clapstyx Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 How long is going to take for the global community to band together on this one and implement changes? Will it be a massive evolutionary event?... That would be unfortunate. What did you mean there ? Im not sure of what bit of it you see as unfortunate. There was another post there about "achieving the changes in our lifetime". While I accept that this is a difficult ask it should still be our objective. This next bit has nothing to do with George's intelligence (and i admit also that it it was probably unfair of me to frame this thread with a heading like I did. Remember though that many people consider him to be the leader of the world and as such he has accepted certain responsibilities for defining the direction and the course of the future. I am saying he is incompetant at that). I live in a highly unique place, where everystream has its own unique species of fish. They are called rainbow fish. The reason the are unique is that every year the wet season which engulfs the rainforest flushes the streams in a deluge and so every year around 85% of the population is lost. Inevitably the survivors interbreed amplifying minute differences over a period of around 50 million years. I was wondering if anyone thinks that may be the case for us ? That if our climate becomes seasonally unstable and extreme (relevent to how we have adapted so far) that we may evolve not just physically but also that the survival mindset might also evolve..and so creating the equivalent of a new religion based on how to positively increase the chances of a better existence in harmony with the cycles and parameters of nature and aided by the knowledge of the mistakes we made in the past..determined not to go down that path again. If you look at indigenous cultures that have survived 50,000 years or so, and I have, they are always planning ahead and minimising the environmental sacrifice. The seed they drop in a rainforest clearing this year will bear fruit in 10. Dont throw the baby out with the bath water with what they know because they have the base logic sorted out well enough to allow us to become (what was at that time) a future possibility. Because I can trace evolution over a course of millions of years in my own backyard and comprehend the course of the past I can reapply the logic in a forward direction. Can we at least agree that we should be creating the possibility of a complete solution..as perfect as we are capable of imagining..that deals with all of the issues..and solves them with the best solutions we can come up with. I dont mean as nations but as humans. Forget the fact that we have national boundaries altogether and take a world view. In theory, for instance, how might it be possible to correct the fact that consumption of office paper is globally 40 times greater than what the environment is capable of supplying. If we can solve that then at least the rate of forest evaporation will drastically decrease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Wow, Faith! :( 28 hectares!!!! :( Shame on you! :( I don't find your points of criticism all that relevant, what's relevant is your footprint, even if you can't choose much differently about some of the things. If you use a lot of electricity you are contributing to the use of resources for producing it. What isn't precise is that they don't ask how many kWh or cubic metres of water but that wouldn't make for most people answering on the fly. One of their FAQs is about how precise the results are. P. S. I realized I had answered wrongly about public transportation because I hadn't read it as being distance travelled weekly. I'm currently borderline around 300 km a week. Altogether I'm more toward 2.7 hectares and 1.5 planets. Oooops!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 How long is going to take for the global community to band together on this one and implement changes? Will it be a massive evolutionary event?... That would be unfortunate.What did you mean there ? Im not sure of what bit of it you see as unfortunate. Good post, clapstyx, and nice clarification on the intended subject of the thread. Let me try to explain what I meant. We know it's bad. We can make changes, but must do so collectively. If we don't, a mass extinction event will occur and we have no idea of the potential scale of such an event. It would be very unfortunate if, knowing this ahead of time, we still did nothing. We can't just give up... decide not to try to correct the issues together. Hiding our heads in the sand like an ostrich will not protect us from ourselves. It would be unfortunate if it took such a large scale global event (as the potential one to which I referred above) in order to make people see the bigger picture and take personal responsibility for change. There was another post there about "achieving the changes in our lifetime". While I accept that this is a difficult ask it should still be our objective...<...>... Can we at least agree that we should be creating the possibility of a complete solution..as perfect as we are capable of imagining..that deals with all of the issues..and solves them with the best solutions we can come up with. I whole-heartedly second that point. I dont mean as nations but as humans. Forget the fact that we have national boundaries altogether and take a world view.How about you go one step further... Not as humans, but as Earthlings. Cheers. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 some very altruistic goals have been proposed here. unfortunately, the truth is that all human beings usually act in their own interest and to hell with everyone else. just a couple of questions: 1. how do you get selfish, overconsuming Americans to give up their comfortable lifestyle? 2. how do you get 1 billion Chinese who are just coming out of centuries of poverty to give up their chance at a better lifestyle? 3. how do you get millions of poor Indians to do the same? 4. how do you get millions of militant muslims to give up their desire to kill infidels? 5. how do you get consevatives to cooperate with liberals? in the world....There Is No CONSENSUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 in the world....There Is No CONSENSUS.Then, if that truly is the case, and if people who think like you are the majority, then... There is no hope. ...and I refuse to believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 if you think i am wrong... why not tell it the way you think it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 if you think i am wrong... why not tell it the way you think it is?We evolve each day... physically as a species as well as internally as a self. While there are opposite ends of any spectrum (two sides to every coin, yin to every yang...), it's still the same spectrum. I believe that there is SOME consensus... not NONE as you suggested. More and more people are respecting and understanding our impacts with each passing moment, and by joining together are beginning to piece together solutions. As could be potentially ascertained from my previous post, the one to which you were responding, I think it is hopeful as more people share their ideas and thoughts... I think it's what we make of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 where do you find consensus? perhaps with the Germans and French and the US about Iraq? perhaps the Israelis and Palestine over the Hamas win in the recent election? maybe the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese? maybe North Korea and the US? Iran and the world about their nuclear efforts? Republicans and Democrats about affirmative action, abortion, school vouchers, education, healthcare, same sex marriage? Japan and the US about Tuna fishing in our territorial waters? Mexico and the US about illegal immigration?my typing finger is tired, or i could give you a thousand more. do you have any examples about consensus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 where do you find consensus? perhaps with the Germans and French and the US about Iraq? perhaps the Israelis and Palestine over the Hamas win in the recent election? maybe the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese? maybe North Korea and the US? Iran and the world about their nuclear efforts? Republicans and Democrats about affirmative action, abortion, school vouchers, education, healthcare, same sex marriage? Japan and the US about Tuna fishing in our territorial waters? Mexico and the US about illegal immigration?my typing finger is tired, or i could give you a thousand more. do you have any examples about consensus?You know, I've answered most of the questions you've posed, questor, and you just pose more. The questions are loaded and usually have multiple answers. Or, they are phrased in such a way that the answer is implied, and if the person responding says something contrary to the implied point, you fire back with other tangential and not necessarily related questions. Your questions also demonstrate your beliefs, which are fine... I just don't happen to agree with many of them. I choose not to spend energy with these loaded questions any more today. Maybe another time... Cheers. :cocktail: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Realistically though: Researcher: Pollution Limits Sun in China China's skies have darkened over the past 50 years, possibly due to haze resulting from a nine-fold increase in fossil fuel emissions, according to researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy. The researchers, writing in this month's edition of Geophysical Research Letters, found that the amount of solar radiation measured at more than 500 stations in China fell from 1954 to 2001 despite a decrease in cloud cover. "Normally, more frequent cloud-free days should be sunnier and brighter but this doesn't happen in our study," said Yun Qian of the energy department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington state. "The pollution (that) resulted from human activity may have created a haze which absorbs and deflects the sun's rays," Qian, the study's lead author, said in an e-mail interview Friday. Air pollution is widespread in China. Antiquated factories billow smoke, many residents still use coal to heat their centuries-old houses, and a sharp increase in car ownership has bathed the motorways in exhaust fumes. More.... China is totally exempt from Kyoto as well so they don't even need to participate on emmissions trading. Companies can effectively move production to China with no loss of their emmissions allotment. As it is now new coal fired plants in China and India are eating up Kyoto gains elsewhere. If China doesn't want to reduce emmissions then what should the world do about it? Secondly, how is this Bush's fault? There's a lot of his actions I don't particularly agree with but I'm having a hard time finding fault with Bush for the actions of other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 no problem, i'm just showing the lack of consensus worldwide. maybe someone else will show examples of worldwide cooperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 no problem, i'm just showing the lack of consensus worldwide. maybe someone else will show examples of worldwide cooperation.There are some... which is more than none. Case closed. Could there me more? Of course, and I hope for it each day. Anyway, this question was not loaded, so here ya go... Please see below: http://www.un.org/http://www.gcs-ngo.org/http://www.tofgc.com/http://www.web.net/acgc/http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/aussenpolitik/vn/index_htmlhttp://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/eng/international_programs/grad_programs/gcp/index.shtmlhttp://www.youthforum.org/en/our_work/global3.html I think the adminstrators would be pretty upset with the amount of space I am using if I were to put them all... plus, it'd take too long... but I'm pretty sure I've made my point that there are some... http://topics.developmentgateway.org/special/climate-change I seem to be saying this a lot here lately, but don't speak in absolutes unless you can support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clapstyx Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 My brain hurts keeping up with all of these tangents!! lol I liked Infinitenow's idea about having a collective word for our population..a common banner if you like. I obviously prefer "humanity" at the moment because the greater implication is that you can create a list of the ideal virtues that a "subscriber to the creation of humanity" might seek to develop within themselves..to prove their humanity. I am presuming the idea of calling us Earthlings is important to keep open the logical possibility of future Martians? As for consensus that is the toughest thing we have to overcome before all else. To the best of my ability to imagine a way forward we have to begin to clarify the things that we all agree upon. What ideals do we commonly subscribe to. From that you can create common threads of humanity and a positive way to go forward. That was what I meant when I suggested that Guiness Book of world records attempt to have as many musicians playing at the same moment in time because I figured that "Global Harmony" was one ideal that was high enough for us all to agree upon. Its creation would do multiple things. The mind is a strange thing in that once you implant the goal settings by defining what it pursues and then confirming this with a physical action it will begin to work on it subconsciously. In this case it would lead to more people working on the same thing..in their own interests and also in the collective identical interest. The publicity (and this is my personal interest) will also save the worlds oldest forest. Some genius decided the best course of progress was to turn it into a residential estate..even though we have plenty of much more suitable land. If I had my way I suppose I would call a meeting of the heads of religion (where their nominated representitive for the debate could be no older than 40) and work out what they agree upon, what their gripes are etc and try to create a bit more consensus at that level. Im not going to take sides here but I am guessing that the Muslim faith does actually have legitimate reasons for being upset but the Western media does not like to allow that into our consciousness. I think we would be better off..ideally..having a live telecast of a heads of religion meeting and have the truth on the table for us to judge in full fairness which line of reasoning is most compatible with a long term future. Have it rexplained what the logic is so that we can all understand our world from the same point. I dont think we would argue about too many of the important points. Sure the Jews and the Christians are going to split hairs on the resurrection but after 2000 years surely that is a waste of time..even Christ would think it stupid! I know religion and politics should normally be avoided but I have another tangent here that is sort of relevant. If we were serious about sorting out the environment the first and most useful thing to do, that could be done anytime we like, would be to ban all forms of advertising. Thats only if we are serious though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 China is totally exempt from Kyoto as well so they don't even need to participate on emmissions trading.So are the US exempt, by choice of Clinton and Bush. It's obvious that emmissions trading presupposes there being limits. If China doesn't want to reduce emmissions then what should the world do about it?The world should do quite a lot about it. Inroads are already being made, despite the difficulty. Now that China has caught up as an industrial and economic power it, like India, wants to begin having its own role and that does give negotiating force to others if it is carried out properly. All that's lacking is agreement between these others. China has America and a few others to side with, in calling for the trading scheme. Secondly, how is this Bush's fault?Who said that China is Bush's fault? Not that we all have set them the best example to follow, but that isn't putting blame just on Bush. The point is that Bush, or Clinton before him, haven't been doing the most about the whole thing. China, India or other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clapstyx Posted January 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 China is certainly not mostly Bush's fault (mostly its the fault of the Chinese). The issue that I see with China is that as western influence over their culture increases its existing culture that has kept them as a "controlled mass" will diminish and this opens the door for a situation that even if their government attempted to bring in controls that favoured reduced economic output along sustainability lines they may not be able to. Once you get addicted to cashflow and commodities your kind of hooked. Western culture connects self esteem with possessions and really there will probably have to become a time when this is inverted so that waste or overconsumption is considered in a disrespectful light. I know of cultures where you would get a spear through the leg for taking more fish than you need because you are being wasteful of a common resource. These cultures learned the lesson the hard way and thats why it became such a serious issue. You put the welfare of the group in jeopardy by being selfish and disrespectful and so a harsh punishment is delivered. I am not suggesting that western culture will go to that extreme any time soon but I do think that as resources diminish companies that waste resources on crap and consumers that buy it will be held in a lower position of regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 infinite now, thanks for the list of organizations looking for donations to make the world a better place. if you get time, how about making a list of actual accomplishments by these organizations.. just because they have written down some high sounding mission statements doesn't mean they have accomplished anything. do you know which of these groups are running a scam? if it wasn't for the US, the UN would not exist. it is a collection of dead beat countries that rely upon the US for a place to meet and money to provide goodies for their diplomats. there is definitely no consensus here.it would help to look a little deeper into what these organizations actually accomplish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 So are the US exempt, by choice of Clinton and Bush. It's obvious that emmissions trading presupposes there being limits.As they should be until no one is exempt. The world should do quite a lot about it. Inroads are already being made, despite the difficulty. Now that China has caught up as an industrial and economic power it, like India, wants to begin having its own role and that does give negotiating force to others if it is carried out properly. All that's lacking is agreement between these others. China has America and a few others to side with, in calling for the trading scheme.My point was that we cannot force them to do anything or any of the other countries that are doing as they please regardless of environmental effect. Who said that China is Bush's fault? The OP impled as much with the title of this thread. Some people just want to point fingers at someone even if they really have no individual control to cause a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.