That's more or less it rigsy. I'm vaguely aware of all kinds of technology that might come on line to help, including an agricultural version of robot heaven. More intelligent and much lighter machines would help prevent a lot of the soil compaction that ruins the land and be much more discriminate in fertiliser and herbicide use. Making petrol directly from air pulls the carbon you are going to put back in driving your car out before you pollute. The spreadsheets are complicated of course - the net pollution will be in the electricity generation needed to convert the air, less rivers and seas not polluted by oil companies.
The beat I suspect we are missing is that human organisation is out of control. My best mate and I nearly went to the cricket world cup in the West Indies a while back. He's blind - the idea was to experience the crack, food and beer. TV coverage is much better on the actual game. We're glad we didn't go as all the crack was replaced by sponsors. We can organise all kinds of freak shows like cricket and the Olympics, but not much about old people being lonely or sensible ways for people to be genuinely self-sufficient in sustainable communities. I have long thought so-called arguments of capitalism versus communism are of the same form one can find between Polynesian villages on the organisation of gang rape sessions (in some the girl is 'lucky' and in others suffers 'punishment'). Gabby keeps a big pin to burst totalitarian bubbles, but I suspect we suspect organisation because of stuff like the Domesday Book, The Enclosures and excesses of colonisation, big business and government free of genuine democratic control. I like a lot of what Andrew has to say - but I've also heard similar of utter despots advocating year zero agrarianism (no paranoids - I don't suspect Andrew of this) - and feel the shadow passing over my own grave in respect of wanting a more controlled society. I first heard 'education, education, education' in East Germany as the socialist solution. The problem seems to be that once we can express an ideal form we forget the irony in the word Utopia. I suspect much of what we call argument is really a process of forgetting and pretending. I wonder, for instance, what I could really ever have to say to a bunch of women wanting to be Anglican bishops? I suspect it wouldn't be 'you believe in MumboJumbo so there's no point in 'talking' with you (Anglicans at least don't insist on priestly celibacy)! I'm assuming we are trapped in one of those ghastly Sartre plays. The real horror would be in being trapped with the rationalising clowns who attribute sacred importance to gender. But how do we know when to throw in the 'you are a rationalising clown joker' - after all any fool can do that? Links between women bishop opinion from an atheist and global warming are no doubt strange. I don't know what the religious rationalisation for excluding women is - but am almost certain I'd think it specious rot. I would entertain the argument if it was remotely important to me or someone close. More important to me is that religions are allowed exemption from just UK law. Are my views of this any different in form than those of someone in ignorant climate change denial? I'll throw in another spanner. Where does what we have of democracy arise? The Athenian Democracy that committed genocide and was nearly always at war? Or in mass action and strike sabotage of mine workers (thesis not mine)? Another would be the obvious lack of consideration in argument of human history in espoused theory being nothing like theory in action. I'd be quite happy not to be involved in arguments about women bishops and even happier if there were no such arguments or any bishops. We should include religions in our law and slap sexism suits on them. But where do you draw he line? I don't fancy being part of an atheist enforcement committee peering into people's homes to check they aren't praying. I have noticed there are many wack-jobs around in climate change debate as relevant to the real issues as I could be to the Tory Party at prayer. I'll leave this speculative rubbish with the thought of a female future bishop wrangling with the moral issues of sex before marriage with an atheist. There are times, surely, not to get hung up on obsessive thinking and such private business should not be anything we are interested in other than in thought experiment. The climate of opinion needs changing. Argument seems remarkably unfit for purpose on this - for the obvious reason most people can't do much of it. Imagine a village creating all its own energy from wind (etc), with its own fuel plant, vertical farms, connected in a wider network of villages with hospitals, university, schools (however we'd change them) - this would be in a world without transnational oil companies and potentially without transnationals generally. I suspect the climate change debate is not about carbon dioxide. And that we need to remember we get very serious about mad issues like women bishops. I have little doubt, given the abuse male clergy have perpetrated over the centuries, that I am prepared to save the victims by distracting a female vicar myself! On 22 Nov, 07:53, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > yeah very much so. > Allan > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree Allan - rather like our bodies in heating up to combat > > infection! > > > On 21 Nov, 21:20, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The earth has a habit of taking care of itself. > >> Allan > > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:27 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > From New Scientist this week: > > >> > "EMISSIONS are still way too high to stop dangerous climate change, > >> > warns a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme > >> > (UNEP). > > >> > To stop the Earth warming more than 2 °C above preindustrial levels, > >> > global emissions must peak at 44 gigatonnes in 2020 and then fall. > >> > However, the report says that 2020 emissions are likely to be between > >> > 8 to 13 gigatonnes higher. This range is calculated on how well or not > >> > countries deliver on their pledges to cut emissions. So in the best- > >> > case scenario, where everyone meets their targets, emissions are still > >> > 8 Gt too high. > > >> > This "emissions gap" has grown: first estimates by UNEP in 2010 put it > >> > at between 5 and 9 Gt. > > >> > Unless drastic action is taken soon, we are likely to see a 4 °C rise > >> > this century, warns Simon Anderson at the International Institute for > >> > Environment and Development in Edinburgh, UK. > > >> > A report from the World Bank, also published this week, paints a stark > >> > picture of a 4 °C warmer world riven by severe heatwaves, floods and > >> > droughts. "It will be absolutely catastrophic for certain parts of the > >> > world," Anderson says. > > >> > By delaying emissions cuts, the world is simply deciding to pay more > >> > for them later, he says." > > >> > I remain to be convinced of the carbon dioxide argument. Of more > >> > concern are reports such as those on the speed with which the former > >> > lush territory now the Sahara Desert changed - possibly only decades > >> > and certainly only a few hundred years. Climate change is obviously > >> > part of earth history The question is why we are so unprepared. > > >> > -- > > >> -- > >> ( > >> ) > >> |_D Allan > > >> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > >> I am a Natural Airgunner - > > >> Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. > > > -- > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > I am a Natural Airgunner - > > Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
