Re: [Biofuel] Re: JD2005
Mike, I have a big problem with sentences about too many running around in the world. Keith have repeatedly shown that the world can support a good number of more people, if we started to be smarter and less egoistic. It is very symptomatic that the population group that complains most, is the most wasteful and egoistic group of people. If we take the worst example, it must be the corporate led US, who definitely set a very telling example of the kind of disloyalty that is absolutely non-sustainable. On energy, the US is using 25% of the world resources, of which 80% are wasted by lack of efficiency and other excess behavior. On pollution they lack responsibility. On food supply they are developing methods (GM) that are more designed to monopolize food supplies, than provide any contribution to sustainability for the world. The last can threaten the whole worlds attempts to achieve any kind of sustainability. It is a totally unsustainable corporate dream, to more or less patent life and reap profits for a few in the process. It will only result in enormous conflicts, that in the end will be won by the numbers. It is no way that a small percentage of the world population can control the masses in a peaceful world. To manage the world, it must be a consensus by at least 20 to 30% of the world population, on 4% it cannot be done! If we start to talk about too many people running around, then the next question must be who they are. It then will be sorted out by what is sustainable, at the end it is no other possibility. The alternative is to start to move towards sustainability, with necessary voluntary adjustments of the excesses, greater efficiency, loyalty and cooperation. This is the way that people survived in the past, but not without being painfully forced to do it. The only question is if we can do it with less pain this time? The Communist extremes has been adjusted, now it is the turn of the extremes of Capitalism and Corpracy to be adjusted. It is a petty that our lifes are so short, I really would have liked to see how the current challenges pan out. Hakan At 11:52 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: JD2005 wrote: snip I've also been thinking that there are too many people.If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? Howdy JD, One of us has got their spurs on just a little to tight. Now I've read, and re-read, this post at least 3 times. Each time everything goes just fine, until I hit that last section. At that point, things get a little, well...I just am not making the connection. Now as far as shear numbers go, I'm with you there. I am also of the opinion that this beautiful blue marble has way too many humans running around on her surface. But, would you please clarify this sentence: If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? I am having one **ll of a time understanding what you mean here. Frankly, I don't see the relationship between fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and the current population. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA A sign seen recently in a non-smoking area: If we see smoke, we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate action. Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground? - Original Message - From: JD2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] possible to have a diesel hybrid? Hi; Ive been wondering out in the wilderness of the internet looking into boidiesel and SVO and the like.Alot of the most recent questions may be answered by a vistit to: http://www.biofuels.ca Particuarluy those about drying and cleaning waste vegetable oil plus the suitability of diesels. I've also been thinking that there are too many people.If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? JD2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: JD2005
Hakan, This was quite an interesting post. It is unfortunate that you have, a big problem with sentences about too many running around in the world. however, as long as it is still acceptable for me to choose my own sentences, I would prefer to do so, regardless of your problems. If my opinion happens to be that there are too many people on planet earth, whether I am right, or not, isn't really the point now is it? The point is that I can have, and share, my opinion freely with anyone, whether it's here in the USA, or in Africa, doesn't matter. Freedom is always the point. My reply was in response to JD2005's post. I didn't understand a particular portion of his posting, so I asked him for clarification. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: JD2005 Mike, I have a big problem with sentences about too many running around in the world. Keith have repeatedly shown that the world can support a good number of more people, if we started to be smarter and less egoistic. It is very symptomatic that the population group that complains most, is the most wasteful and egoistic group of people. If we take the worst example, it must be the corporate led US, who definitely set a very telling example of the kind of disloyalty that is absolutely non-sustainable. On energy, the US is using 25% of the world resources, of which 80% are wasted by lack of efficiency and other excess behavior. On pollution they lack responsibility. On food supply they are developing methods (GM) that are more designed to monopolize food supplies, than provide any contribution to sustainability for the world. The last can threaten the whole worlds attempts to achieve any kind of sustainability. It is a totally unsustainable corporate dream, to more or less patent life and reap profits for a few in the process. It will only result in enormous conflicts, that in the end will be won by the numbers. It is no way that a small percentage of the world population can control the masses in a peaceful world. To manage the world, it must be a consensus by at least 20 to 30% of the world population, on 4% it cannot be done! If we start to talk about too many people running around, then the next question must be who they are. It then will be sorted out by what is sustainable, at the end it is no other possibility. The alternative is to start to move towards sustainability, with necessary voluntary adjustments of the excesses, greater efficiency, loyalty and cooperation. This is the way that people survived in the past, but not without being painfully forced to do it. The only question is if we can do it with less pain this time? The Communist extremes has been adjusted, now it is the turn of the extremes of Capitalism and Corpracy to be adjusted. It is a petty that our lifes are so short, I really would have liked to see how the current challenges pan out. Hakan At 11:52 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: JD2005 wrote: snip I've also been thinking that there are too many people.If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? Howdy JD, One of us has got their spurs on just a little to tight. Now I've read, and re-read, this post at least 3 times. Each time everything goes just fine, until I hit that last section. At that point, things get a little, well...I just am not making the connection. Now as far as shear numbers go, I'm with you there. I am also of the opinion that this beautiful blue marble has way too many humans running around on her surface. But, would you please clarify this sentence: If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? I am having one **ll of a time understanding what you mean here. Frankly, I don't see the relationship between fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and the current population. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA A sign seen recently in a non-smoking area: If we see smoke, we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate action. Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground? - Original Message - From: JD2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] possible to have a diesel hybrid? Hi; Ive been wondering out in the wilderness of the internet looking into boidiesel and SVO and the like.Alot of the most recent questions may be answered by a vistit to: http://www.biofuels.ca Particuarluy those about drying and cleaning waste vegetable oil plus the suitability of diesels. I've also been
Re: [Biofuel] Re: JD2005
Mike, Isn't it wonderful with the freedom of raising your opinion and if you think that I in anyway want to take it away from you, it must be a misunderstanding. It is my understanding also, that any posts on a public forum is addressed to the whole forum for evaluation and responses, not for private communication between individuals. Why I have the problem with the sentence, is because it is genuine discrimination. In which way do we decide who the too many are and how do we decide who are not too many? Since you have the opinion, you maybe also have the answer on my question. We had a suggestion that poverty would be a condition for the selection of the too many. This suggest that your footprint is a selection criteria, poor = too many. It might be both the historical and current situation. It is maybe also the unavoidable future, but we could actually erase poverty if we wanted. The current distribution of wealth is at the moment so unbalanced, that the wealth of the few richest individuals in the world is enough to erase poverty. To erase poverty would not even have any negative effects or major sacrifices for the res of the world. The UN initiatives in this direction argues and prove that. Hakan At 05:56 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: Hakan, This was quite an interesting post. It is unfortunate that you have, a big problem with sentences about too many running around in the world. however, as long as it is still acceptable for me to choose my own sentences, I would prefer to do so, regardless of your problems. If my opinion happens to be that there are too many people on planet earth, whether I am right, or not, isn't really the point now is it? The point is that I can have, and share, my opinion freely with anyone, whether it's here in the USA, or in Africa, doesn't matter. Freedom is always the point. My reply was in response to JD2005's post. I didn't understand a particular portion of his posting, so I asked him for clarification. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: JD2005 Mike, I have a big problem with sentences about too many running around in the world. Keith have repeatedly shown that the world can support a good number of more people, if we started to be smarter and less egoistic. It is very symptomatic that the population group that complains most, is the most wasteful and egoistic group of people. If we take the worst example, it must be the corporate led US, who definitely set a very telling example of the kind of disloyalty that is absolutely non-sustainable. On energy, the US is using 25% of the world resources, of which 80% are wasted by lack of efficiency and other excess behavior. On pollution they lack responsibility. On food supply they are developing methods (GM) that are more designed to monopolize food supplies, than provide any contribution to sustainability for the world. The last can threaten the whole worlds attempts to achieve any kind of sustainability. It is a totally unsustainable corporate dream, to more or less patent life and reap profits for a few in the process. It will only result in enormous conflicts, that in the end will be won by the numbers. It is no way that a small percentage of the world population can control the masses in a peaceful world. To manage the world, it must be a consensus by at least 20 to 30% of the world population, on 4% it cannot be done! If we start to talk about too many people running around, then the next question must be who they are. It then will be sorted out by what is sustainable, at the end it is no other possibility. The alternative is to start to move towards sustainability, with necessary voluntary adjustments of the excesses, greater efficiency, loyalty and cooperation. This is the way that people survived in the past, but not without being painfully forced to do it. The only question is if we can do it with less pain this time? The Communist extremes has been adjusted, now it is the turn of the extremes of Capitalism and Corpracy to be adjusted. It is a petty that our lifes are so short, I really would have liked to see how the current challenges pan out. Hakan At 11:52 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote: JD2005 wrote: snip I've also been thinking that there are too many people.If we hadn't got into burning fossil fuels but used renewable oils, wind and sun etc. instead, there would not be so many people would there? Howdy JD, One of us has got their spurs on just a little to tight. Now I've read, and re-read, this post at least 3 times. Each time everything goes just fine, until I hit that last section. At that point, things get a little, well...I just am not making the connection. Now as far as shear numbers go, I'm with you there. I am also of the opinion that this beautiful blue marble
