[LINK] Exponential growth
cas at taz.net.au
Mon Apr 16 12:23:35 EST 2007
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:54:49AM +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> This all reminds me of the butterfly effect. We don't know enough
> about the complexities of natural systems to think we can 'fix'
> things. I wonder if the best approach would be to just accept the
> fact that we are part of nature and it will take care of itself and
> we, as in humans, may be the ultimate sacrifice. Being ostriches
> might not be a bad idea.
is that just for global-warming or for any human activity that affects the
should we just stick our heads in the sand when it comes to sewerage
management too? or is it actually a good idea to use our brains and our
technology to process it so that we're not poisoning our rivers and our selves
with our own waste?
(rhetorical question, that).
nature won't take care of itself. nature doesn't care if there's a
desert or a forest - life will eventually evolve to fill the available
niches. we do, however, care - moist, temperate climates are far better
for us than hot, dry climates...and we live on a human timescale (i.e.
here and now) and not on an evolutionary or geological time scale.
more importantly, we ARE a part of nature. just by existing we will
affect it. it's up to us to manage our impact as best we can.
running away from the problem, and running away from technology is NOT
the answer. not if we want to (or have to) live in communities larger
than a few hundred people.
global warming isn't really a technological problem, anyway. it's
political. we have several very effective things we could do to
ameliorate or even completely fix the problem IF the political will to
do so existed (and wasn't subverted by big-money interests lobbying to
keep the current suicidal status quo) - deamand reduction, increased
efficiency, solar, wind, wave power, etc.
for all the lies spread by the fossil-fuel industries (AND the nuclear
red-herring wedge tactic), alternative energy technologies like solar,
wind, and wave ARE good enough now to completely replace fossil fuels. it
just takes money and effort AND, most importantly, the political will to do
what is needed even if it means annoying multi-billion dollar industries.
the tech is good enough now. and it's getting better rapidly. it will only
get better and better as we invest more time, money, and resources into it.
imagine what we'd have if even a tiny fraction of the 2 Trillion US dollars that
the US is spending on the war for oil in iraq was spent on alternative energy
research instead. or the billion or so that the Aust Govt has spent on the
propaganda exercise of having a few hundred troops in Iraq.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
"Talk of God leads by a direct road to the conclusion of
atheism. The only sensible attitude is to dismiss the idea of God
-- to get it out of the way of more important ideas. The wide
dissemination of this intelligent atheistic attitude is one of the
leading features of any program of popular education which is
completely worthy of the name."
[E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]
More information about the Link