[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Yorga wrote:>But now I'm not so naive, I know the mission of government is total
>destruction of our biosphere.When I was in college in the late 60's early 70s I was much more intelligent
about these sorts of issues and would have agreed that this was a government
mission. After thirty years I have admittedly drifted a little bit to the
right, (dare I call myself a conservative on some issues?) and at times
realize that I am more of a student of life than I was when I was described
by society as a student. When I see such a strong statement as above I have
to ask a few questions.I know several people that work for the government or are elected officials.
If this is the governments mission shouldn't they have been told about it?
Apparently it must be a "need to know" type of mission since they are all out
of the loop. If it is true then the government is even more deceptive than I
used to believe, because in fact the majority of them are pretty much
consistently concerned with the environmental side to the questions they
decide.
should stop it. But they wring their hands and say nothing can be done. As if the city would shrivel up
There doesn't need to be a mission statment. It's like breathing, they do it naturally, the problem is goverment
and die if we balanced our needs and wants. And the word drift is so apt, a tendency.
I really don't think calling what the natives(American Indians) had would be called primitive. It's like calling the natives of Australia aboriginals, sorta like abnormal, don't ya think?
I know from personal experience that the city of Minneapolis is concerned
about environmental issues. As an example, when Minneapolis was first settled
the plumbing provided was primitive, although probably not as primitive as
the natives were using. Sewage treatment was improved, water quality was
improved, sewage was removed from the storm drain systems, and now we are now
spending millions of dollars to provide a new ultra filtration plant to
provide safer water for our city. We used to burn our trash in the back yard
(which was great fun and almost made bringing the trash out worth it)! and
now we not only have stopped that practice but recycle a vast quantity of our
trash. If our government has a mission to destroy the biosphere they must be
trickier than I thought because I just can't seem to determine what their
plan is. Can you help me out with this and provide a few details other than
talking about a few trees that are being cut down.
Yeah, the Mn House is poised to cut the environmental budget. And I know from personal expierience that they are not, specifically Mpls. They make it look like they care. Illusion is everything and denial makes it allright.
Considering they were the ones that showed the army the spring at Camp Coldwater. The army had been drinking water out of the Minnesota. The water of camp cold water restored their health. But I guess that's primitive.
Don't get me wrong, I like trees. I am a carpenter and enjoy working with
wood, and enjoy vacation time when I can spend it up north "in the woods."
Which leads me to another question. You mentioned the following:
Thats like saying I like air, but.....
>In other Mpls news I went to the rally at the convention center this
>morning and handed out information to Excel stockholders.
>This is about getting clean electricity. Currently we buy 40% from
>Manitoba Hydro. The dams have caused all sorts of problems for the Cross
>Lake band of Cree.Where do you suggest we find "Clean" electricity? I always thought dams to be
a fairly clean way to provide power.
And as far as clean electricity, that's the question, how do you feed the 8,000 pound gorilla everyday. Did you know they wanted to build a dam near the Grand Canyon and fill the whole thing in with water?
When the damage done includes hunting, fishing, gathering medicines and flooding their burial sites, I wouldn't call that clean.
> Not only ours but everyone's including future
>generations who will make it as humans or sadly as some genetically
>modified organism.Your conclusion strays somewhat from the biosphere destruction mission but I
would like to add a final question. Some close friends have a son who is
living with a disease that was genetically passed to him thanks to the
parents. If our scientists can develop a way so that this son, if he is lucky
enough to live to raise a family, can genetically insure that his children
will not have to fight his disease, do you think future generations of his
family will be sad?
No they won't be sad, but what their finding with clones is their immune systems aren't what they thought they would be.
I was passed genes by my parents, we all are. If I take one out
that I don't like how does that effect me and my offspring, can you see
where I'm going. It's so easy to think were just a flat two dimensional
puzzle.
Besides in our culture what is the logical or illogical end to all
of this frankenstein thought.... I don't know either.
not trying to be a luddite,
Robert Yorgane w3
