar system planets and galaxies are millions of light years away - billions of light years away.
Space is too much of a distance for us to get past our own solar system, much less move to another "earth like" planet, even if we did find one. We know of no material that could withstand the going beyond the speed of light, that we could build a ship from. In addition, not only would we have to go faster than the speed of light, but thousands, if not 10s of thousands of times faster, to make it worthwhile. That simply is science fiction.
HAVING SAID THAT, I think it is humanly possible however, over several generations, to colonize Mars. That however, is a bleak prospect at this point because the collective species, right now, is more concerned with political and religious tribal fighting over the globe, that such practical things such as our collective future are not on the front burner.
There is a false attack on global warming. Calling it a fallacy, misses the point that pollution, even if global warming was not caused by man, pollution affects all climates. If your toilet is clogged and backed up, does it matter if it is on the north pole or the equator?
I think right now, before we can think about colonizing Mars, we need to get our collective heads out of our asses as a species and work on our priorities.
PTP The Learned
Joined: Dec 04, 2008
Posts: 163
Location: Aussie
Posted:
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:39 pm
ahem, welcome Sushill...
This slow-retoric is old reactionary repacked as new. (and there's nothing wrong with it IMHO) However;
We already live in a post industrial society. Urbanisation is as inevitable as agriculture was.
Technology is not the problem, *bad* (outdated, inappropriate, badly managed/deployed etc.) technology is.
e.g. Cities are being retrofitted as we speak - building owners and professionals have been working on this for years. Sustainable architecture is no longer cutting edge. Cost and viability driving this and it improves marketability!
We're destroying the environment? So did the last iceage!
Sadly, cost & security drives all. If it becomes costly to have offspring, this will drive down populations. (this is what happens in mature cities BTW).
Interesting discussion. Peace out.
_________________ "The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence in Jerusalem of a mental asylum." T.Paine
]frothy/scaleless/random/causeless/purpose-free[^]emergent/self.directed/inherrent'order/unbounded/lumpy[
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:49 am
Welcome back Sushil
sushil_yadav wrote:
But modern society which was busy chasing progress, growth and development did not listen. It refused to believe there was any environmental crisis or problem. It said science and technology will always find a solution - if earth gets destroyed we will move on to another planet.
Your point here is well taken. We've been basically brainwashed into believing that "growth" is sustainable and good. If growth means an increase in the rate at which we consume actual resources (and it almost always does) it certainly isn't sustainable; there's an upper limit to the amount of resources realistically available to us. Also, the closer we get to that limit the more damage we inflict on our environment and I think it's rather obvious we've already done plenty of damage. I was watching a recent episode of Bill Maher, where Bill asked his panel something to the affect, "Why do we always need growth? Why can't we just reach a good level of living and stabilize." (that's a very rough paraphrase). I was impressed with Bill, not many brooch the taboo issue of "growth" as perhaps not a "good" thing. Needless to say, the economist on the panel was very put off by Bill's question.
I think our species has fantastic potential, even the potential to colonize other planets, but sadly, because of this phase we're currently undergoing (what you call "consumerist") we may never reach that potential. I think our species came to technology before it was ready for it. Not that technology is bad, but we weren't socially mature enough to handle the changes it brought and continues to bring. In some respects I think your overall theme here is fairly correct. While I do believe technology can and has solved many of our problems, I don't think it will be able to outpace our false desire for growth. I don't envision a positive ending for this phase of consumerism, even though we may, as a species, survive it. Only time will tell.
sushil_yadav Newbie
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 13
Location: India
Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:25 am
PTP wrote:
ahem, welcome Sushill...
We already live in a post industrial society. Urbanisation is as inevitable as agriculture was.
Technology is not the problem, *bad* (outdated, inappropriate, badly managed/deployed etc.) technology is.
Interesting discussion. Peace out.
PTP,
Thanks for your post. I want to say a few things about Industrialization.
We are alive because of ecosystems - we owe our very existence to ecosystems.
Industrial Society has destroyed most ecosystems within a span of 250 years after Industrial Revolution.
Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured, repaired, restored or regenerated by MultiNational Companies in industries and factories.
Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.
These are contradictory terms – these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green – it is impossible.
You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.
When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land
- directly or indirectly.
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems -
all
Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.
It hardly matters whether it is
"Capitalist Industrial Society"
-
"Communist Industrial Society"
- or
"Socialist Industrial Society".
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.
Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.
Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted. Industry kills Water.
Industries/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel - and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.
Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.
When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.
When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.
Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.
We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.
If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things [food, clothing, shelter, and health care] the ecosystems will last longer.
If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.
The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.
This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.
The collapse has already happened for millions of other species. Most of them have been decimated.
Very soon it will be the turn of man to go.
sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav Newbie
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 13
Location: India
Posted:
Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:36 am
MockingGods wrote:
We've been basically brainwashed into believing that "growth" is sustainable and good. If growth means an increase in the rate at which we consume actual resources (and it almost always does)
it certainly isn't sustainable; there's an upper limit to the amount of resources realistically available to us.
Also, the closer we get to that limit the more damage we inflict on our environment and I think it's rather obvious we've already done plenty of damage. I was watching a recent episode of Bill Maher, where Bill asked his panel something to the affect,
"Why do we always need growth?
Why can't we just reach a good level of living and stabilize."
I don't envision a positive ending for this phase of consumerism.
Brian37 wrote:
There is a false attack on global warming. Calling it a fallacy, misses the point that
pollution, even if global warming was not caused by man, pollution affects all climates.
I think right now, before we can think about colonizing Mars, we need to get our collective heads out of our asses as a species and work on our priorities.
MockingGods and Brian37,
thanks for expressing your views.
What is most amazing about the issue of sustainability is the fact that modern society is trying to sustain the unsustainable - it is trying to sustain a consumerist system which has existed for almost zero percent of human existence on earth. The present consumerist lifestyle has existed for about 100 years. If we compare this with the total duration of human existence on earth it comes to almost zero percent.
Economy is a non-issue. Environment is important. Economy will not even exist without environment. Humans will not even exist without environment.
Modern society has plunged to extreme depths of insanity.
Modern society thinks it can be sustainable while it continues producing thousands of consumer goods.
Modern society thinks a peaceul world is possible while it continues to sell billions of tonnes of weapons all over the world.
Modern society thinks cancer can be cured while it continues flooding the ecosystems with thousands of carcinogens.
On a small planet which is just 40,000 km in circumference the first rule of sustainability is
- destroy less.
We destroy ecosystems for food - for clothing - for shelter - and for thousands of consumer goods.
The less we destroy - the more sustainable we are.
The fewer things we make - the more sustainable we are.
On a small planet like earth only a non-consumerist society can be sustainable - only a society that destroys ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter[and health care] can be sustainable.
When something goes wrong with our cars, computers and aeroplanes, we contact the manufacturer to know how they could be repaired - where they could be repaired.
All ecosystems on earth are getting destroyed moment by moment. To repair, restore and regenerate them we need to contact the manufacturer.
But where is the manufacturer of ecosystems? There is no human manufacturer - There are no multiNational Companies that manufactured rivers and oceans, fertile soil, forests, millions of species, millions of members in millions of species, arctic ice and other glaciers.
About 30 years ago most people refused to believe that arctic ice was melting or could melt in future.
Then satellite pictures started appearing and provided proof with "before and after" pictures. People reluctantly accepted that ice was melting - but were still not alarmed. They said it would take hundreds of years - thousands of years for ice to melt to a dangerous level.
If we compare satellite pictures of arctic ice of this year with those taken 30 years ago we would know how alarming the situation is.
Weather is becoming hotter, irregular and unpredictable across the globe. We have lost most of the forests and a large percentage of ice in Arctic region and glaciers elsewhere. Forests and ice have played a major role in regulating wind speed and direction of wind and monsoon/ rain clouds. Weather patterns were fairly constant for thousands of years. All that is changing now. The summer season is no longer the same as before - winters are not the same and monsoon rains are also no longer the same as before.
In the coming years agriculture is going to collapse worldwide due to change and irregularity of weather. Man has already decimated fish in the oceans. There will be nothing left for man to eat. The human species is going to starve to death. Just wait and see what happens in the next two decades.
Every ecosystem is in grave danger. The doomsday scenario is approaching hundreds of times faster than predicted earlier.
The signs - the indicators are already there - the recent climate changes - the extreme weather conditions - droughts, floods, fires, hurricanes and typhoons. The collapse has already happened for millions of other species - they have been decimated. Human collapse is very near - just around the corner.
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:24 am
sushil_yadav wrote:
Very soon it will be the turn of man to go.
A self limiting problem, it would appear. No?
"Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist."
I disagree. Quite the opposite. It is the lack of clear boundaries between human dominated and natural (almost gone) or rehabilitated land use that is the real problem. Who argues that unchecked growth is sustainable? Honestly!
I will grant this, we're not reacting fast enough, as a species.
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
Good vid. However, I wouldn't argue with the IPCC position that man-made global climate change is a reality. It's what we
do
next that matters. Posting banners raises awareness, but then what?
Looking at this guy, sushil, he uses evidence provided by science, technology made possible by the military which in turn uses power and infrastructure provided by the entire developed world...
in order to advocate the end of technological/consumerist civilisation!
The New Dark Age is Nigh!
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:45 pm
iPondR wrote:
It is the lack of clear boundaries between human dominated and natural (almost gone) or rehabilitated land use that is the real problem.
Very well said sir
I might also add that cities can also be far more efficient. The amount of energy wasted sending electricity in power-lines alone is very significant. The further we have to ship things, the higher the resource cost. Rural living generally means having to travel much further to work. The closer things are together, the more efficient they become, in general.
Quote:
Who argues that unchecked growth is sustainable? Honestly!
I honestly think a large percentage of humans believe that unchecked growth is possible without ever considering the reality of the position. How many governments do you hear saying anything but, "growth is good"? China has done this, but only with population. They still believe economic growth is good, and as far as I can tell, economic growth always means increased resource consumption.
Any paradigm that doesn't address a stabilization of consumption isn't sustainable... in my honest opinion. All current economic systems encourage consumptive growth. I can't see a long-lived (as current) human society until this is addressed.
Last edited by MockingGods on Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Good vid. However, I wouldn't argue with the IPCC position that man-made global climate change is a reality. It's what we
do
next that matters. Posting banners raises awareness, but then what?
Looking at this guy, sushil, he uses evidence provided by science, technology made possible by the military which in turn uses power and infrastructure provided by the entire developed world...
in order to advocate the end of technological/consumerist civilisation!
The New Dark Age is Nigh!
I'll second that... good video.
Yeah, anyone that argues against anthropogenic climate change is rejecting the very method that brought us this safer and more comfortable world of technology.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You'll have more chances to be nice here. 
