|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 19, 2010 23:22:10 GMT -5
www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.htmlJust in case you haven't heard over the news, there's a HUGE oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. (that's still leaking after almost a month) Environmentalists predict that it will have a huge negative impact on wildlife; fishing industry experts say it will put thousands of fishermen out of work (it already has), not to mention the many people who live on the Gulf Coast, especially on the islands, who have been getting oil slicks in their water supplies. Clean up efforts have begun, and thousands of volunteers have answered the call. My question to you is, to what extent is your org involved in positive environmental efforts? Do you wish that there was a larger push by nationals to donate to, or possibly encourage members to get physically get involved with, this crisis, or other crises of the past (Hurricane Katrina, Disaster in Haiti, etc.) Or do you feel that your organization does enough on that front? Or do you not think its something that your org should focus much on at all? Elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 20, 2010 6:47:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 20, 2010 15:11:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 20, 2010 19:52:45 GMT -5
Environmental efforts are hugely insignificant.
For every kilowatt of energy saved, there are hundreds of gigawatts being wasted by companies and government agencies. I know that everyday people want to save the planet. But actually making a significant contribution to the reduction of pollution would require us to go back to the stone ages. Our current way of life can never be maintained without the destruction to some part of the planet.
In short: keep raping the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 20, 2010 20:21:37 GMT -5
^^^^and what the hayle that has to do with MICRO issue of the oil spill....the world will never know. BUT...I am helping out with an effort currently. With that being said I actually agree with Apil to a certain extent. I really don't go as green in a mainstream sense. As we progress we destroy the earth. Every pro has a con. But I do think we should do things to make everyday life more pleasant. There is a huge difference between polluted air and natural air. Asthmatics and those with severe allergies...could write a book about it. We don't have to regress to the practices of the stone ages for a cleaner greener earth...just the 1950's or so will do.  |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 20, 2010 21:57:55 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal I just hate the way you worded that statement. Keep raping the planet until what? We have to fly into space and live on the moon because there is no more non-toxic Earth left? That's mentality isn't progress. I also don't think that we have to go back to the stone ages in order to live in a way that's positive to the environment. Just back to about 1492 - the Native Americans pretty much had that down. @nsync I'm glad you're helping out with an effort; I personally need to get more involved myself. Sidenote: The 1950s was no better than today; actually, it was probably worse because there were fewer restrictions on what big businesses could do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on May 20, 2010 22:28:50 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal I just hate the way you worded that statement. Keep raping the planet until what? We have to fly into space and live on the moon because there is no more non-toxic Earth left? That's mentality isn't progress. I also don't think that we have to go back to the stone ages in order to live in a way that's positive to the environment. Just back to about 1492 - the Native Americans pretty much had that down. @nsync I'm glad you're helping out with an effort; I personally need to get more involved myself. Sidenote: The 1950s was no better than today; actually, it was probably worse because there were fewer restrictions on what big businesses could do. godfirst, you must understand the level of unmittigated stupidity you're dealing with when addressing Nu-pil. It's unlike anything you've likely encountered in either a very long time, or ever. |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 20, 2010 22:49:48 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal I just hate the way you worded that statement. Keep raping the planet until what? We have to fly into space and live on the moon because there is no more non-toxic Earth left? That's mentality isn't progress. I also don't think that we have to go back to the stone ages in order to live in a way that's positive to the environment. Just back to about 1492 - the Native Americans pretty much had that down. @nsync I'm glad you're helping out with an effort; I personally need to get more involved myself. Sidenote: The 1950s was no better than today; actually, it was probably worse because there were fewer restrictions on what big businesses could do. godfirst, you must understand the level of unmittigated stupidity you're dealing with when addressing Nu-pil. It's unlike anything you've likely encountered in either a very long time, or ever. He must be really bored at his day job. |
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 21, 2010 1:45:10 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal I just hate the way you worded that statement. Keep raping the planet until what? We have to fly into space and live on the moon because there is no more non-toxic Earth left? That's mentality isn't progress. I also don't think that we have to go back to the stone ages in order to live in a way that's positive to the environment. Just back to about 1492 - the Native Americans pretty much had that down. @nsync I'm glad you're helping out with an effort; I personally need to get more involved myself. Sidenote: The 1950s was no better than today; actually, it was probably worse because there were fewer restrictions on what big businesses could do. godfirst, you must understand the level of unmittigated stupidity you're dealing with when addressing Nu-pil. It's unlike anything you've likely encountered in either a very long time, or ever. Developed nations, especially the United States, are not ready to sacrifice enough to help drastically reduce pollution and the destruction of uninhabited lands. We are going to continue to dig for oil under every rock or body of water we can. We are going to continue to break the Earth in order to extract precious metals, jewels, and coal. We are going to continue to produce and consume cheap goods that were made by processes that pump deadly chemicals into the ground, water, and atmosphere. I for one am not ready to make any drastic changes in life to help the Earth. We would have to change from a nation that moves 24 hours back into a nation that went to sleep when the sun set. Our desire to even use computers late into the night costs a great deal of effort and resources to maintain. Many of you have no idea how much waste is truly generated from the little things we do in our daily lives. You guys can talk about going green and reducing consumption, but at the end of the day we will do the same thing: go back into our houses that have running water, electricity, heat/AC, and sleep in comfort. There are billions of people who do not even have clean water to drink. People actually die from diarrhea in parts of this world due to lack of clean water. This is due to those nations not having adequate facilities to treat and clean water, which consumes a good deal of energy. We are raping the Earth little by little every time we argue with one another on this message board or watch a Youtube video. We could stop our current way of consumption, but why? Just to say "I am saving the Earth"? That is not realistic. We would have to be forced into poverty in order to reduce our consumption of energy, which would reduce toxic chemicals that devastate our environment. But if calling me stupid makes you feel better, go ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 21, 2010 8:44:35 GMT -5
Ok, everybody calm down.
@ Apil is both right and wrong
He's correct in saying that most are not willing to undertake a drastic lifestyle change in order to save the planet and that underdeveloped nations will continue to use "primative" energy sources (fossil fuels) that will continue to pollute the environment.
He's wrong in his notion that our lifestyles much change drastically. He's also wrong to say that we would be reduced to poverty if we made the change.
Sustainability is bigger than just going green. If we think that we just have to turn off all lights and live in the dark, or not drive anywhere anymore, or not turn on our computers or use appliances that require tons of electricity to effect change then we are like the the government saying that the way to combat obesiety is to give every citizen Lapband surgery. It's addressing the symptom and ignoring the obvious source.
We have the technology to run cars, home appliances (including computers), utilities, manfacturing plants, etc...without destroying the planet. There are realistic ways to provide food for the entire planet without having corporate farms that destroy soil. Our lives, our overall health, our lifestyles depend on us becoming more SUSTAINABLE...
There is no reason for any country to not have potable drinking water. Big corporations just haven't figured out a way to milk their already poor governments for the money to provide it. If the UN said, "We are offering a $ 100 million prize for the invention of a water purification system that requires no electricity, easily produced locally, kills bacteria and pollutants, etc....you''d bet that someone would come up with it quickly!
THe source of our power is the issue. The process in obtaining our foods is the problem. These are not just issues for the environment but for humans in general.
So we cannot just say, "fuck it" and move on. Those who are struggling to stay afloat need the help of those of us educated and able to make moves for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on May 21, 2010 11:12:28 GMT -5
So, because the earth has indeed been damaged by man, industry, civilization, etc....rather than trying to make repairs on some of those damages, or make improvements in environmental protection, we should just continue to fuck it up?
I guess if the doctor says, "well, grandma is sick so rather than waste anytime doing anything for her, let's just sit back and wait for her to die."
Sounds like Elly May Palin's "death panel" for the ecology.
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 21, 2010 12:51:18 GMT -5
So, because the earth has indeed been damaged by man, industry, civilization, etc....rather than trying to make repairs on some of those damages, or make improvements in environmental protection, we should just continue to fuck it up? I guess if the doctor says, "well, grandma is sick so rather than waste anytime doing anything for her, let's just sit back and wait for her to die." Sounds like Elly May Palin's "death panel" for the ecology. It would depend on what quality of life my grandmother would have. I myself would not want to be revived if I would not be able to move or if my mind was severely damaged. I value having the ability to live and move freely. As far as the environment goes, everyday Joes cannot really do anything. Corporations and governments do the vast majority of the damage to the Earth. That BP oil spill is a perfect example. It would make no sense for me to reduce my usage of gas when millions of gallons of oil are leaking into the ocean. We all want the planet to be clean. But it is not up to the average man to solve these problems. We are not the culprits in this ordeal. Companies and governments need to do the heavy lifting and stop polluting. If you seriously think the masses can make a difference, then you are insane. |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 21, 2010 21:04:13 GMT -5
So, because the earth has indeed been damaged by man, industry, civilization, etc....rather than trying to make repairs on some of those damages, or make improvements in environmental protection, we should just continue to fuck it up? I guess if the doctor says, "well, grandma is sick so rather than waste anytime doing anything for her, let's just sit back and wait for her to die." Sounds like Elly May Palin's "death panel" for the ecology. It would depend on what quality of life my grandmother would have. I myself would not want to be revived if I would not be able to move or if my mind was severely damaged. I value having the ability to live and move freely. As far as the environment goes, everyday Joes cannot really do anything. Corporations and governments do the vast majority of the damage to the Earth. That BP oil spill is a perfect example. It would make no sense for me to reduce my usage of gas when millions of gallons of oil are leaking into the ocean. We all want the planet to be clean. But it is not up to the average man to solve these problems. We are not the culprits in this ordeal. Companies and governments need to do the heavy lifting and stop polluting. If you seriously think the masses can make a difference, then you are insane. <---- Thinks that APIL must have been sleeping in all those history classes when the teacher talked about revolutions Ever heard of Marxist theory? It's a theory that was created to describe many times when THE MASSES ROSE UP against the ruling class to overthrow a situation that they deemed unfitting. There are more people "without" than "with." If we all banded together and did something about it (ex: refused to consume products that were created using too much energy) then corporations would have no choice but to give us what we wanted, or face going out of business. It's the attitude of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, Apil, that keeps the planet on the track its on. "I can't make a difference, so fuck it. Let me go back to blasting my iPod, turning on every light in my house, and going out and buying the latest new flat screen TV." Really? These corporations keep winning because they have our MINDS, not the numbers. Power is a figament of our imaginations. The CEO of WalMart has no more TRUE power, then you do. Your mindset that he has power, however, grants him that power. Everyone else: Definitely didn't mean to bring my borderline Marxist views into this thread, but I'm getting heated. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on May 21, 2010 21:10:48 GMT -5
The problem is if no one thinks his/her individual efforts matter, then there will be no progress. APIL does have a point about large corps and governments though.
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 21, 2010 22:24:28 GMT -5
It would depend on what quality of life my grandmother would have. I myself would not want to be revived if I would not be able to move or if my mind was severely damaged. I value having the ability to live and move freely. As far as the environment goes, everyday Joes cannot really do anything. Corporations and governments do the vast majority of the damage to the Earth. That BP oil spill is a perfect example. It would make no sense for me to reduce my usage of gas when millions of gallons of oil are leaking into the ocean. We all want the planet to be clean. But it is not up to the average man to solve these problems. We are not the culprits in this ordeal. Companies and governments need to do the heavy lifting and stop polluting. If you seriously think the masses can make a difference, then you are insane. <---- Thinks that APIL must have been sleeping in all those history classes when the teacher talked about revolutions Ever heard of Marxist theory? It's a theory that was created to describe many times when THE MASSES ROSE UP against the ruling class to overthrow a situation that they deemed unfitting. There are more people "without" than "with." If we all banded together and did something about it (ex: refused to consume products that were created using too much energy) then corporations would have no choice but to give us what we wanted, or face going out of business. It's the attitude of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, Apil, that keeps the planet on the track its on. "I can't make a difference, so fuck it. Let me go back to blasting my iPod, turning on every light in my house, and going out and buying the latest new flat screen TV." Really? These corporations keep winning because they have our MINDS, not the numbers. Power is a figament of our imaginations. The CEO of WalMart has no more TRUE power, then you do. Your mindset that he has power, however, grants him that power. Everyone else: Definitely didn't mean to bring my borderline Marxist views into this thread, but I'm getting heated. The masses will NEVER rise up and take over. Even if they do, they will eventually put a few people in power to preside over things. The cycle of power would then start all over again. Look at Cuba as an example. Fidel Castro still rules that country with an iron fist. Stop putting your faith in people. People are lazy and do not really want to do hard work on a regular basis to make change happen. I mean, how many people who joined undergrad in your organization are financial members of Grad chapters? How many of the people who joined undergrad even have Bachelor's degrees? I know that you and others want to argue with me just because I am the High & Mighty APIL! But your arguments fail the test of reality. What exactly are you doing to save the planet? I bet not much. Lip service makes me want to  . |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 21, 2010 22:57:27 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal 1) I don't pretend to be the Green Goddess - the amount of plugs in my home that stay connected to wall sockets for no reason is just one of the reasons I can't claim that title. But I am aware of the environmental crisis, and I do WANT to change. Small steps, like boycotting a business that violates or finds loopholes in EPA standards, or buying organic foods and supporting local farmers, is a start. Both of which I currently do. 2) Cuba is also not communist, it's socialist. A true communist country has no dictatorship. Fidel Castro and his family were never considered "the masses" - he was always a member of the elite. (his dad was a successful sugar planter) Elite, controlling the masses. No new cycle of power. 3) Just because you have lost all faith in people does not mean that I have to. 4) I am not affliated with a Greek organization. 5) Does looking in the mirror also make you want to barf?
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 21, 2010 23:02:07 GMT -5
All Pledging Is Legal 1) I don't pretend to be the Green Goddess - the amount of plugs in my home that stay connected to wall sockets for no reason is just one of the reasons I can't claim that title. But I am aware of the environmental crisis, and I do WANT to change. Small steps, like boycotting a business that violates or finds loopholes in EPA standards, or buying organic foods and supporting local farmers, is a start. Both of which I currently do. 2) Cuba is also not communist, it's socialist. A true communist country has no dictatorship. Fidel Castro and his family were never considered "the masses" - he was always a member of the elite. (his dad was a successful sugar planter) Elite, controlling the masses. No new cycle of power. 3) Just because you have lost all faith in people does not mean that I have to. 4) I am not affliated with a Greek organization. 5) Does looking in the mirror also make you want to barf? Cool! We need folks like you to come to our parties and cheer us on during step shows. |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on May 21, 2010 23:08:39 GMT -5
Rather be a groupie than a perp. Come on son, when are you going to give it up?
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 22, 2010 22:03:10 GMT -5
It's not just about the 'distant big business'. It's significantly about how we live our lives as a society. We are a fast-paced, on the go, ready made, second by second heavily technology reliant group of humans. So I disagree with you in that aspect based on APIL's comment about individual consumption and behavior. But to be fair and more accurate we still don't have to return to the stone ages just the 1700s. What they hayle... who am I kidding...that might as well be the stone ages.  Man I was just thinking the other day that we should create self sufficient farm communities...for those of us who want to return to a more traditional way of living. ;D Kinda like a global Kibbutz project or something. It could work. Oh I am donating hair for my efforts. Easy as pie. Makes sense. Hair soaks up oil. All Pledging Is Legal I just hate the way you worded that statement. Keep raping the planet until what? We have to fly into space and live on the moon because there is no more non-toxic Earth left? That's mentality isn't progress. I also don't think that we have to go back to the stone ages in order to live in a way that's positive to the environment. Just back to about 1492 - the Native Americans pretty much had that down. @nsync I'm glad you're helping out with an effort; I personally need to get more involved myself. Sidenote: The 1950s was no better than today; actually, it was probably worse because there were fewer restrictions on what big businesses could do. |
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 23, 2010 19:14:16 GMT -5
Sorry nsync, but 95% of us on Earth way too lazy to do any farming. It sounds good in theory, but most people do not like nature as much as they think. I myself have been to a farm and I see how labor-intensive that sort of work is. Do you really think someone with a college degree is going to start tilling soil?
We really need to stop complaining about helping the environment and let advanced science take over. The whole point of life is to make things easier through the use of our minds. Humans do not need to work harder; they need to work smarter. Any person who thinks that hard work will help us to solve environmental challenges is a complete fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 23, 2010 21:41:49 GMT -5
Notice how I said FOR THOSE OF US who want a more traditional way of living not FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE FEELING APILIC. . I have to admit my reason for thinking this had very little to do with the environment as it had to do more with finding harmony and simplicity. The human brain has not had enough time to fully catch up with all these virtually recent technological advances. That is why we have become an unhealthy unhappy mentally enslaved species. |
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 23, 2010 23:33:54 GMT -5
Notice how I said FOR THOSE OF US who want a more traditional way of living not FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE FEELING APILIC. . I have to admit my reason for thinking this had very little to do with the environment as it had to do more with finding harmony and simplicity. The human brain has not had enough time to fully catch up with all these virtually recent technological advances. That is why we have become an unhealthy unhappy mentally enslaved species. You lost me here. What is so hard about using technology? I guess that if you are older person or a recently released prisoner, the world is a frightening and fast-paced place. But kids today easily adapt to technology. Things are not that hard to learn. I do not see how technology makes us an "unhealthy unhappy mentally enslaved species" anymore than the lack of technology did. People have been living sad lives since man came to Earth. But we have to use our God-given gift, which is intelligence, to advance ourselves and make life better. Recycling a few sheets of paper & bottles here and there is not going to save the world. But I guess that since being green is the in thing, Greeks should try to capitalize off of it. It's all about publicity! |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 24, 2010 6:53:27 GMT -5
We don't have to return to the 1700's in order to live a more sustainable life. Modern technology has made the gasoline powered combustible engine obselete as it pertains to common automobile usage. Cars, trucks, busses, travel vans, etc...all normal means of transportation can be powered by fuel that not only "burns" cleanly but also is clean to manufacture/harvest. The technology exists....
I agree with Outtie/Nsync (or whatever LOL) but I also agree with APIL. To Outties point, there are plenty of us (yes, I said us) who would/could do some farming but to APILs point, most of us are too also too lazy.
That said, in the middle is small farming at home. Even in cities, people plant terrace gardens or rooftop gardens where they grow tomatoes, herbs (legal and illegal), peppers, cucumbers, etc...Those of us with a bit more actual land can plan more crops for our own consumption. It wont keep you from making trips to the supermarket but small gardens have several positive effects....if you're interested, i'll share.
Caring about the environment is not about one person saving the earth all by themself. It's about us making smart choices.
The push back to this is from energy companies since living green does not have to take us back to the stone ages AND it can also allow us to live a cheaper and less stressful life. We don't have to do away with fossil fuels....but through more sustainable energy sources (ethanol, solar, biofuels, etc...) we use MUCH LESS and it will make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 24, 2010 11:20:13 GMT -5
I think I am getting caught up in two different discussions here. I need to pause to give clarification.
My original bottom line:
I was speaking more on a micro/everyday scale. This was in response to APIL’s claim that our individual efforts to “save the planet” are futile.
Therefore, I am not necessarily addressing what is available to be done on a macro scale. I do think macro scale change is important. However, it is slightly more complex in detail than what my original point required.
So what I was saying…
Person by person/community by community-ly speaking, we fuel (no pun intended) the need to produce in a way that is counterproductive to nature’s balance. We consume far more than the earth /eco-system produces or allows. We live against? Maybe (but most definitely) beyond the natural cycle of life.
Therefore in order to return to that balance (which provides us with a healthier, cleaner, greener, fitter earth(including it’s inhabitants---even moreso than efforts to clean the air)—we must seek out practices that will remedy the imbalance (aka raping the earth..a l‘apil). We have to go back to a time when we relied more on natural production that synthetic production…which I guess would be pre-industrial revolution (thus my 1700’s comment).
In regards to my comment about technology:
The human brain has had over 2 million years (approx)<depending on if one supports continuity or replacement) to tweak itself. This tweaking was primarily a natural- trial and error-survival of what works best to ensure the continuation of the species- process. Aligned with the progression of our brain is the overall “accomplishments” of our species. This would include speaking, using tools, developing culture and so forth. On that time line enters modern technology. Saying technology is a slice of a dot while positioned would being generous.
If you drew a time line of modern technology’s progression and placed it on the human progression time line you wouldn’t even be able to view it with 20/20 vision.
What’s exciting about modern technology is constantly upgrades itself to the point where we can literally say 10 years ago our world wasn’t as significantly advanced as it is today. Technology is moving beyond the speed of light( metaphorically speaking). Our brains have just not caught up to all that movement. Our R-complexes are flipping out of control trying to keep up with our neo-cortexes. It’s just not a good thing in my opinion at least right now.
Combine those two points and one can see why I feel as though what is happening to our planet and what’s happening with us as a people is universally out of our control. Without significant regression or agressive alterations---which of course comes with serious drawbacks (which I think APIL was getting at in the most cynical way lol)—we can fuggidaboutit.
In conclusion, I just think it’s all a part of a greater plan. I don’t think we should stop it. BUT..I do think we should continue to make individualistic changes that cause daily life to run smoother eventually decreasing demands on big business and gov’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 24, 2010 21:05:29 GMT -5
This is the part where getting rich would come in handy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 25, 2010 7:56:48 GMT -5
NOTE:I'd have to disagree with the point about the human brain and it's relationship to the evolution of technology.
A computer has not been created that can store as much or process as fast as the human brain. Not to mention, the brain has the capacity to create....
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 25, 2010 9:08:20 GMT -5
I am not talking the computer itself. After all, the concept of communication within the computer was patterned after the brain. I am talking about the lifestyle technology has afforded us. All living this on this earth us their own bodies and minimal tools to sustain life. Human, thanks to the last 300 years or so, can figuratively transport themselves to China and talk to a friend without even having to get up and lift a leg. For millions to thousands of years the human brain was developing with the use of natural tools and technology at best. We were mostly communicating with the ones in our immediate community. We were living solely off the land and natural water...for thousands of years...THEN BOOM within the last 300 years approx(and specifically within the last century) we are blasted into the future virtually within the blink of an eye: electricity discovery, automobile, telephone, radio, air travel, television, cell phones, computer technology.... That doesn't include the things we don't think of on a daily basis space exploration, biotechnology, wireless world, lasers, alternative fuel vehicles, satellite tv, DNA testing ( I mean seriously this a big one in so many ways), video games (which we know for a fact has change how our children play and interact with one another), animal cloning, weather technology, online social networking. The list goes on and on. It all has changed the way we live, eat, breed, communicate, deal with other across the world...hayle even the way we see the world. Ultimately it has changed the way we think as well. 300 years is a short period of time to transition the human species from natural to technology reliant. This is not to say we aren't gonna catch up. It's just to say right now (as we are) our brains are not fully accustomed to anything outside of a natural time cycle and production. I mean even the invention of the remote control and cable changed how folks view television now than 40 years ago. These changes are significant. They are also aggressive. They are not nature friendly nor are they human friendly. Our higher brain seeks less work more return. But our natural bodies require more work more return. This all I am saying. This is why even with all the technology we have we are technically dying younger (in comparison), we have all types of social anxieties, more people are on the verge, our kids are fat and antisocial. If they can do it on a computer or cell it aint worth doing. etc etc etc... |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 25, 2010 10:29:19 GMT -5
Gotcha! |
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on May 25, 2010 18:57:49 GMT -5
I am not talking the computer itself. After all, the concept of communication within the computer was patterned after the brain. I am talking about the lifestyle technology has afforded us. All living this on this earth us their own bodies and minimal tools to sustain life. Human, thanks to the last 300 years or so, can figuratively transport themselves to China and talk to a friend without even having to get up and lift a leg. For millions to thousands of years the human brain was developing with the use of natural tools and technology at best. We were mostly communicating with the ones in our immediate community. We were living solely off the land and natural water...for thousands of years...THEN BOOM within the last 300 years approx(and specifically within the last century) we are blasted into the future virtually within the blink of an eye: electricity discovery, automobile, telephone, radio, air travel, television, cell phones, computer technology.... That doesn't include the things we don't think of on a daily basis space exploration, biotechnology, wireless world, lasers, alternative fuel vehicles, satellite tv, DNA testing ( I mean seriously this a big one in so many ways), video games (which we know for a fact has change how our children play and interact with one another), animal cloning, weather technology, online social networking. The list goes on and on. It all has changed the way we live, eat, breed, communicate, deal with other across the world...hayle even the way we see the world. Ultimately it has changed the way we think as well. 300 years is a short period of time to transition the human species from natural to technology reliant. This is not to say we aren't gonna catch up. It's just to say right now (as we are) our brains are not fully accustomed to anything outside of a natural time cycle and production. I mean even the invention of the remote control and cable changed how folks view television now than 40 years ago. These changes are significant. They are also aggressive. They are not nature friendly nor are they human friendly. Our higher brain seeks less work more return. But our natural bodies require more work more return. This all I am saying. This is why even with all the technology we have we are technically dying younger (in comparison), we have all types of social anxieties, more people are on the verge, our kids are fat and antisocial. If they can do it on a computer or cell it aint worth doing. etc etc etc... ***throws all tech stuff in a pile and gets a can of gasoline*** ***thinks of a better way to do things*** ***grabs all tech stuff and sniffs gas to get high*** |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on May 26, 2010 10:20:32 GMT -5
This environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is a perfect opportunity for our organizations to AT LEAST make a statement.
|
|
.