Hello Harry >Sorry Kieth, I really don't know what sense of humor Ed has he could >well have been motivated only to inform and in fairness I would >otherwise not have read the report. I seriously doubt that the >Editors or fellows of the NAS take any work that they publish >as "gospel". I expect that they feel that the work simply contributes >to the debate and I agree that it does, I did get the impression that >it "leant" in a direction that I thought unhelpful, hope I'm wrong.
I don't think it leant, it was a six-nation study after all. >I'v been involved with disability and other social issues so long I >do tend to believe that anyone who wants to limit the resources >available to the poor is an enemy of mankind. I think they would perhaps like to limit the resources available to the rich. >Yes in those issues I >do quite consciously leave science behind. Science and logic can >comfortably argue in favour of unpleasant population control measures >or limits on the human share of resources. Population is not the issue here, nor the human share, but the unequal and inequitable - unsustainable - division of the human share. >My concerns were that by >trying to grow our fuel we may have been tipping the ledger further >against the capacity of the environment to provide, you convinced me >that that was not the case. Oh, I'm glad of that! >Believe it or not there are people out >there who do believe that limiting health care budgets is a >legitimate way to reduce the burden on the environment. Maybe that's >an Australian phenomena, perhaps conservationists globally are not so >bloody minded. I think they're not, no. I have seen such discussions, real BS, and based on ignorance. I do tend to distinguish between environmentalists and big centralised environmental groups, which, with some exceptions, are about as useful as big centralised anything else, IMO. I'm more and more sceptical of anything that isn't local-level and grows from the roots up, and where that's the case I don't think you'll find much of that sort of thinking, if any. >To me sustainability will always be about meeting the >needs of people. It seems to me that when it's left to the "people" level there's seldom much of a problem. >As far as wasteful life styles are concerned the >degree of waste is measured by income, my views on limiting income >are very practical conservation, just not palatable to some. To me a >conservation movement without a socialist agenda is dangerous, just >more capitalists playing the game in a different way after different >enhancements to their lifestyle at the expense of some-one else. Aaargghhh! You also said the S-word! Horror! Hey, I just noticed, the sky didn't fall on our heads after all, fancy that. :-) I don't think waste and income are that closely related, except maybe on a national level - the rich countries waste the most. Taxes would probably just make the bureaucracy even fatter, and help fund some of the dumbest "development" around. And wouldn't account for corporate-generated or created waste and pollution. "Polluter pays" sure, but pays who exactly? Same problem. Taxes are not very efficient. But I don't want to argue about it, you may be right, or right in a particular context. We work at the local community level, and in that context there's not a lot of room for this or that agenda with an -ist on the end, whichever -ist it may be. As you can see from this: http://journeytoforever.org/community.html http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Best Keith >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A couple of things, Harry. First, that is NOT trolling. People > > posting information you don't agree with and that is not >necessarily > > off-topic is not trolling. Trolling is baiting, and I doubt you > > seriously think Ed posted that message as bait. > > > > Second, the research has been done by qualified people belonging to >a > > reputable group, and is being published in the Proceedings of the > > National Academy of Sciences, which is certainly a reputable >journal. > > Are you saying that the otherwise sentient editors at the PNAS > > somehow suspended their critical faculties in order to accept this > > "crap" as gospel? What cause do you have to dismiss this report so > > casually? > > > > You and I have tussled over closely related issues in the past, and >I > > don't think any evidence emerged that my view was any less sentient > > than yours. On the other hand, you made some statements you were > > unable to substantiate, and ended up preferring scepticism but >being > > unable to say why. So maybe it was your sentience that was >suspended. > > I tend to think so, and this bears it out - this is just a knee- >jerk > > rejection, not a considered response. > > > > Man, I do love it when people pooh-pooh the damage their wasteful > > lifestyles cause and then say "let's get on with something >practical"! > > > > Keith > > > > > > >Steady Dave they are just trolling. > > >Unfortunately this type of "release" is taken as gospel by many > > >otherwise sentient people. In the Australian context too many of >them > > >are in the public service. The context needs to be considered, we > > >generally represent the people of the world whose needs are being > > >met. Members of many of these conservation oriented groups are > > >amoungst the wealthiest, note the celebrities used to promote > > >projects like Olivia Newton Johns reafforest Australia campaign. >That > > >less than 25% of Australia was forest under aboriginal permaculture > > >doesnt come into it. Australia actually has more than 25% under > > >forest and the tree density is often unsustainable. The real at >risk > > >ecosystems are open woodland and native grassland. The ones that >can > > >be preserved with good forest grazing practices. People whos needs > > >are met have no trouble putting millions of hectares of otherwise > > >productive land under carbon sequestering trees to slow climate > > >change. Afer all the change may well threaten their obscene share >of > > >the worlds resources. > > >Having said that let me also say that we really must limit our use >of > > >resources to what we actually need, waste does no one good nor do > > >practices that ultimately reduce the productive capacity of the > > >renewable resources that we need. > > >My view is simple enough, the amount of resources a person uses is > > >measured by their income, a cap on income limits waste. > > >Redistribution of "excess" income via taxation to pay for public > > >services that ensure an effective lower limit of income for the >poor > > >is the most "achievable" method of redustributing income. > > >Not all sustainability types agree with me but its a good way of > > >distinguishing between the "greedy" conservationist (I like my high > > >income lifestyle but do these peasants have to breath so much air) > > >and the genuine conservationist who's political solution includes > > >increased taxes for incomes over double the full time male average. > > >Meanwhile Dave just work away on the practical solutions. > > >Regards from Harry > > > > > >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we >all > > >doomed to > > > > eating dirt and living in caves? > > > > > > > > This is the first that I have responded to you all after having > > >subscribed to > > > > the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. > > >There's a huge > > > > market for it and it works soooo well. What, for the most part >do > > >you people > > > > do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and > > >emanate death > > > > due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. > > > > > > > > I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll >stick > > >around > > > > until you whack out completely > > > > > > > > Any questions from an actual producer? > > > > > > > > Dave Edmondson > > > > Ferndale, WA > > > >Biofuels at Journey to Forever >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >Biofuel at WebConX >http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm >List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
