Yes, I think there should be promise with these technologies, but as
you say, what really matters is whose hand controls the direction in
which the work is done. As I have said before, there is no tool so
benign that it cannot also be used as a weapon. How do we know we can
trust those that
Hi Darryl;
Or more importantly (and maybe this is what you meant) we don't
understand the intricacies of the natural systems already in existence
in order to meddle with them in a way that won't create larger problems
than we already have. That is the way of human activity that I see most
Keith,
I'm not without hope on these matters. That is why I keep working away
at solutions on many fronts. I also don't underestimate the challenges,
which is not to say I understand them completely.
You wrote:
... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there
should
Hi Joe,
yes, I think you have captured it better than I did.
Darryl
On 18/10/2010 9:11 AM, Joe Street wrote:
Hi Darryl;
Or more importantly (and maybe this is what you meant) we don't
understand the intricacies of the natural systems already in existence
in order to meddle with them in a
The way I've explained my reticence towards all this stuff has been;
When we come up with computer modeling that is able to accurately
predict the weather years into the future, THEN our models will
be good enough that we can think about fiddling about with altering
the genetics of 'stuff'
Any gardener would disagree with you (and at least one of you is a
gardener). There now, does that put the scale in perspective? You
can't seem to help seeing it in gargantuan terms.
Keith
Hi Joe,
yes, I think you have captured it better than I did.
Darryl
On 18/10/2010 9:11 AM, Joe Street
Hi Darryl
I agree with all that. Just about.
Yes, it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, to have an
empty mind, free of expectation, but it's essential, and not
impossible. We have to do the best we can - we might never get there,
but we'll get a lot further than if we just
... Precaution, definitely, and yet I can't help feeling that there
should be some potential for useful or helpful techno-fixes, that
don't do more harm than good, nor any harm at all. I guess much
depends on the mindset of the fixers. An empty mind is best, IMHO,
free of expectation (and of
My thought when people suggest that technological fixes will solve the
global climate change problem and that we don't have to worry about it... is
that we already ignore all the technological fixes that have already been
invented are, in the grand scheme of things, being solidly ignored.
Hear hear, Zeke, well said, I fully agree. And we definitely do have
to worry about it. There's good reason to believe, though, IMHO, that
the required societal and behavioural changes are coming, spreading
and growing fast - like wildfire, it seems to me, and worldwide. But,
exactly because
Zeke has pretty much covered what I was going to day regarding
technology. What we need is here, sitting on the shelf, has been for
decades. No one really speaking for it though, no adverts on TV or
radio or Internet ads. Is it really as simple as there is no sure
profit in selling such
Well, you and Zeke both know I agree with all that. But I think there
might be more to be seen in it, or at least hoped for - could be
wrong of course, as ever.
Of course people are brainwashed, especially in North America.
There's never been such a thing in the world before as the sheer 24/7
Yes, I think there should be promise with these technologies, but as
you say, what really matters is whose hand controls the direction in
which the work is done. As I have said before, there is no tool so
benign that it cannot also be used as a weapon. How do we know we can
trust those
13 matches
Mail list logo
