Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

You must be the change you want to see in the world
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun May 7 23:08:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  alt energy, back to nature, organic farming.

also amish people.

any help in pushing me to any really good links, lecturers, college courses, dvds, books, etc.

anything would help


 
choke Posted: Mon May 8 00:37:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sigh. It's going to explode anyway.


 
Posted: Mon May 8 01:37:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You know I can't resist a good chance to linktoss. I'll gather my best stuff, and regroup.

You might not be happy with it, but if you're dedicated, you'll learn from it.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon May 8 01:50:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I read this thing over the weekend, that if you hate the exploitive tactics of gas/oil companies, it's not enough to just ride bikes or unicycles or take public transportation, that if it's January, you should not get tomatoes or summer produce from any grocery, unless it's canned. The theory behind this is that the amount of gas used by trucks, trains, and planes is more than a quick trip to the store. That the total waste is greater from all everything from shipping and packaging. That makes sense to me.


 
Posted: Mon May 8 02:10:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, let's start with the title. It's a quote from Gandhi, so naturally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
Why Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: http://nobelprize.org/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html

And on a completely different route, I see this as a possible struggle between self-determination and fatalism/determinism. And being an existentialist, naturally, I want to recommend the following:

Soren Kierkegaard's "Philosophical Fragments", and his "Concluding Unscientific Postscript": http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691020361 and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691020817
; 1050 pages between the two of them, but if you're really dedicated to making a change in yourself, that's where you start. Of course, there are summaries available. If I'm bored enough later in the summer, maybe I can be convinced to scan/fax my personal notes.

Oh, for a much quicker read: Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/041331300X
(or, the extremely extremely abridged/summarized version found here: http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/sartre.htm )

The long and the short of the existentialist contribution to this discussion: You are what you make yourself to be. If you take yourself to be a person with no free will, you will not will strongly enough to make change in the world. You will instead place blame. If you are, however, one who takes it upon themselves to be responsible, to have "good faith" to their own free will, you will find yourself making change whether you like it or not.

This is why I am not religious: because more often than not, the religious person will account for things as "God's Will", and not, say, their own inability to do something. So, they take bad things as natural, and never correct their own faults. Never learn from their mistakes because they don't believe in mistakes. Pish tosh.

Links of university courses/lectures that you may or may not find interesting, and that may or may not be on this wavelength whatsoever:
MIT/Johns Hopkins/Utah State Open Courseware Finder: http://opencontent.org/ocwfinder/

UC Berkeley's Open Course Podcasts: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/feeds.php ; a favourite is Existentialism in Literature: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/rss/archive.php?seriesid=1906978306
(you'll need an RSS validator to run this - it makes lectures {like the most recent one, here http://webcast.berkeley.edu/media/s2006/phil7/phil7_2006-01-19.mp3 } run like buttah)

Oh! A big favourite of mine is MIT's Open Courseware ( http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/all-courses.htm ); has lecture notes and whatnot from a tonne of classes. Decades ago, people would pay hundreds of thousands for this kind of knowledge. The Philosophy/Linguistics Department (headed by a Noam Chomsky some of you might be familiar with): http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/all-courses.htm#LinguisticsandPhilosophy

Well, that's all for now. Have fun!


 
libra Posted: Mon May 8 03:24:35 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  some fun (kinda) stuff i read for Controlling Processes this year:

Who Owns Water? by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/barlow

The War Business by Chalmers Johnson
http://www.wesjones.com/business.htm

Barriers to Thinking New About Energy by Laura Nader (my professor)
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-34/iss-2/vol34no2page9-104.pdf



 
beetlebum Posted: Mon May 8 04:08:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>Barriers to Thinking New About Energy by Laura Nader (my professor)

That is so awesome. Berkeley has all the best professors, I swear.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 07:12:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  On a somewhat related note I find it interesting that Brazil is fast becoming (or already is) energy independant due to a program they started years ago of using ethanol in their gas pumps.
60 Minutes aired a very good segment on the possibilities, and obsticles, if we headed more in that direction. Of course the mega oil companies aren't so keen on the idea. Their solution? Drill for more oil.

It's amazing what a country can do when they put their minds to it.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon May 8 09:08:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Prez: "We'r addikted to oil. Let's go git more!"

Some of the painfulness at the gas station is from a switchover to more ethanol based fuel from a measured that was passed late last year/early this year, so that's not entirely bad, right? I mean, right?


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 10:58:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  thanks crim! *heart*

i've taken such a long break away from philosophy.

okay let me explain what i'm out to do so that gt may laugh and scorn me even more.

I'm actually going to be starting an alternative community, not now but in a few years. i will pull together several organic farmers with land and there will be a back to the land movement... there will be indoor plumbing but everything will be run on a barter system. there will be no real machines: no tv, computer, anything of that sort. very amish-like. there won't be outside contact,
outside contact would ruin the haven. only elders and counsel memebers would have access to things of that nature. i do not expect a very large group of people. there will be a community of teachers, farmers, carpenters, weavers, blacksmiths, and everyday families to help the farmers when they need help harvesting or carpenters with barnraising.
the benefit of this community would be to begin the back to the earth movement while there is still earth to move back to.... the way we run our lives these days is so wasteful. it draws family and people together instead of further apart like modern lifestyles tend to do. it isn't to change/save the world. it's to enjoy nature and perserve while there is still a way to own stretches of land and protect it. we would only farm the land we need, leaving the rest for forest and animal preservation.

the children will have knowledge of that outside world and an option to leave at 21. they will be taught the basics: math, reading, science, history. for the children who do wish to leave there will be restrictions about what is allowed to be said and brought. and if they wish to return with their families there will be an obvious debriefing. it's not religious like the amish, there will not be an exclusion of anyone of a religious background. but there will not be preaching of any sort. that isn't nice to shove religion on others.

i want there to be a closer relationship with the earth and people. restoring the old ways of living.

i'm going to try and become the change i wish to see. i know i have the ability to lead if i only had the skills and knowledge. right now i'm going to work on building skills and knowledge.

thanks for reading that big ass long winded explaination. please don't laugh too hard at me. i can hear you from here......

;p

and for those wondering - i'm wiccan.

crazy hippie....


 
Posted: Mon May 8 11:10:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cherry_Moon said:
>thanks crim! *heart*
>
>i've taken such a long break away from philosophy.
>
>okay let me explain what i'm out to do so that gt may laugh and scorn me even more.
>
>I'm actually going to be starting an alternative community, not now but in a few years. i will pull together several organic farmers with land and there will be a back to the land movement... there will be indoor plumbing but everything will be run on a barter system. there will be no real machines: no tv, computer, anything of that sort. very amish-like. there won't be outside contact,
>outside contact would ruin the haven. only elders and counsel memebers would have access to things of that nature. i do not expect a very large group of people. there will be a community of teachers, farmers, carpenters, weavers, blacksmiths, and everyday families to help the farmers when they need help harvesting or carpenters with barnraising.
> the benefit of this community would be to begin the back to the earth movement while there is still earth to move back to.... the way we run our lives these days is so wasteful. it draws family and people together instead of further apart like modern lifestyles tend to do. it isn't to change/save the world. it's to enjoy nature and perserve while there is still a way to own stretches of land and protect it. we would only farm the land we need, leaving the rest for forest and animal preservation.
>
>the children will have knowledge of that outside world and an option to leave at 21. they will be taught the basics: math, reading, science, history. for the children who do wish to leave there will be restrictions about what is allowed to be said and brought. and if they wish to return with their families there will be an obvious debriefing. it's not religious like the amish, there will not be an exclusion of anyone of a religious background. but there will not be preaching of any sort. that isn't nice to shove religion on others.
>
>i want there to be a closer relationship with the earth and people. restoring the old ways of living.
>
>i'm going to try and become the change i wish to see. i know i have the ability to lead if i only had the skills and knowledge. right now i'm going to work on building skills and knowledge.


I'll notify M. Night Shamalayan immediately.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 11:27:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  choke said:
>Sigh. It's going to explode anyway.




















the optimism is just scary.
i mean people stop being so god$%&* cheerful!

"well, the world's going to end.... might as well rape and pillage what's left"


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 11:33:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>I'll notify M. Night Shamalayan immediately.

*cringe*


 
beetlebum Posted: Mon May 8 11:47:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:

>
>I'll notify M. Night Shamalayan immediately.

lol! That's exactly what I was thinking, which then made me think of the "history of the colour red." SO GOOD.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 11:52:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  now i'm crying digital tears Aeon


 
choke Posted: Mon May 8 12:16:35 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cherry_Moon said:
>choke said:
>>Sigh. It's going to explode anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>the optimism is just scary.
>i mean people stop being so god$%&* cheerful!
>
>"well, the world's going to end.... might as well rape and pillage what's left"

I didn't mean it in a not-cheerful way.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 12:22:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I read this thing over the weekend, that if you hate the exploitive tactics of gas/oil companies, it's not enough to just ride bikes or unicycles or take public transportation, that if it's January, you should not get tomatoes or summer produce from any grocery, unless it's canned. The theory behind this is that the amount of gas used by trucks, trains, and planes is more than a quick trip to the store. That the total waste is greater from all everything from shipping and packaging. That makes sense to me.
>
Taken from Newsbusters:

Shocking News From NPR: Oil Companies Aren't Gouging Consumers After All
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 8, 2006 - 09:48.
For months, the media have blamed virtually anything but free market forces for the rise in oil and gas prices. NBC’s Lisa Myers attributed these increases to greed on a recent Nightly News report stating almost disgustedly “Exxon earned 9.5 cents on every dollar of gasoline and oil sold, cashing in at every stage of the process.”

Imagine the nerve of ExxonMobil actually making a profit. Oh the humanity.

A few days earlier, CBS’s Russ Mitchell, clearly concerned about price gouging, asked one of his guests on the Evening News, “How easy is it for a gas station, for an oil company to just jack up the price of gas?"

I bet you can’t guess the response.

Yet, in the midst of all this hysteria, a highly unlikely source – National Public Radio’s Internet website – published an article entitled “Q&A: What’s Behind High Gas Prices?” In it, author Scott Horsley adroitly cut through the hype, and shared with his readers the facts surrounding the recent explosion in energy prices – facts that most media refuse to share with the public.

First, Horsley did a breakdown of how various factors go into the actual retail price per gallon of gasoline. Top on the list was crude oil, which, according to Horsley, “accounts for about $1.60” of the currently $2.90 national average. Next, “Refining costs add another 64 cents or so to a gallon of gasoline.”

Then, Horsley raised a cost that few media are willing to acknowledge: “The balance of the price is taxes -- about 55 cents.”

Oil companies pay taxes? I thought none of Bush and Cheney’s friends pay taxes.

Well, we’ll get to that later. But, before we do, using Horsley’s numbers, $2.79 out of the $2.90 that folks are currently paying for a gallon of gasoline are oil companies’ costs.

That’s certainly not the way most media are presenting these numbers, for on the same day Horsley’s article was published, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas started her World News Tonight broadcast: "Tonight, the world's largest oil company reports record profits as Senators look for ways to save Americans pennies at the pump." She continued: “We begin with the rising oil pressure in the United States, fast becoming the country's economic and political priority.”

Rather than address all of the various expenses involved in producing gasoline in this segment, ABC chose to castigate ExxonMobil for not spending enough.

Leave it to a media member to see things in such a backwards fashion.

Correspondent Betsy Stark asserted: “But according to the company's own financial statement, last year only 30 percent of the oil giant's $36 billion in profits went to exploration and increasing capacity.” Stark then had the gall to complain about what ExxonMobil did with its profits: “15 percent of profits went directly to shareholders in the form of cash dividends, and the biggest chunk, 40 percent, was used to repurchase Exxon's own stock."

Are you kidding me? ExxonMobil actually shared some of its profits with the people that own the company? There oughta be a law!

Yet, apart from addressing any of ExxonMobil’s almost $74 billion in expenses in the first quarter, ABC also chose not to report the $7 billion in income taxes – I promised we get back to this – the oil giant paid to the federal government. In fact, as the Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes pointed out at NewsBusters.org that same day, ExxonMobil’s total tax bill in the first quarter – when factoring in income taxes, excise taxes, and “other taxes” – was $25 billion, or fully three times its profits.

We certainly wouldn’t want to report that now, would we?

Finally, Stark chose not to inform the viewer that shareholders received a total of $2 billion in dividends – representing a paltry two percent yield based on the current share price, which is less than what one can make in a money market account or certificate of deposit – or less than one tenth what the government made from ExxonMobil in the quarter.

That’s right – the government actually made more than ten times as much money from ExxonMobil as its shareholders. Capitalism at it’s finest, wouldn’t you agree?

Not to be shut out of the oil company bashing, the NBC Nightly News also lead with oil prices that evening. Correspondent Lisa Myers began her report: “For outraged consumers, the staggering profit numbers boil down to this: Exxon earned 9.5 cents on every dollar of gasoline and oil sold, cashing in at every stage of the process." Unlike NPR, Myers opted not to explain what happenend to the other 90.5 cents, or to address the tax issue. How convenient.

On the same day, the CBS Evening News began its newscast: “Gas prices are still going up, and so are profits for ExxonMobil.” Anchor Bob Schieffer was only interested in discussing the $8.4 billion in profits made by America’s largest oil company rather than informing his viewers of all the other expenses involved in producing and marketing a gallon of gasoline.

Of course, the greed of oil companies and their executives is only one cause of high energy prices according to the media. Another has been price gouging. A fine example occurred on the April 25 CBS Evening News. Sitting in for Bob Schieffer was Russ Mitchell who invited New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer on to discuss this issue. Mitchell began by asking, “How easy is it for a gas station, for an oil company to just jack up the price of gas?” Spitzer was the perfect person to ask, and quickly answered, “Very easy.”

Yet, NPR didn’t agree. According to Horsley’s article, “The government has conducted numerous investigations of suspected ‘price gouging’ in the past; it usually finds that market forces of supply and demand, not illegal market manipulation, are responsible for high prices.”

NPR also addressed what actually controls the price of oil: “Oil companies don't set crude-oil prices; the global market does. Basically, the market decides what people are willing to pay at a certain moment in time.”

Not surprisingly, this isn’t how most media members see it. For instance, on April 30’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert actually argued with secretary of energy Samuel Bodman that oil companies were responsible for establishing the price of gas: “They determine, they determine, help determine the price at the pump.”

Not according to NPR: “…if oil companies could control the price of crude oil, they would not have allowed the price to fall to $10 a barrel as it did in 1998.” Horsley offered a great analogy: “Oil companies, like the farmer, are the beneficiaries of high market prices, but they can no more control those prices than a farmer can dictate what he gets for a bushel of corn.”

Instead, NPR accurately stated that prices are established by market forces in an expanding global economy: “Countries like India and China are growing, and that has created more demand for oil and gas. In the United States, we're still going full throttle when it comes to energy use.”

Horsley also addressed other factors that add to the direction of prices: “At the same time, there have been supply disruptions and political instability in major oil-producing nations. So you have a situation where demand has been growing steadily and inexorably, and the system of supply is quite vulnerable.”

Finally, Horsley accurately depicted why oil companies are making so much money today: “Big oil companies are making most of their money by producing crude oil. They invested in oil fields when prices were much lower, with the expectation that they could break even at, say, $25 per barrel.” Obviously, with prices now above $70, these companies are doing very well:

“It's like a farmer who can raise corn for $1.50 a bushel. If the market price is $1.75, he makes a quarter per bushel. If the market price jumps to $2.25, his profits jump as well.”

Of course, this isn’t a one-way street: “If the market crashes to $1 per bushel, the farmer loses money. That can happen to oil companies as well.” As a result, all this reward comes with a lot of risk, investment, and expense…something it seems that few in the media other than NPR realize.




 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 13:19:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "Imagine the nerve of ExxonMobil actually making a profit. Oh the humanity"


Yeah...that's what ALL the clamour has been about...Exxon daring to make a profit!

Silly statement really. It's about the obscene size of that profit (for all of them), not the profit itself. Especially in light of the fact that millions of Americans are really feeling the pinch in their billfolds. I went to the grocery store this weekend, and brought just a few items really. Basic stuff, and the total came to $102.00. I know for a fact that the rising costs in fuel to transport these items to the store are reflected in the ever growing prices we pay. My salary hasn't been increased to offset all these cost of living increases. Perhaps you're well enough off, Hif, that it doesn't really affect you : )

And does anyone with half a wit really believe the price is going to skyrocket down again to less than $10 a barrel, making it tough times on those poor oil guys again? I just can't see that happening again with the ever increasing demand and the scarcity of a limited supply.

There are some imformative points in the article. I learned by going to the origonal source at NPR that the chances of major price gouging going on are not that likely. Also learning about all the costs incured to produce was important to know.

Perhaps looking at the glass half full this can turn into a good thing. It may get us to start conserving more, and may hasten the development of alternative energy providers....

which scares the shit out of the oil producing nations and companies.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 13:24:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>"Imagine the nerve of ExxonMobil actually making a profit. Oh the humanity"
>
>
>Yeah...that's what ALL the clamour has been about...Exxon daring to make a profit!
>
>Silly statement really. It's about the obscene size of that profit (for all of them), not the profit itself. Especially in light of the fact that millions of Americans are really feeling the pinch in their billfolds. I went to the grocery store this weekend, and brought just a few items really. Basic stuff, and the total came to $102.00. I know for a fact that the rising costs in fuel to transport these items to the store are reflected in the ever growing prices we pay. My salary hasn't been increased to offset all these cost of living increases. Perhaps you're well enough off, Hif, that it doesn't really affect you : )
>
>And does anyone with half a wit really believe the price is going to skyrocket down again to less than $10 a barrel, making it tough times on those poor oil guys again? I just can't see that happening again with the ever increasing demand and the scarcity of a limited supply.
>
Their is no real evidence of a limited supply. Remember the scare in the 70's ?
We have more oil now than we did 40yrs ago.

>There are some imformative points in the article. I learned by going to the origonal source at NPR that the chances of major price gouging going on are not that likely. Also learning about all the costs incured to produce was important to know.
>
You didn't have to go to NPR dude, I believe I tried to 'splain this to you a week or so ago, but to no avail, it was all the fault of the oil companies we have to pay so much at the pumps.

>Perhaps looking at the glass half full this can turn into a good thing. It may get us to start conserving more, and may hasten the development of alternative energy providers....
>
Americans conserve ?
Don't be ridiculous !

>which scares the shit out of the oil producing nations and companies.
>
Screw 'em both


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 13:27:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  how does a thread about organic farming and return tonature become a oil debating thread?


















































































*wanders off puzzled*


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 13:42:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Why would you want to return to nature anyway ?
That was tried many times back in the 70's, didn't work too well then.
What do you think the average life span of someone who lives off the land is ?
Will you allow doctors and antibiotics ?
What about veterinarians ?
Will you have livestock ?
Who will finance the beginnings of this colony ?

You may want to eschew the philosphy books and get to learning an awful lot of survival techniques.

hmm, no electric guitars, no CD's, no DVD's, I'm betting you won't pull this one off.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 13:47:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Their is no real evidence of a limited supply. Remember the scare in the 70's ?
>We have more oil now than we did 40yrs ago.

lol!

And there's no real evidence of global warming going on either!

Okay I will join you in la-la land hif...There's an unlimited supply of oil, and all the pollutants we're spewing into the atmosphere aren't having any negative affects on the earth's temperature...

Hey! I do feel better!



Cherry_Moon said:

>how does a thread about organic farming and return tonature become a oil debating thread?

I say it's Kira's fault.

: )

*hif: It's nature's way of telling us something's wrong..


Geez I'm a stinker today :-)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 14:06:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Their is no real evidence of a limited supply. Remember the scare in the 70's ?
>>We have more oil now than we did 40yrs ago.
>
>lol!
>
>And there's no real evidence of global warming going on either!
>
>Okay I will join you in la-la land hif...There's an unlimited supply of oil, and all the pollutants we're spewing into the atmosphere aren't having any negative affects on the earth's temperature...
>
I wouldn't say it's an unlimited supply, but it's not close to being exhausted yet.
And no, global warming is still nothing more than a theory, disputed by more than enough qualified scientists to make it "just a theory".
We are dumping less pollution into the atmosphere now than in the 60's and 70's.
The earth is much cleaner now than it was when we were young.
We can and will still do better, but we are not causing global warming.
Why can you not believe it is something natural ? The earth has continuously changed since the beginning of time.
Did man cause the last warming trend ?
Did man cause the last ice age ?
What the hell is the matter with you ?
Did you put your shoes on the wrong feet before you went to play tennis ?
I personally think the overabundance of tennis balls is causing global warming.
Fucking tennis players !


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon May 8 14:36:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Will you allow doctors and antibiotics ?

of course. i'm not going psychotic. there will be a place for medicine.

>What about veterinarians ?

of course. animals need medicine too.

>Will you have livestock ?

no cows or pigs. horse, sheep, goats, chickens, ducks.

>Who will finance the beginnings of this colony ?

many will. there will many debates and plans changed and remade. but unlike the young people of today- i'm willing to fight alittle and to work hard.

>You may want to eschew the philosphy books and get to learning an awful lot of survival techniques.

i'm more then happy to learn what is needed to achieve what i want.

>hmm, no electric guitars, no CD's, no DVD's, I'm betting you won't pull this one off.

*laughs so hard i can hardly breathe* honey, i can take or leave electric guitars not really my music to begin with. cds, dvds as well.

i'm not your xbox addicted, pop-rock listening, mcdonald's eating, corporate america driven child ifih.
the things that i love most in life have nothing to do with this modern world.

i understand that i was raised to be hooked and used to these conviences.

don't you dare rip me down because i'm trying to take on something. i've wanted to try this for a long while.

i know it's hard. i know it. i'm not trying to get the country to try it. i want to do it for a small group of people.
















what the fuck is wrong with this country?

let's all tear anyone who wants to try something down!


ifih i love you i really do... and i've taken many things into consideration. so please talk to me like i'm older then 12. thanks.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 14:57:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cherry_Moon said:
>ifih i love you i really do... and i've taken many things into consideration. so please talk to me like i'm older then 12. thanks.
>
I'm trying to, but you're not being very realistic.
Have you even thought about how much this will cost to start up ?
Before you say yes, tell me an amount.
Be realistic.
Tell me what will be involved in the startup. What kind of inventory ?
What state will this commune be in ?
Have you looked at the laws and zoning restrictions ?
You will need lawyers (not exactly the commune types), who will pay them ?
Where will the money come from ?
This will be an issue since every thing will be done on the barter system.

I'm not ripping you down at all, I'm asking real questions that will have to be answered sooner or later, and I don't think you've really thought this one through.
You say you're willing to learn all the skills necessary to get it going.
do you know what these skills are and how long it will take to acquire them ?
Or how much it will cost to acquire them ?



 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 15:23:14 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I wouldn't say it's an unlimited supply, but it's not close to being exhausted yet.

I had no idea you were a geophysical scientist, hif. The things I don't know about you. : )
In fact, there is heated debate on when we will reach peak (maximum oil production). Some say within a year, and others that it's decades away. America peaked it's oil resources back in the 70's, and it will happen elsewhere, especially with china and India now demanding much more than they did even a decade ago.
How close is close to you?

>And no, global warming is still nothing more than a theory, disputed by more than enough qualified scientists to make it "just a theory".

Hmm..now where have I heard that before?...oh yeah..the intelligent design folks tell us evolution is just a theory too. If you don't want to believe in something then it's "just a theory"...and quite easy to dismiss the evidence around us.
Go take a look at what researchers have discovered about the average global temp increase. Take a look at photos of our polar ice caps and major glaciers years ago, and compare them with what we have today...and then come back and tell me it's all just hooey.


>Did man cause the last warming trend ?
>Did man cause the last ice age ?

Were humans dumping huge quantites of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide into the air before the last global warming?

>What the hell is the matter with you ?

well now you just sound like my mother
: )





 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 15:36:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>>Did man cause the last warming trend ?
>>Did man cause the last ice age ?
>
>Were humans dumping huge quantites of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide into the air before the last global warming?
>
No, and they still happened.
What's your point ?


 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 16:49:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>No, and they still happened.
>What's your point ?

lol
Well there's no need to get snippy about it : )

my point is it was a "natural" occurance back then (tens of thousands of years ago?)
Now, since the start of the Industrial Age, we may be either causing it to happen, or at the very least be greatly accelerating the process.
If (and I emphasize if) we get past the point of no return and our global climate continues to change like this, it will set off a chain of events that will cause disasters like mankind has never seen before.
I don't want to be an alarmist, but it just seems to me like the common sense thing to do is work extremely hard at limiting what we put into the air, doing everything we can right now to stop our part in creating this potential catastrophe.
Now!...not 20 years from now, when some scientist says, "If only we had heeded the warnings back at the turn of the 21st century we may have avoided this mess."



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 8 16:56:41 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>No, and they still happened.
>>What's your point ?
>
>lol
>Well there's no need to get snippy about it : )
>
>my point is it was a "natural" occurance back then (tens of thousands of years ago?)
>Now, since the start of the Industrial Age, we may be either causing it to happen, or at the very least be greatly accelerating the process.
>If (and I emphasize if) we get past the point of no return and our global climate continues to change like this, it will set off a chain of events that will cause disasters like mankind has never seen before.
>I don't want to be an alarmist, but it just seems to me like the common sense thing to do is work extremely hard at limiting what we put into the air, doing everything we can right now to stop our part in creating this potential catastrophe.
> Now!...not 20 years from now, when some scientist says, "If only we had heeded the warnings back at the turn of the 21st century we may have avoided this mess."
>
And you don't think we are working to limit what we put in the air ?
Even if we stopped industrialization completely here, how much do you think it would help ? Considering what is being done in China and India ?
Nada, that's how much it would help.

Why are you so sure it's not a natural occurence this time since it's happened naturally before ?


 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 18:50:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>And you don't think we are working to limit what we put in the air ?

I don't think we're doing nearly enough. I don't think this admin is taking it very seriously. I think they're choosing to ignore the limited number of facts obtained over the past few years about what is happening, and focusng on the now instead of the near future. I think they're mostly interested in listening to the lobbyists for big corporations than to the small voices of eco-scientists. And before you flame me back I also blame a lot of democrats for giving it lip service and nothing more....and the apathy of Americans in general for never dealing with a crisis until it's already happened.

>Even if we stopped industrialization completely here, how much do you think it would help ? Considering what is being done in China and India ?

that's the myth about polluting. That it requires stopping "industry". In fact I and others I have heard or read believe that it would actually create business through innovation, entrepreneurship, and new "green" industries, rather than destroy industry. Think about it...instead of continuting the slide into a service based economy here and continuing to ship off all our manufacturing jobs overseas we could give our sick manufactoring base a real shot in the arm.


>Nada, that's how much it would help.

Have to disagree. I think if we made a serious effort to change our ways it would have a very positive affect on the rest of the world, even if China and India continued on the same path. As it is now they all hear us yapping away about it, but when it comes time to act we reject the Kyoto Protocol, we increase our addiction for oil and fossil fuels, and lessen the pollution restrictions on businesses here...and all they see is hypocracy.

>Why are you so sure it's not a natural occurence this time since it's happened naturally before ?

I'm not an earth genius. I'm not sure. But I don't think we should chance it, and I'm damned sure the shit we continuely put in the air isn't good for us, whether it proves to have a direct connection or not to global warming.
Studies already prove that it's caused acid rain, killing our lakes and streams and fish; that it has dramatically increased all sorts of resperatory problems in people like asthma, and god only knows what else we haven't connected to it yet.

It just sounds so unbelievably irresponsible to say, "Well scientists can't prove we're causing global warming right now, so let's just roll the dice and keep doing it."


 
Beep Posted: Mon May 8 19:42:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have to side with addi on this one.
as well as the points he's put forward America is the biggest polluter right now, so America doing as much as it can will help change a lot. not only that but if America can sort out a good infrastructure, changeover technique &c. &c. then it'll mean that when other countries such as china and india decide to change (which i'm sure they will, as i'm also sure america will change eventually, it's just better sooner rather than later) they'll be able to use the blueprints laid out by America for shifting or atleast adapt them. America is always trying to be the leader in everything else, why not be the leader in green power. if nothing else it'd improve your overseas image and relations.
not only that but dependency creates other problems. this weekend there was a big article in my paper about hugo chavez [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez] the reason why countries are taking notice of chavez and venezuela is down to their control of the black stuff. not only that (again!) but what is paying for the militia and army that Bush is getting worried about? he is, through oil.


 
Kira Posted: Mon May 8 19:46:35 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>I say it's Kira's fault.
>

Yes.

I win.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 8 19:54:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>I have to side with addi on this one.

Oh Baby you're going to regret that!

: )

America is about 5% of the world's population. We produce 25% of the world's carbon dioxide.

I suggest people watch a documentary called "Too Hot To Handle". HBO is playing it now for anyone that gets it. It's good because it not only points to the immediate danger signs now happening, but it also spends time on actual solutions and people, businesses, and cities that are doing something right now.



 
misszero Posted: Mon May 8 20:32:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i can understand what you'd like to do, CM, i used to wanna do it too, when i was about your age (oh god, now i really AM old). It is really hard, and i know you're getting lots of negativity, but another question that has to be thrown is in the social aspects, and human nature. Its what makes communism not work in practice (well, in my opinion. i don't have a degree or anything). I got depressed with the idea of relying on other people whose intentions were probaly different than mine etc.
What i decided to do, when i'm super rich from teaching snot-nosed brats how to be good citizens, is buy a piece of land for myself, build my house, and just spend my time with the people i love. There'll be self-sufficiency involved to a degree, but... yeah, i can't farm, i'm genetically pre-disposed to kill any plant i try to cultivate.

but really, you do seem determined, and more power to ya for it. If you're serious and dedicated, no-one really knows what you're capable of acheiving. Some of what you think is negativity on this thread really was realism. you've set yourself a goal that's gonna be fricken hard, that's all.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Tue May 9 01:15:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  misszero said:
>i can understand what you'd like to do, CM, i used to wanna do it too, when i was about your age (oh god, now i really AM old). It is really hard, and i know you're getting lots of negativity, but another question that has to be thrown is in the social aspects, and human nature.

yeah. i think i was being whiny and bratty. i know that it was just people trying to tell me the reality of the situation....

i know i'm young and an idealist- is that fatal? *looks worried*

>but really, you do seem determined, and more power to ya for it. If you're serious and dedicated, no-one really knows what you're capable of acheiving. Some of what you think is negativity on this thread really was realism. you've set yourself a goal that's gonna be fricken hard, that's all.

thanks miss 0, i am determined. i want to learn as much as i can and it is going to be friggin hard. but i want to struggle and fall down. and get discouraged and have issues.

"do you know why we fall?"
"no..."
"so we may learn to pick ourselves up"

but i also want to see myself succeed. to overcome. it may not be as i wish it to be. it may be that i gain insight into something i never thought about before.

i don't know much. that's why i asked for a push in the right direction?! i'm willing, ready, waiting...


 
FN Posted: Tue May 9 04:17:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "I got the idea by smoking a lot of pot"


 
addi Posted: Tue May 9 07:01:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you shouldn't smoke a lot of pot, christophe. It can make you horny.


 
misszero Posted: Tue May 9 09:10:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>"I got the idea by smoking a lot of pot"

well, i can't deny that it played a big part in the beginning of the idea in MY mind a few years back....

"oh man, it'd be so cool, if we could, like... you know, like.... live off the land. like, just... totally... like, just get stuff only from the land.... like... whoah..."

but really, can you imagine what a colony of stoners would be like? its the stuff of hilarity. we have enough trouble remembering stuff like what we were just eating, even if we're still holding it...

yeah, that was a rant that went sideways into irreleventness. sorry 'bout that


 
beetlebum Posted: Tue May 9 10:02:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  misszero said:

>yeah, that was a rant that went sideways into irreleventness.

every now and again i read a sentence i wish i would've said myself. this was one of them. :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 9 10:07:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Living off the land is not that great, that's why we progressed away from it.

It's a nice romantic idea in our heads but in reality, it's backbreaking work, with not much leisure time to enjoy life.
What you're talking about is subsistance farming and being totally dependant on the whims of nature.
You would be dealing with drought, flood, wind damage, and all sorts of plague and blight on your crops.
Remember, no modern things like Sevin dust or diazinon or malathion to keep your crops healthy.
Then in spite of all this you have to make sure you grow enough and ration enough to make it through the cold winters, so during the summer after you've spent all day working in the fields and carrying water, in your spare time, you will be chopping wood for the coming winter.
Since your colony is going to be vegetarian, the crops will be doubly important since there will be no meat to sustain you in the winter.
And meat is easier to store and keep than vegetables.
Since there will be no power tools to help you build the thing you will need to survive, you are going to have to find or make tools that have all but disappeared, and find people with the skills to use them that are willing to live like pioneers.
This is not a good way to live your life.
Backbreaking work all day just to survive, no time to enjoy the things you love. No time to learn, not even time to read a book.
And still it won't be enough. If you work all the daylight hours and some of the hours of darkness, you will still not be able to sustain your colony.
Even the Native Americans had slaves.
The women did all the work. The men mainly just provided meat and security for the tribe.



 
jennemmer Posted: Tue May 9 11:10:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I just don't buy into the notion that all the change we have experienced is the right way to go about things. What is wrong with having a vegetable garden and growing most of your own produce? Or only eating foods where you can actually pronounce all of the ingredients? Or buying fuel efficient or hybrid cars? If we don't know what sort of impact we are having isn't it better to minimize what we could be doing? This is the only place we have to live and it would be a shame to drive ourselves to extinction.

Living better for the environment and a bit more simply doesn't require sending ourselves back to the stone age.

I know a family of subsistence farmers. They have gardens and raise sheep and spin the wool into yarn and weave blankets and knit sweaters to keep warm. The father is a woodworker and turns bowls and makes furniture for people and that is where they get most of their money. They have electricity and they have a phone but they don't miss having a tv. They get by just fine and they like the life they live. They aren't big fans of the noise and busyness of the city. They don't feel they have to buy everything they consume to be a good and contributing citizens.

And you don't even have to go that far. I biked to work yesterday. A whole *gasp* six miles. And you know what? It was fun. Sure I didn't make a huge dent in CO2 emission for the day but who cares. Solving the whole problem isn't the point.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 9 11:16:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  jennemmer said:
>I just don't buy into the notion that all the change we have experienced is the right way to go about things. What is wrong with having a vegetable garden and growing most of your own produce? Or only eating foods where you can actually pronounce all of the ingredients? Or buying fuel efficient or hybrid cars? If we don't know what sort of impact we are having isn't it better to minimize what we could be doing? This is the only place we have to live and it would be a shame to drive ourselves to extinction.
>
>Living better for the environment and a bit more simply doesn't require sending ourselves back to the stone age.
>
>I know a family of subsistence farmers. They have gardens and raise sheep and spin the wool into yarn and weave blankets and knit sweaters to keep warm. The father is a woodworker and turns bowls and makes furniture for people and that is where they get most of their money. They have electricity and they have a phone but they don't miss having a tv. They get by just fine and they like the life they live. They aren't big fans of the noise and busyness of the city. They don't feel they have to buy everything they consume to be a good and contributing citizens.
>
>And you don't even have to go that far. I biked to work yesterday. A whole *gasp* six miles. And you know what? It was fun. Sure I didn't make a huge dent in CO2 emission for the day but who cares. Solving the whole problem isn't the point.
>
There is nothing wrong with what you just described, but it's not what CM is planning, and it's not subsistence farming either. It's not their sole means of support.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 9 11:26:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  jennemmer said:
>I just don't buy into the notion that all the change we have experienced is the right way to go about things. What is wrong with having a vegetable garden and growing most of your own produce? Or only eating foods where you can actually pronounce all of the ingredients? Or buying fuel efficient or hybrid cars? If we don't know what sort of impact we are having isn't it better to minimize what we could be doing? This is the only place we have to live and it would be a shame to drive ourselves to extinction.
>
>Living better for the environment and a bit more simply doesn't require sending ourselves back to the stone age.
>
>I know a family of subsistence farmers. They have gardens and raise sheep and spin the wool into yarn and weave blankets and knit sweaters to keep warm. The father is a woodworker and turns bowls and makes furniture for people and that is where they get most of their money. They have electricity and they have a phone but they don't miss having a tv. They get by just fine and they like the life they live. They aren't big fans of the noise and busyness of the city. They don't feel they have to buy everything they consume to be a good and contributing citizens.
>
This is a fine way to go about living your life. I am a fan of fresh produce and try to grow most of my own.
I'm sure the folk you described above have power tools and gas powered tillers and such.
Who needs TV anyway ? But I'll bet there's a radio in the house. And a refrigerator too. I'm sure there are enough modern conveniences to allow them the leisure time to just sit back and enjoy the things they love for a little while every day.
A far cry from what CM has described.
It's my opinion that she has romantic and unrealistic notions about what it was like to live like a pioneer.


 
jennemmer Posted: Tue May 9 11:43:40 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>A far cry from what CM has described.
>It's my opinion that she has romantic and unrealistic notions about what it was like to live like a pioneer.

I realize it is always dangerous to put words in someone's mouth but here's my interpretation of this thread:

CM's still at the point where it's a dream. At that stage realism isn't as required. As she started to actually look into what would be involved it seems almost impossible that the realism wouldn't start to set in. Maybe, like my friends above they would find a happy medium, something that works for them. Realism when taking up a project is always important but how much would actually get done in this world if everyone's idealism got stomped out at the very moment it was conceived.

I'm not saying to sit and say everything will be perfect and to plow full force ahead but the point of a thread is usually discussion or a search for information, not asking for blatant cynisism.

Surely all of us have had our share of seemingly unrealistic dreams.



 
misszero Posted: Tue May 9 12:20:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  thankyou jen, i guess sometimes in all the randomness, there has to be little gems of something... like the 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters *grin*

this happy medium sort of thing is what my original idea has progressed to. a little bit of vege growing, maybe some solar panels, and tank water. i just can't be that extreme anymore. i don't drive a car, so i like to think i do just a tiny little smidgen of goodness by walking places and stuff. realistically, i know its not a lot, but its just a little bit of happiness.
i think going to extremes at either end of the scale can be harmful in different ways, though. I'm really so middle-of-the-road about everything. i think its because i'm a genetic agnostic.. does that work?


 
misszero Posted: Tue May 9 12:21:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  dammit, i meant to thank BB. But thankyou Jen too, just for existing and being rational, and saying what i was sort of driving at, but much better and more succintly. succint sure ain't my middle name *grin*


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]