Open Topic Discussion

"sustainability" is an oxymoron

« Index | First post of today | Topic history New! | This topic at http://peakoil.com | Reply | Need to read back farther? Try Topic history
mike3
5 days ago • Friday 2010-02-05 10:15:00 • Reply
mcgowanjm wrote:
There is altruism in the Universe:

There’s an allegory about a young kid who lost a coin in a dark place, but went looking frantically for it half a block away under a street light. A passer-by, being a good Samaritan, offered to help.
“What is it you have lost?” he asked.
“My money,” replied the kid with tearful eyes.
The Samaritan joined in the search; however, half an hour and a small crowd later he couldn’t find the coin.
“Where exactly did you lose your Money? He asked the kid exasperatedly.
“About half a block that way,” pointed the kid with a finger.
“Then why are you looking for your money here if you lost it half a block up that way?”
“Because this is the nearest street light, “ replied the kid indignantly.

What if aliens existed in one or more parallel universes? What if you could travel to these universes not by pathetic mechanical means, like rockets and space modules, but through other forms of transportation, in a manner as simple as switching a TV channel on a remote control unit?

Despite some advances in quantum physics, our science still provides for and dwells in an electromechanical world.


And what sort of method would that be, that is not mechanical?

mos6507
5 days ago • Friday 2010-02-05 10:43:00 • Reply
lonewolf wrote:
"The Myth of Self Reliance" http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51408


OMG. Toby Hemenway again. If he weren't a permaculture author he'd be writing for Peak Oil Debunked. The guy just loves to bite the hand that feeds him.


Narz
4 days ago • Friday 2010-02-05 17:50:00 • Reply
mos6507 wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
"The Myth of Self Reliance" http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51408


OMG. Toby Hemenway again. If he weren't a permaculture author he'd be writing for Peak Oil Debunked. The guy just loves to bite the hand that feeds him.

If you can't bite the hand that feeds you you're not a free man.

I like Toby.


pstarr
4 days ago • Friday 2010-02-05 20:19:00 • Reply
Ludi wrote:
mike3 wrote:
But the reason we "will not" is our genes, so it cannot be changed, right?



There must be some genes associated with not having children, though, because some people choose not to have them, and some people attempt to live "sustainably" to some extent. If it were genetic that we can't do these things (or won't do them) then nobody would ever do them. These people might be mutants, but of course mutation is an important aspect of genetics. Sadly, the non-reproducing mutants don't pass on their non-reproducing and frugal genes. :(

Personally, I think it's cultural, not genetic. But that's just me. :)
You must be referring to the Shakers. May their sweet souls rest in peace :cry:
Wiki wrote:
Their industry brought about many inventions like Babbitt metal, the rotary harrow, the circular saw, the clothespin, the Shaker peg, the flat broom, and the wheel-driven washing machine.

Membership in the Shakers dwindled in the late 1800s for several reasons . . . Shakers could not have children, so adoption was a major source of new members . . . there is one remaining active Shaker community, at Sabbathday Lake, Maine, which as of December 2009 has only three members left . . .


culicomorpha
3 days ago • Sunday 2010-02-07 12:13:00 • Reply
mos6507 wrote:
culicomorpha wrote:
of all the animals on the planet, we are the only species that adapts the environment to fit our "needs" rather fitting our needs to the environment.


Image

The case isn't closed.


Hahaha... that's the best example you got, Mos?

Before I made this post, I did think of a few animals, mainly birds, that strictly speaking contradict what I claimed. The example I was thinking of is a bird (can't remember the species) that builds something resembling a straw thatched house. And there are many observed cases of monkeys using sticks to retrieve termites from mounds. No doubt there are others.

But I think the key distinction is that at some point, a quantitative difference eventually becomes a qualitative difference.

Those beaver are taking down the trees with their teeth, not driving their car to WalMart, buying a chainsaw, driving to the gas station to get fuel and then cutting down the tree.

Once these large technical systems that we utterly depend upon start failing - and they will - we will have to adapt or die. I don't really see any alternative.

mike3
3 days ago • Sunday 2010-02-07 12:29:00 • Reply
culicomorpha wrote:
mos6507 wrote:
culicomorpha wrote:
of all the animals on the planet, we are the only species that adapts the environment to fit our "needs" rather fitting our needs to the environment.


Image

The case isn't closed.


Hahaha... that's the best example you got, Mos?

Before I made this post, I did think of a few animals, mainly birds, that strictly speaking contradict what I claimed. The example I was thinking of is a bird (can't remember the species) that builds something resembling a straw thatched house. And there are many observed cases of monkeys using sticks to retrieve termites from mounds. No doubt there are others.

But I think the key distinction is that at some point, a quantitative difference eventually becomes a qualitative difference.

Those beaver are taking down the trees with their teeth, not driving their car to WalMart, buying a chainsaw, driving to the gas station to get fuel and then cutting down the tree.

Once these large technical systems that we utterly depend upon start failing - and they will - we will have to adapt or die. I don't really see any alternative.


But the end result is the same, that the tree is cut down -- so how does changing the means to the end cause it to go from "fitting needs to the environment" to "fitting environment to needs"?

(P.S. we can't get beaver teeth, so what do we do?)

Tanada
2 days ago • Sunday 2010-02-07 13:14:00 • Reply
culicomorpha wrote:
Hahaha... that's the best example you got, Mos?

Before I made this post, I did think of a few animals, mainly birds, that strictly speaking contradict what I claimed. The example I was thinking of is a bird (can't remember the species) that builds something resembling a straw thatched house. And there are many observed cases of monkeys using sticks to retrieve termites from mounds. No doubt there are others.

But I think the key distinction is that at some point, a quantitative difference eventually becomes a qualitative difference.

Those beaver are taking down the trees with their teeth, not driving their car to WalMart, buying a chainsaw, driving to the gas station to get fuel and then cutting down the tree.

Once these large technical systems that we utterly depend upon start failing - and they will - we will have to adapt or die. I don't really see any alternative.


Before we had cars, and Wal-mart, and chainsaws we used to pick up rocks, bang them with other rocks to create a sharp edge. Then we would pick up that rock with a sharp edge and use it to chop things, even trees.

While technically that is using tool making technology it is about as simple as tools can get. The steps from using stone axes to using steel axes took a long time, but for the last 3000 years more or less we have used steel, or at least iron, axes. Chainsaws are just a late development, most of the forests in North America were felled with steel axes and steel ripsaws, not chainsaws. Once we learned to use stone axes however the path was set, because even then you could fit the axe to a shaft and use it to quite efficiently cut down trees.

On the other hand for centuries in Europe the population was quasi-stable and so were the forests and farmlands. The reason is TPTB during that period valued the Forests as their main source of fuel and therefore they made sure that harvesting was done in a sustainable way. Coal changed all of that in the early 1800's, but there is no reason we can not go back to using sustainable forestry/farming/urban lifestyles.


Ludi
2 days ago • Sunday 2010-02-07 13:59:00 • Reply