JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags consumerism , globalization , industrialization , sustainability

Reply
Old 23rd February 2010, 09:38 AM   #81
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Sledge View Post
Ah, you haven't got a solution. That's kind of pathetic after 20 years thought, isn't it?
It is your opinion that is pathetic.

Billions of people create the problem over a period of 200 years - and you expect one person to provide the solution?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 23rd February 2010 at 09:40 AM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:23 AM   #82
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
I know its rather pointless to respond, since the poster doesn't really bother addressing criticisms, but what the heck...

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
When you fall sick you rush to the doctor to save yourself.
When you fall sick you rush to the hospital to save yourself.
Yes I do rush to the doctor/hospital... on roads that were built as part of our industrial society, in a vehicle manufactured by industry, in order to get medical treatment that often involves drugs (manufactured by industry) or diagnostic tools (also manufactured by industry).

Quote:
The first rule of sustainability is destroy less. The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.
Unless of course you can use technology and industry to produce more with fewer resources, which of course is something that has happened time and time again.

Quote:
Provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to people - not unnecessary consumer goods.
Please tell me... who will be the one who determines when a consumer good is 'unnecessary'?

Is anything that provides any sort of entertainment/enjoyment considered 'unnecessary'? What about books? (After all, they require trees to be made). Music? (Again, music requires instruments, often made of wood.) Art? (Production of paint and other arts materials requires chemicals, metalworking, etc.)

Sounds to me that you want people to just go to work, come home and stare at the wall for 8 hours until its time to go to bed.

Quote:
Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years
Actually, land in the U.S. often gets converted from urban/agriculture back to forests, and it certainly takes a lot less time than 50 years.

Quote:
Man has hunted down several species to extinction after Industrial Revolution.
Yes they have. The thing is, they've also hunted down species to extinction prior to the industrial revolution. (Those Passenger pigeons and Dodos were not killed because they were needed for industrial purposes.)

In fact, if anything, proper use of industrialization can save species, if it is oriented towards more efficient use of resources. (For example, biotechnology, part of our 'industrialization', can help us grow more food per acre, leaving more land available for nature.)
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:50 AM   #83
Pure Argent
Certified Castlevania Fanboy
 
Pure Argent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room
Posts: 6,262
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
This extra destruction has risen exponentially in the last 50 years.
And has dropped sharply following the introduction of green industry.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
It is your opinion that is pathetic.
IRONY

Quote:
Billions of people create the problem over a period of 200 years - and you expect one person to provide the solution?
Of course not. But, since you're on here whining, one would assume that you have an alternative - even if it is just to go back to being cave-dwellers.
In any case, green industry - which you are railing against - is the only solution. We cannot live without industry. The only possible way to end this is with a union of the environment and consumerism: hence, green industry.
__________________
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Pure Argent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:51 AM   #84
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I never claimed that I have a solution. I am pointing out the fact that by promoting consumerism we are only making the problem bigger and bigger day by day.

Is it possible to find a solution if the human species has been moving on the wrong path for almost 250 years?

Man started destroying extra after Industrial Revolution.

This extra destruction has risen exponentially in the last 50 years.

Before Industrial Revolution humans destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter.

After Industrialization humans have destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter and thousands of consumer goods.

What would happen to your home if 1000 people entered and started doing work continuously - 24 X 7 - picking up things already lying in the house, breaking them up and making new things out of them without stopping?

A similar thing is happening to the planet - 6.8 billion people continuously engaging in work - destroying the ecosystems moment by moment.


Work has turned into overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

People who are working to provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare are doing work - rest of the population is engaged in overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured / created by MultiNational Corporations. Who can undo the damage that has been done to ecosystems by billions of people over a period of 200 - 250 years?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
The house analogy is so wrong it sorta hurts to look at. While I agree, as stated before, that we do damage ecosystems we are not destroying the planet, nor life in general.
Worse things have happened repeatedly, look up extinction events, and life is still here. And everything we use ends up right back on the planet it came from (except for the tiny bit we shoot into space).
In fact, by buring fossil fuel we are actually RETURNING carbon and other elements into the cycles of earth from which those elements had been separeted for millions of years. So according to your analogy people are brining stuff into the house.
Even if we manage to exterminate ourselves, we will not do anything near as devastating as snowball earth or the KT event and similar extinction events in the past. So life on earth will happily continue no matter what we do.

However I also notice that you did not awnser my question. What are your personal steps you take to lower your impact on the world?
Clearly you care a lot about it, so I'd like to know.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:34 PM   #85
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
I am sorry , I apologise , I should have known better.

The great human species is going to find a solution to environmental destruction very soon.

We must never underestimate the problem-solving ability of the human race.

Just look at all the grand solutions being made in Iraq and Afghanistan.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:48 PM   #86
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 3,974
You know, sush, the problem with your environmental screed (I can't speak to the topic of IQ vs. EQ, although it has a slightly familiar ring; must've read it somewhere during the last couple of generations) is that it's old stuff. Forty-some odd years old at least; I can attest that it's mid-60's yada, if not earlier.

Further, I'm afraid that it's boring old stuff; there's nothing to evaluate, nothing to assess, nothing either to accept or reject. It's too simplistic -- I want to say that it's too simple-minded, but it would be cruel to confront you with the futility of something you claim took twenty years to assemble.

Cranks have always been around, and have never contributed a plugged wudget to society; never. Please don't be another one.
__________________
A little knowledge is an irritating thing.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:51 PM   #87
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Swingin' on a star
Posts: 7,121
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
It is your opinion that is pathetic.

Billions of people create the problem over a period of 200 years - and you expect one person to provide the solution?

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
20 years. You've spent 20 years thinking about this, and come to the conclusion of "I dunno. Try a simpler life?" That's pathetic.
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 07:01 PM   #88
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I never claimed that I have a solution. I am pointing out the fact that by promoting consumerism we are only making the problem bigger and bigger day by day.
But do you realise that in talking about it in long-winded, over-emotive diatribes like this you are making it less likely that people will take the problem seriously?

Do you realise that in packaging the problem up with a bunch of pseudo-scientific theories about slow emotions and suchlike, you are only making the idea of a looming global environmental problem itself seem like a crackpot theory?
Quote:
Is it possible to find a solution if the human species has been moving on the wrong path for almost 250 years?
That would seem to be the only question worth considering.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 09:41 PM   #89
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,267
Possibly one of the greenest technologies is the generation of electricity by photovoltaic cells. Electric lighting is far more efficient than oil or kerosine lamps. Compact florescent bulbs are far more efficient in the use of electricity for lighting, so that a 15 watt florescent bulb produces the same light as a 60 watt incandescent bulb. This is all high technology. Would Sushil rather we were huddled around wood fires?
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 10:33 PM   #90
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.

What these insane people do - they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it -- they don’t prevent it.

Instead, what they do - They say we are going to save the victim by using technology - the best technology - the best medical care.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

They give the victim the best technology - the best medical care.
In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given.

One can imagine the fate of the victim.


Ecosystems are getting destroyed due to production of consumer goods.

Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land - directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]

Industrial society is destroying necessary things - animals, trees, air, water and land for making unnecessary things - consumer goods.

The sane way of saving ecosystems is - you stop production of consumer goods - you reduce production of consumer goods to the minimum level.

But the insane Industrial Society continues producing consumer goods [ in fact production is being increased every day]

The insane response of Industrial Society is - We will save the environment with technology - the best technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.


In the meantime production of consumer goods continues - 3 billion people living in cities are continuously engaged in - making , buying and selling of consumer goods - killing the ecosystems moment by moment.

One can imagine the fate of environment.

Height of Insanity.......Height of Abnormality.

Destroy consumerism..... before it is too late.

sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 24th February 2010 at 10:35 PM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 10:35 PM   #91
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I am sorry , I apologise , I should have known better.

The great human species is going to find a solution to environmental destruction very soon.

We must never underestimate the problem-solving ability of the human race.

Just look at all the grand solutions being made in Iraq and Afghanistan.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Actually, one of the best things we could do is put an age limit on human beings ... and a reproductive limit as well. Once humans reach a certain age, we harvest them for food, scientific study, etc and so forth. We could also make it mandatory to donate excess babies for certain purposes (like chum for the declining population of white sharks, perhaps baby pageants since they are just fun, etc). We would greatly decrease our population and we could spread the wealth a bit more.

Actually, on a serious note .. Sushil .... are you familiar with the American television series "Fringe"? Part of the storyline centers around a strange manuscript entitled "The Destruction by Advancement of Technology". In this manuscript, a war is predicted ... a future war ... in which the inhabitants of a parallel dimension to ours have more or less cause their own self destruction, but have found a way to pass from their dimension to ours (where our planet is still "intact"), and thus they are seeking a way to take over our dimension and abandon their crumbling one. They are essentially like us except a little more advanced and their history is slightly ahead of our own. I personally found the first season of the show fairly interesting. Maybe you'd get into watching it ... it might give you some ideas to think on ...
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 10:52 PM   #92
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by trentwray View Post
on a serious note .. Sushil .... are you familiar with the American television series "Fringe"? Part of the storyline centers around a strange manuscript entitled "The Destruction by Advancement of Technology". In this manuscript, a war is predicted ... a future war ... in which the inhabitants of a parallel dimension to ours have more or less cause their own self destruction, but have found a way to pass from their dimension to ours (where our planet is still "intact"), and thus they are seeking a way to take over our dimension and abandon their crumbling one. They are essentially like us except a little more advanced and their history is slightly ahead of our own. I personally found the first season of the show fairly interesting. Maybe you'd get into watching it ... it might give you some ideas to think on ...
trentwray,

Thanks for giving information about "Fringe" - "The Destruction by Advancement of Technology". This reminded me about the view of one writer who had said - It seems earth is hell of some other planet - when people live a sinful life on that planet they are sent to earth [hell] as punishment.

sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 10:53 PM   #93
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.

What these insane people do - they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it -- they don’t prevent it.

Instead, what they do - They say we are going to save the victim by using technology - the best technology - the best medical care.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

They give the victim the best technology - the best medical care.
In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given.

One can imagine the fate of the victim.


Ecosystems are getting destroyed due to production of consumer goods.

Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land - directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]

Industrial society is destroying necessary things - animals, trees, air, water and land for making unnecessary things - consumer goods.

The sane way of saving ecosystems is - you stop production of consumer goods - you reduce production of consumer goods to the minimum level.

But the insane Industrial Society continues producing consumer goods [ in fact production is being increased every day]

The insane response of Industrial Society is - We will save the environment with technology - the best technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.


In the meantime production of consumer goods continues - 3 billion people living in cities are continuously engaged in - making , buying and selling of consumer goods - killing the ecosystems moment by moment.

One can imagine the fate of environment.

Height of Insanity.......Height of Abnormality.

Destroy consumerism..... before it is too late.

sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
We did stop the attacker .... you don't see that?

We have stopped an enormous amount of attackers. We have stopped slavery in various parts of the world. We have stopped death from common diseases in many parts of the world. We have brought clean water and reliable sources of food to many parts of the world. We have, more or less, helped to alleviate much "stabbing" as you call it.

What you are seeing though ... is essentially the Dust Bowl effect. Do you know what the Dust Bowl is? It happened in the US during the 1930's, and it was a tremendously horrific event financially, environmentally, socially ... you name it. In fact, some thought it was the "last days" prophesied by many religions. It was caused by poor agricultural methods .... the very agricultural methods that helped sustain a nation's growth and prosperity during our 1920's. However, once the cause was discovered, newer methods of growing crops "for the masses" was introduced and techniques were experimented with and we haven't had a dust bowl since. In other words, the US learned from a traumatic environmental event and corrected it (apparently).

Now .... this is an example of your stabbing analogy. People are starving and needing reliable sources of food, etc etc. To alleviate that, we learned to stop hunting and gathering and grow crops as well. So we did that. In stopping the hunger, we stopped the killer from stabbing. No more stabbing. However, we had to take the tools of the killer ---- the knife ---- to perform surgery. You see what I'm saying? And so we performed surgery the best we knew how ... but it turned out to be dreadful. A different murderer sprang to life .... one we created. And so we learned from that. But it took time for us to learn and catchup. And once we did, the murderer who was the new "stabber" in your analogy was replaced.

I think what you are seeing is essentially the same effect. The world as a whole has become a more global society, and we are beginning to see that indeed we have gotten rid of many "killers" doing the stabbing ... and yet new stabbers have popped up in their place, some of which we created ourselves. As the nations try to figure this out, and learn from our choices and impact ---- thus trying to end our "current dust bowl" if you will .... what should we do? Panic and go crazy and start killing people and blowing things up and declaring "nature's law" and just drop everything all at once? Declare the world insane and set fire to consumer goods?

If we are going to continue to exist, reproduce, and try not to kill each other and ourselves ... yelling and screaming that things are insane won't accomplish anything. Logically, to save the earth we should remove ourselves from it. But that's not going to happen without mass casualties, obviously. And for everyone to start killing themselves with poisoned coolaid isn't going to accomplish anything either. So --- in other words --- whatever problems there are will not go away over night.

Most likely, a movement that is seen as beneficial of some kind generated amongst the people, or revolutionary ideas that are put into practice would "change" things. That, and/or severe consequences that effect people right here and now. But I don't think a "call to arms" will accomplish anything. We enjoy the benefits of our medicine and technology and securities and comforts. And, in general, it's good practice to not take it away from another person because you don't think they should have it. I learned that when I was four years old.
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 10:55 PM   #94
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless'
Posts: 2,915
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
There's a yard for fonts?
Yah. It's where the trolls go to find the extra large ones in odd colors that they end up resorting to.

A
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 06:47 AM   #95
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
What is a "slow emotion"?

Quote:
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
That has never been my experience.

Quote:
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Broad-brush assertion. Such thinking can also be the means to improving the environment.

Quote:
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Why not?

Tell us, what do you propose to do with the majority of the human population if your proposal is implemented? This "simple life" of which you speak will have a drastically lower capacity for sustaining population. If everyone returns to substance farming then we will certainly need to destroy even more of the environment in order to feed everyone. So how will you reduce the population by a huge percentage? Pol Pot had some ideas, I wonder what yours are.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 08:40 AM   #96
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A floating island above the clouds
Posts: 24,250
Originally Posted by money View Post
... I concur.
You forgot to thank him for the drive-by.


To the OP, please map modern society w.r.t. population, general health, longevity, and so on, and compare with 3rd world, or any place 200 years ago, or 1000, then get back to me with the results.

I'm eager to see the results.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 09:01 AM   #97
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
You forgot to thank him for the drive-by.
Mr. Detective,

I have not gone around posting at random. I have always tried to post in forums that are relevant to my article/ related to keywords in my article. It has taken me considerable time to search for the right forums. My article is related to the following keywords - Environment, Philosophy, Nature, Ecology, Activism, Socialism, Mind, Yoga, Meditation, Spirituality, Global Warming, Climate Change, Simple Living, Frugal Living, Anti Globalization, Anti Capitalism .... and many others. There are different forums for all these topics and these forums are visited by different people. This is why I have posted my article in so many forums - my article is suitable for all these forums.

Why should people in one forum bother about the fact that same content has been posted in other forums as well?

The same newspaper goes to millions of homes.
The newspaper is same – but readers are different.

The same goods are available in millions of shops.
The goods are same – but buyers are different.

There is nothing wrong if the same content is posted in many forums.
The content is same – but forums/ readers are different. Moreover, the discussion, the replies and comments are different in different forums - so every thread becomes different.

People see the same cars on road everyday - they don't have any problem with that. People see the same faces in office and home everyday - they don't have any problem with that. But when these people see my article in several forums they start complaining.

If some people complain about seeing the same content in many forums then it is not the problem of the poster - it is the problem of readers who are members of many forums – people who hop from forum to forum. If they do that they should be prepared to see repetition of some content.

Readers should check whether the content that has been posted is appropriate for the forums – whether it is relevant to the forum. Why should they bother about the fact that it has been posted in other forums as well?


This world is surviving/ existing on things that are available at many / all places across the world. People who have objection to things that are available at many places should stop breathing air, stop drinking water and stop eating food.

Why do people breathe the same air which is available everywhere – which millions of other people are breathing?

Why do people drink the same water which is available everywhere – which millions of other people are drinking?

Why do people eat the same food which is available everywhere – which millions of other people are eating?

Why do people use the same [english] language that is being used at millions of other places?


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 10:13 AM   #98
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,085
I just watched the "The Grapes of Wraith." I honestly believe that life is generally getting better for more people everyday.

Our mere existence causes the deterioration of earth. I don't think it is possible to put in more than we take out. Therefore we are on the path of our inevitable destruction.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 12:35 PM   #99
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: not measurable
Posts: 19,605
I asked some questions four years ago and never got any answers, I'll ask them again.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav
IQ Vs EQ

IQ always has an element of change in it – IQ is about trying to make/ discover/ invent something new all the time.
Change is an inherent feature of IQ.
IQ is also about thinking more in less time—it involves speeding up of mind. Someone who does more mathematics in less time is considered more intelligent in mathematics. IQ is about change and speed.

EQ is about sustainment of the same feeling/experience over a period of time. When we experience any higher-level emotion for 10 minutes we experience the same feeling( subjective experience) over and over again for 10 minutes.
The( same) feeling can sustain only if there is Repetition.
EQ involves Repetition—Constancy—Sameness.

IQ and EQ are contradictory.
IQ and EQ are opposites.
IQ and EQ are inversely proportional.
I don't suppose you have any evidence that IQ and EQ are inversely proportional? The idea that very smart people are incapable of emotions strikes me as rather absurd. But as I said, I am willing to consider any evidence that you have.

Why do you reject intelligence so strongly? Even if they were opposites, then wouldn't a balance of intelligence and emotions be a wiser choice than rejecting intelligence and embracing emotions? Consider these examples:

1) When a policeman enters a horrific crimescene, I don't want him to break down in tears and leave. I want him to use his intelligence to gather clues, to identify and store evidence, and to rationally consider the suspects.

2) When the doctor is working on a cure for a wide-spread, debilitating illness, I don't want him to be emotionally overwhelmed by the scope of the illness, I want him to use his intelligence to approach the problem in a logical and efficient manner.
__________________
Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 06:45 PM   #100
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.
But when I asked you, you said you had no idea whatsoever how to prevent the attack, didn't you?

So with no solution of your own you want to stand back and insult the people who are trying to do something.

Do you really think you are helping?
Quote:
Destroy consumerism..... before it is too late.
Yes, we get the slogans. I have been hearing that slogan for some decades now.

What is your specific proposal?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 08:01 PM   #101
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
You know, the sun is eventually going to stop giving out heat and light.

sushil_yadav, have you considered that problem?
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 08:50 PM   #102
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I honestly believe that life is generally getting better for more people everyday.
Ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

What about the life of millions of other species that have been decimated by man? What about the life of ecosystems that have been destroyed by humans? What about the life of forests that have been cut down by humans? What about the life of fish that have vanished from oceans? What about the life of underground water that has been pumped out? What about the life of clean rivers, lakes and oceans that have been poisoned by thousands of toxic chemicals, oil spills and millions of tonnes of plastic? What about the life of Arctic ice and glaciers that have melted? Billions of tonnes of metal waste, plastic waste, electronic waste, chemical waste on the planet.

The issue is not which life is better - the issue is which life is sustainable. The issue is destruction of ecosystems.

sushil_yadav
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 26th February 2010 at 08:53 PM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 09:13 PM   #103
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I asked some questions four years ago and never got any answers, I'll ask them again.



I don't suppose you have any evidence that IQ and EQ are inversely proportional? The idea that very smart people are incapable of emotions strikes me as rather absurd. But as I said, I am willing to consider any evidence that you have.

Why do you reject intelligence so strongly? Even if they were opposites, then wouldn't a balance of intelligence and emotions be a wiser choice than rejecting intelligence and embracing emotions? Consider these examples:

1) When a policeman enters a horrific crimescene, I don't want him to break down in tears and leave. I want him to use his intelligence to gather clues, to identify and store evidence, and to rationally consider the suspects.

2) When the doctor is working on a cure for a wide-spread, debilitating illness, I don't want him to be emotionally overwhelmed by the scope of the illness, I want him to use his intelligence to approach the problem in a logical and efficient manner.
Great points. But please start a new thread on this. Just kidding also

But seriously, I might actually start a new thread if you dont mind. I almost started one on emotional intelligence awhile back but I just assumed it would be considered woo so I let it go ...

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

What about the life of millions of other species that have been decimated by man? What about the life of ecosystems that have been destroyed by humans? What about the life of forests that have been cut down by humans? What about the life of fish that have vanished from oceans? What about the life of underground water that has been pumped out? What about the life of clean rivers, lakes and oceans that have been poisoned by thousands of toxic chemicals, oil spills and millions of tonnes of plastic? What about the life of Arctic ice and glaciers that have melted? Billions of tonnes of metal waste, plastic waste, electronic waste, chemical waste on the planet.

The issue is not which life is better - the issue is which life is sustainable. The issue is destruction of ecosystems.

sushil_yadav
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Why do you personally care so much? Seems to me like you feel guilty and that it's "your fault".

A person can take responsibility for their actions without all the guilt and the "humans are evil" bitterness. Just look at Jane Goodall. So what's the real issue here with you, if I may ask? Do you think that if everyone in the world got together and decided to do the "right" things that you would feel better about the world and the direction it's headed in?

It shouldn't matter either way to you. It seems to me like your overcompensating somehow, trying to get people to admit they are wrong and clean up their mess so you don't have to feel wrong about your own mess that you aren't cleaning up.

Have you been to Iraq? Have you spent considerable time in Afghanistan? Do you use metal, plastic, etc and so forth? Or do you do "little things here and there" to make yourself feel like a better person?

Is it about saving the planet .... or blaming the humans?
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 09:32 PM   #104
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by trentwray View Post
Is it about saving the planet .... or blaming the humans?
It is about both.

Humans have destroyed the ecosystems - so I am going to blame humans - I am not going to blame the sharks.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 09:39 PM   #105
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
It is about both.

Humans have destroyed the ecosystems - so I am going to blame humans - I am not going to blame the sharks.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
So you're setting yourself up as god. You are the judge.

How can humans be declared innocent with you, and redeem themselves? What does your salvation package look like?

Do you see what you're doing?
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 09:47 PM   #106
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by trentwray View Post
So you're setting yourself up as god. You are the judge.
Destruction of ecosystems is a fact - a reality.

What is the point/ relevance of bringing God in this discussion?

sushil_yadav
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 10:08 PM   #107
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Destruction of ecosystems is a fact - a reality.

What is the point/ relevance of bringing God in this discussion?

sushil_yadav
Fine, leave the word god out of it.

You are still setting yourself up as judge over humanity. So how can we clear ourselves with you? Are there certain laws we can follow that will please you and will calm you down and make you feel better?

It has nothing to do with the destruction of ecosystems being a reality. Abortion is a reality. Disease is a reality. Death is a reality. Humans multiplying like rabbits is a reality. Surfing and catching a beautiful wave is a reality. Laughing at a Bollywood movie is a reality. Do you get this upset about all those things as well?

You think this one thing is the answer to everything ... then okay fine. So what can a person do to be declared innocent by you?
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 10:28 PM   #108
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Who's house? Run's house!
Posts: 1,569
Sushil_Yadav, why haven't you answered Darat's question? You've had about 4 years to answer it. By the way, if this is so important to you, why did you wait almost 4 years to come back?
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Will you be providing any evidence for your claims and assertions?
Now, on to some of your posts.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Since when did "simple living" become equivalent to hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

When you fall sick you rush to the doctor to save yourself.

When you fall sick you rush to the hospital to save yourself.

But when the earth falls sick - when the ecosystems are dying you are just not bothered.

The first rule of sustainability is destroy less. The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

Provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to people - not unnecessary consumer goods.

A society that destroys ecosystems for consumer goods in addition to food, clothing and shelter is the least sustainable - and will exist for the shortest duration.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Please explain why the Roman Empire lasted "the shortest duration". Ditto for the New Kingdom of Egypt, the Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, and all Chinese Dynasties.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
Computers are being used today because they exist - because they are being manufactured. Was anyone using computers 1000 years ago when they did not exist?
Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you write? Is anyone today using a Holodeck? Wait, they haven't been invented. Are you still eating your meat raw? Who would have thought 10,000 years ago to use a frying pan?


Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
I never claimed that I have a solution. I am pointing out the fact that by promoting consumerism we are only making the problem bigger and bigger day by day.

Is it possible to find a solution if the human species has been moving on the wrong path for almost 250 years?

Man started destroying extra after Industrial Revolution.

This extra destruction has risen exponentially in the last 50 years.

Before Industrial Revolution humans destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter.

After Industrialization humans have destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter and thousands of consumer goods.
Please provide proof of all these statments.

The Roman Empire built roads, aquaducts, and the Collesium. The Fourth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt helped to build the Great Pyramid. The Ming Dynasty of China built the Great Wall. The Muromachi period of Japan introduced the katana. All these groups were in exsistance before the Industrial Revolution and destroyed ecosystems for food, clothing, shelter, and consumer goods.

Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 26th February 2010 at 10:33 PM. Reason: Added more to the first paragraph
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 12:24 AM   #109
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,967
Well, maybe the third time is the charm.

We know your feelings on the effects of industrial society on the earth, those have been made very clear.
While some of us disagree on your conclusions I doubt anyone here actually denies that industrialization has been damaging to non-human species.

However I've asked you twice already and gotten no awnser other than a repeat of your beliefs, so I'll try once more.
Given your beliefs, what are you personally doing to lessen your personal impact on the damage humans do to the planet? What types of consumer goods have you given up on?
Or is posting a repeat of the OP title all you actually do in that regard?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:41 AM   #110
Cheetah
Thinker
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Africa
Posts: 129
Those idyllic hunter gatherers, living as one with nature

Ever since humans became humans and moved out from Africa some 70,000 – 50,000 years ago megafaunal mass extinctions followed in our wake (and who knows what happened to the small stuff). Since there were so much fewer of us around it took a while longer to decimate the environment than can be achieved now, but ever since we've been the smartest animal around the rest had to suffer the consequences and god help you if you tasted goooood and were slow to get out of the way.
At least now we have an understanding of what we are doing, a much longer outlook on the consequences of our deeds and hopefully the know-how and technology to do something about it.

Greetings out of Africa!

Last edited by Cheetah; 27th February 2010 at 01:55 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:59 AM   #111
Fiona
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,238
Not sure what the point of this thread is.

Would it be fair to say that there is something of a false dispute here? It seems to me that the very fact of "green industry" etc suggests that there is some consensus that we need to be thinking about the environment and our impact on it. To the extent that this is the subject of the OP I am not sure where the argument lies. The OP does not seem to offer any solution and that is not surprising given the complexity of the issue: but generally we do seem to have some awareness and to be making some effort to find new and better ways to use our resources.

Perhaps the issue is that we do not, as individuals, do enough. Well we in the west could probably do more: and maybe we should. But I wonder if the little we can do is going to make a significant impact? Although industrialised society uses far more resource per head than other parts of the world I am not sure what proportion of that is down to the consumption of households? The argument seems to be that the problem is consumer goods. But is that true? The OP mentions overfishing, for example. Fish is not a consumer durable: it is food. I understand that it is used for feeding animals and that may not be very efficient: but I do not know the practicalities of that. In places where there is more attention to local produce (for example in France where there is a much more regional cuisine than in this country) it is not so easy to get fish if you are away from the coast. Do french cows and sheep get fish meal? Probably not. Is fish meal used as fertiliser for crops? I don't know. To the extent that those are uses for fish they are part of the food chain and we need to eat. Sure we could eat less meat: maybe we should. And we could keep fewer pets, who are also fed on that kind of food (well dogs and cats are anyway). Significant reduction? Again I don't know.

What would be helpful to me would be if the OP could provide some evidence of how much the exploitation of resource is actually "not necessary". It would be good to start with things like the fish because if it is true they are using fish meal to produce motor cars then I think I can accept we need to make a change.

But if it is the case that globally the lack of sustainability arises from the industrialisation of countries like China, which I think I have seen claimed quite plausibly, then how can we oppose that? We cannot pull the ladder up behind us, and it seems to be undeniable that food security is much better in industrialised societies than in pastoral ones.

I do wonder how much that is to do with industrialisation and how much it is predicated on democracy: some appear to think those things are one and the same but this is not the case IMO.

What does seem clear to me is that the problem identified is located at the level of society and so blather about EQ seems to me to be irrelevant. If the problem is not with individuals then neither is the solution.
Fiona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 03:22 AM   #112
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.

What these insane people do - they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it -- they don’t prevent it.

Instead, what they do - They say we are going to save the victim by using technology - the best technology - the best medical care.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

They give the victim the best technology - the best medical care.
In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given.

One can imagine the fate of the victim.


Ecosystems are getting destroyed due to production of consumer goods.

Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land - directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]

Industrial society is destroying necessary things - animals, trees, air, water and land for making unnecessary things - consumer goods.

The sane way of saving ecosystems is - you stop production of consumer goods - you reduce production of consumer goods to the minimum level.

But the insane Industrial Society continues producing consumer goods [ in fact production is being increased every day]

The insane response of Industrial Society is - We will save the environment with technology - the best technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.


In the meantime production of consumer goods continues - 3 billion people living in cities are continuously engaged in - making , buying and selling of consumer goods - killing the ecosystems moment by moment.

One can imagine the fate of environment.

Height of Insanity.......Height of Abnormality.

Destroy consumerism..... before it is too late.

sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Why can't you

write a coherent paragraph

without any spaces?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 10:54 AM   #113
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Why can't you

write a coherent paragraph

without any spaces?
The spaces are deliberate [ to provide a gap between thinking for the overthinking species].

sushil_yadav
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 11:02 AM   #114
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,267
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.

What these insane people do - they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it -- they don’t prevent it.

Instead, what they do - They say we are going to save the victim by using technology - the best technology - the best medical care.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

They give the victim the best technology - the best medical care.
In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given. . . .
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Let's see, do you mean do you mean the technology of the internet, which you are using to further your screed? Are personal computers part of the consumerism you want to destroy? Again, how about photovoltaic cells and compact fluorescent light-bulbs? Do you want to get rid of them? I really can't tell from your posts what you specifically want us to do.

By the way, in a non-industrialized society, I, a reasonably decent and intelligent person, would have been blind in one eye from amblyopia, possibly would have died from a strangulated hernia, and certainly would have died in my fifties from heart problems. The medications I take regularly and the coronary bypass surgery I had ten years ago - both products of an industrial, high-tech civilization - didn't destroy my mind, they kept and are keeping it alive today, along with my body.

I might point out also, that I have already given you examples of where low-tech, pre-industrial societies have wrought environmental havoc by simply hunting animals into extinction, cutting down forests (as in the cedars of Lebanon) over-grazing (as in the desertification of the Sahara) and over-irrigation (resulting in increased soil salinity, as in Mesopotamia). You have yet to respond to these points. I wonder if you ever will.

This is not to say that there are not high-tech threats to the environment. Perhaps the best long-term solution to the problem of human environmental impact is to reduce our numbers by having fewer children.

There! You see? I've just given you a specific strategy. What specifically do you want us to do? Should we give up electricity? Should we give up powered vehicles - even highly efficient ones - and go back to horse drawn carriages? Or are you merely urging us to be less consumerist, not buying every new video game etc.?
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 11:06 AM   #115
Fiona
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,238
I find it instructive to think about the people I know and count the number who would have died before this year if there were no modern medicine: in my circle I find I would be quite lonely. It is a useful exercise when tempted by pastoralism
Fiona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 06:22 PM   #116
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
 
Hawk one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Right below The Hat.
Posts: 13,347
Originally Posted by Fiona View Post
I find it instructive to think about the people I know and count the number who would have died before this year if there were no modern medicine: in my circle I find I would be quite lonely. It is a useful exercise when tempted by pastoralism
Actually, from your previous post, it looks like even you wouldn't be part of that circle.

But thankfully, due to modern medicine, you are part of it today!
__________________
Boynott everything!

Roxane - My evil feeds on your hatred. I am like a big evil thing that feasts on hatred and probably also fear. Nom nom.

Roxane is a ninja star without me.
Hawk one is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 06:43 PM   #117
Fiona
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,238
You are correct, Hawk one: I would very likely have died of measles in childhood. I wonder how many of us have never had an illness or an injury which might well have killed us before we reached our current age? and how many of those did not benefit from vaccination etc
Fiona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 09:32 PM   #118
sushil_yadav
Scholar
 
sushil_yadav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Posts: 62
You are right about population being a problem.

The two things that have destroyed Ecosystems are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism.

In the last 50 years a lot of efforts have been made to control/ reduce population [ and these efforts should continue in future]. In the absence of these efforts world population would be much greater than 6.8 billion today.

An equivalent example does not exist for Overconsumerism.

The world has not made efforts to reduce consumerism.

All countries have been promoting consumerism in the last 50 years. The number of consumer goods in most homes has risen exponentially over the last 50 years.


sushil_yadav
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/...pic.php?t=1796
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Last edited by sushil_yadav; 27th February 2010 at 09:34 PM.
sushil_yadav is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 11:41 PM   #119
Trent Wray
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
You are right about population being a problem.

The two things that have destroyed Ecosystems are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism.

In the last 50 years a lot of efforts have been made to control/ reduce population [ and these efforts should continue in future]. In the absence of these efforts world population would be much greater than 6.8 billion today.

An equivalent example does not exist for Overconsumerism.

The world has not made efforts to reduce consumerism.

All countries have been promoting consumerism in the last 50 years. The number of consumer goods in most homes has risen exponentially over the last 50 years.


sushil_yadav
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/...pic.php?t=1796
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
So your existence is half the problem then.
Trent Wray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2010, 12:46 AM   #120
Fiona
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,238
Originally Posted by sushil_yadav View Post
You are right about population being a problem.

The two things that have destroyed Ecosystems are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism.

In the last 50 years a lot of efforts have been made to control/ reduce population [ and these efforts should continue in future]. In the absence of these efforts world population would be much greater than 6.8 billion today.
Do you have evidence for the effectiveness of those efforts? It was my understanding that the biggest reduction in family size has been in modern industrialised societies. It appears to be related to modern medicine in the form of effective contraception, coupled with education (particularly of women), and enhanced choice (again, particularly for women). Where those things do not exist even forced programmes do not work very well unless they are draconian: is it true that the reduction in birth rate through eg. forced sterilisation or the "one child" policy has been more helpful in reducing population than the decisions individuals made without coercion when thier prospects for education, prosperity and employment improved?

Quote:
An equivalent example does not exist for Overconsumerism.

The world has not made efforts to reduce consumerism.

All countries have been promoting consumerism in the last 50 years. The number of consumer goods in most homes has risen exponentially over the last 50 years.
You still have not said what items you consider to be examples of what you so emotively describe as "overconsumerism". I asked you upthread what proportion of the ill you identify is related to individuals and households. Don't seem to have had an answer, but here again you refer to consumer goods in homes.

For the sake of argument, let me accept that those things have indeed "grown exponentially". Which items do you think we should do without? See, you are focussing on the home so I had a look about in mine. And what I found was:

A computer. The fact that you have one of those too has been mentioned and although you graciously conceded you are part of the problem I don't see you have done much to act on your insight: the notion that it belongs to someone else in the family is really inadequate, wouldn't you say?

A washing machine. Do you hand wash your clothes? I used to have to do that when I was a student. It takes ages. It is drudgery. It uses an awful lot of hot water. Course I suppose I could have taken my clothes to a river and slapped them on stones instead: does not work too well in Scotland in February, I imagine. And I really can't imagine it being very good for either my health or for the ecosystem in the river. What do you reckon?

Central heating. I didn't used to have that either. I used to wake up with ice on the inside of my windows and the water in my toilet cistern sometimes froze. Ever lived with indadequate heating? Doesn't kill you but it sure makes getting up in the morning unpleasant in the winter. But more importantly the clean air acts have pretty much abolished fog here. Part of that must be due to the fact that we don't all burn coal or wood any more. Those fogs were damaging to both health and the environment: there is a whole lot of research about that and a lot of fiction too. So what are we to heat our homes with, if we get rid of radiators and other consumer goods like that? I suppose when we abolish the cities it wont' be a problem? We can each have a wee bit of forest and burn our own wood? In a sustainable way of course. So do you get up early every morning to ligh the fire and get some heat in your home before everyone else is up? Early enough for the time it takes to get some hot water for washing and making breakfast (assuming, of course, you have a back boiler or some such arrangement)? Do you have space to store your wood? I dont. Do you know how much wood you have to cut to keep a house warm in winter? What is to happen in places where there is no forest to divvy up? Some of those places can burn peat, I suppose, but it is not renewable in the same way.

A fridge and a freezer. Do you know how quickly food goes off in summer if you dont' have a fridge? I take it you will be keeping a cow or a goat so you have milk at least part of the year? So after you get up early and light the fire you can get out there and milk this animal so you can have breakfast. Well that will be nice on pleasant summer mornings I am sure. Course you will have to do it even if you feel like skipping breakfast: the animal is not comfy if you don't. Oh, and there is not milk all year so that is a shame. And then there is too much milk but no matter: you can make cheese and butter. I don't know where you are going to keep the butter without refrigeration but I am sure you will have a dairy or something? Or maybe your community will cooperate and you can barter it? Takes a lot of time to do those things though. But I am sure you can fit it in. Funnily enough women used to do those tasks for the most part. Family members or servants. This life style is very labour intensive and for some reason the men who work on crofts and small holdings don't seem to have time for all of this: I don't know why. Maybe it is because they lack consumer durables such as tractors and stuff? Could be that growing food without mechnanisation is a slow process? What do you think?

I have a fair few machines for cooking with. I don't need those, of course. I like to make bread, but it is not necessary: I can buy it as cheap. Not sure if you are suggesting that this "simplification" should involve the abolition of the shops: if not then without the fridge someone needs to shop every day or two. No choice about that either. But we can fit it in, I am sure. Or perhaps your vision is of a more pastoral crofting kind of life? In that case we do need to make our baked goods. Can't get by without bread. That takes a long time too: need to make bread every few days and who is going to do it? You? I am not seeing where you are finding all the hours in the day but if you want to work from sun to sun it is very much your choice. Given a choice most people don't choose it, though. I don't fancy it myself. Are you going to impose it?

I have several radios and many people also have tv. Well we could surely get rid of those I guess. But in the past when people did not have those things they "made their own amusement". Quite often that was music and they owned instruments: I wonder if I have more radios and if they use more resource than a piano and a fiddle and an accordian? Don't know really. But I am pretty sure that human beings have consumer goods for entertainment if they are anywhere above subsistence level (you don't want us all to be living so much on the margin that we have nothing of comfort in our lives, do you?)

For most of history half the population spent a great many hours making clothes. It was not really a career choice: there was no choice at all. It was more of less forced labour for women and not just for poor women but for women at all levels of society. I don't want to do that, so I assume that you are going to take up the slack? It is a shame you won't be able to do much else by the time you have spun and woven cloth and sewed it up: because I have a horrible feeling there won't be enough time for growing food and hunting and stuff. But no matter: I am sure you and yours can work it out.

I could go on. But my point is this: all those "unnecessary" consumer durables in houses are the things which allowed women to have a life and men to have some leisure. If you take them away it comes down to a cliche: a man may work from sun to sun: a woman's work is never done. That was a reality for most and it still is. You want that you go for it: but don't expect me to accept the life you envisage: the things you dismiss seem to me to be things you take it for granted women will do instead of the machine. I would be more impressed if you focussed on things outside the home because I think they cause more of the problems and I also think you might personally have to make the changes rather than me doing it.

I may be very unfair: perhaps you are a woman and perhaps you really do want to take on all those traditionally female tasks. Or perhaps you are a bloke and you envisage a different division of labour than traditionally obtained. But your focus on "household" consumer durables leads me to wonder. I have a suspicious mind, in all likelihood
Fiona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.