|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > July 2002 > Laugh or Cry ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-21, 1:25 pm |
|
The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
for about two weeks.....
On every environmental group on Usenet.....
And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
of the science they claim to hold above all things?
The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
The only way to save the planet and us, is to quit trashing it....
No fancy theories or technology will help one bit...
The lifestyle of the average member of Industrial civilization is the
problem, and THAT is what has to
change..
Imagine the environmental impact of something as
simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
for their living room this year..
Now multiply that effect by 10 million famillies, and
you have a problem....
But if that bookshelf were made with handtools from
a tree harvested sustainably from very near by, the environmental impact
drops by 99.999%....
Care to calculate the difference in environmental impact between food
from one's own backyard garden and that
purchased at the local safeway?
Bruce<+>
| |
|
| Bruce Burhans wrote:
> Imagine the environmental impact of something as
> simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
> for their living room this year..
Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon, I'm
trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
DanH
--
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
| |
|
| The very first step should be to stop spamming usenet.
"Bruce Burhans" <bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:47D_8.8608$Qk6.6007@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
> for about two weeks.....
>
> On every environmental group on Usenet.....
>
> And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
>
> Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
> of the science they claim to hold above all things?
>
> The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
> failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
>
> The only way to save the planet and us, is to quit trashing it....
>
> No fancy theories or technology will help one bit...
>
> The lifestyle of the average member of Industrial civilization is the
> problem, and THAT is what has to
> change..
>
> Imagine the environmental impact of something as
> simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
> for their living room this year..
>
> Now multiply that effect by 10 million famillies, and
> you have a problem....
>
> But if that bookshelf were made with handtools from
> a tree harvested sustainably from very near by, the environmental impact
> drops by 99.999%....
>
> Care to calculate the difference in environmental impact between food
> from one's own backyard garden and that
> purchased at the local safeway?
>
>
> Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-21, 3:25 pm |
|
"DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
news:3D3B0EB0.8060103@ankylosaur.com...
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
>
> > Imagine the environmental impact of something as
> > simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
> > for their living room this year..
>
> Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon, I'm
> trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
> is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
>
Where do you think alt.os.linux will be when the Earth will no longer
support Industrial Civilization, which will be around 2050 according to
most of the world's
leading environmental scientists...?.
But their calculations do not take into account sociological, political,
and economic factors, which will
cause the collapse LONG before then.....
Please read the Living Planet Report 2002, or at least
the summary, before you reply....
No sustainable industrial agriculture, no internet. Period.
http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/
Shouldn't have to tell these things to an adult with a
normal IQ, Dan......
And if you just call me an idiot fear monger without
reading the report summary first, then I am going to
know that you are indeed a fool.
Which makes you rather an ordinary American, doesn't
it?
Bruce<+>
> DanH
> --
> UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
> Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
>
>
| |
| John Musielewicz 2002-07-21, 4:25 pm |
| On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:32:32 GMT, "Bruce Burhans"
<bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
>for about two weeks.....
>
>On every environmental group on Usenet.....
>
>And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
>
>Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
>of the science they claim to hold above all things?
>
>The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
>failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
<snipo>
No, the environmental movement is a great success. The LPR was simply
a poorly written joke and no one took it seriously.
John
| |
| Joachim Feise 2002-07-21, 7:25 pm |
| John Musielewicz wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:32:32 GMT, "Bruce Burhans"
> <bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
>>for about two weeks.....
>>
>>On every environmental group on Usenet.....
>>
>>And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
>>
>>Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
>>of the science they claim to hold above all things?
>>
>>The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
>>failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
>
> <snipo>
>
> No, the environmental movement is a great success. The LPR was simply
> a poorly written joke and no one took it seriously.
And why in the world is this posted to a Linux newsgroup???
(Note: followup set to sci.environment)
| |
|
| Bruce Burhans wrote:
> "DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3B0EB0.8060103@ankylosaur.com...
>
>>Bruce Burhans wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Imagine the environmental impact of something as
>>>simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
>>>for their living room this year..
>>>
>>Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon, I'm
>>trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
>>is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
> Where do you think alt.os.linux will be when the Earth will no longer
> support Industrial Civilization, which will be around 2050 according to
> most of the world's
> leading environmental scientists...?.
> But their calculations do not take into account sociological, political,
> and economic factors, which will
> cause the collapse LONG before then.....
> Please read the Living Planet Report 2002, or at least
> the summary, before you reply....
> No sustainable industrial agriculture, no internet. Period.
Do you believe in Darwinism? If so, why do you try to decrease Darwin's
input into the species?
DanH
--
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-21, 9:25 pm |
|
"John Musielewicz" <jmusielewicz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vncmjus4190abjq2o0fvijhmd
h9hscui70@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:32:32 GMT, "Bruce Burhans"
> <bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
> >for about two weeks.....
> >
> >On every environmental group on Usenet.....
> >
> >And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
> >
> >Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
> >of the science they claim to hold above all things?
> >
> >The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
> >failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
> <snipo>
>
> No, the environmental movement is a great success. The LPR was simply
> a poorly written joke and no one took it seriously.
>
Simply untrue. Every year since 1970, more of the
planet has been damaged than the year before.
You can say garbage like that, but satellite images do
not lie like you do.
You should be ashamed of yourself, either for lying
or dreadful ignorance.
Now answer me this-
Have you READ the report? Checked the methodology?
I already know the answer- you haven't. You just
decided that it was bad science because you didn't
like the conclusions they reached.
Please do not represent yourself as a rational person.
because you are not.
You are a propagandist....
Bruce<+>
> John
>
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-21, 9:25 pm |
|
"Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3D3B54F7.4050409@ics.uci.edu...
> John Musielewicz wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:32:32 GMT, "Bruce Burhans"
> > <bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The Living Planet Report 2002 has now been posted
> >>for about two weeks.....
> >>
> >>On every environmental group on Usenet.....
> >>
> >>And has not drawn ONE serious response.....
> >>
> >>Why are all of these self-styled environmentalists so afraid
> >>of the science they claim to hold above all things?
> >>
> >>The fact is that the environmental movement is an abject
> >>failure, and no one wants to face this fact.
> >
> > <snipo>
> >
> > No, the environmental movement is a great success. The LPR was simply
> > a poorly written joke and no one took it seriously.
>
> And why in the world is this posted to a Linux newsgroup???
You don't live on the planet? I suppose that you would
XXXXX if someone posted the news that L.A. was now
radioactive dust.....?
This news is FAR worse than that.
And it pays to keep in mind that if you stick your head
in the sand, you will probably get XXXXed in the XXX...
Bruce<+>
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-21, 9:25 pm |
|
"DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
news:3D3B55BD.4040505@ankylosaur.com...
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
> > "DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D3B0EB0.8060103@ankylosaur.com...
> >
> >>Bruce Burhans wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Imagine the environmental impact of something as
> >>>simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
> >>>for their living room this year..
> >>>
> >>Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon, I'm
> >>trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
> >>is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Where do you think alt.os.linux will be when the Earth will no
longer
> > support Industrial Civilization, which will be around 2050 according
to
> > most of the world's
> > leading environmental scientists...?.
> > But their calculations do not take into account sociological,
political,
> > and economic factors, which will
> > cause the collapse LONG before then.....
> > Please read the Living Planet Report 2002, or at least
> > the summary, before you reply....
> > No sustainable industrial agriculture, no internet. Period.
>
> Do you believe in Darwinism? If so, why do you try to decrease Darwin's
> input into the species?
>
I think that Darwin was utterly mistaken. He did not
observe Nature with an open mind, and then formulate
his theories, he formulated his theory first (and it is really
derived from the Christian Devil/God mythology) and
then looked for the evidence in Nature, ignoring any con-
trary data....
I have spent most of my life living in near-wilderness,
and Nature is *anything* but the fight for survival that
most people think it is....
We can live much more simply in general, and have
computers and an internet......Technology per se is not
the problem, just its abuse...
A synthesis of the somewhat primitive and the modern
could work out very well indeed.
You could tend your food supply by hand and then
send an e-mail to the far side of the globe.
You could walk almost everywhere, but take a dirigible
powered by an internal-combustion engine (when it wasn't just riding the
winds...) to visit that same person
in the flesh.....
We have no limitations...
Bruce<+>
> DanH
> --
> UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
> Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
>
>
| |
| Joachim Feise 2002-07-22, 1:25 am |
| Bruce Burhans wrote:
[snipped]
Stop crossposting this stuff to the Linux newsgroup.
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-22, 11:26 am |
|
"Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3D3BA8A8.7080603@ics.uci.edu...
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> Stop crossposting this stuff to the Linux newsgroup.
>
>
This is going to your NG because it exists upon the Earth, and is
dependent the Earth's well-being, whether
you want to think so or not...
When Industrial civilization collapses because of
the damage it has done to the Planet, where will you
find your newsgroup? Or the the Internet? Or the electricity to power your
PC?
This is not a joke or an exaggeration. Our current lifestyle is
staggeringly destructive, and there are about
2 billion more people trying like crazy to join us.
The game is over. Time for a new culture that takes
the best of the primitive and the modern and blends them
into a truly Earth and People Friendly society.....
Bruce<+>
| |
| Joachim Feise 2002-07-22, 11:26 am |
| Reply-To: jfeise@ics.uci.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: pv182069.reshsg.uci.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611
X-Accept-Language: en, de
Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com talk.environment:171910 sci.environment:281746 alt.save.the.earth:64578 alt.org.earth-first:20174 alt.earth.crisis:4569 alt.pave.the.earth:23492 tw.bbs.soc.green-earth:34535 alt.magick:327290 alt.os.linux:265696
Bruce Burhans wrote:
> "Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D3BA8A8.7080603@ics.uci.edu...
>
>>Bruce Burhans wrote:
>>[snipped]
>>
>>Stop crossposting this stuff to the Linux newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
> This is going to your NG because it exists upon the Earth
[more drivel snipped]
Oh, you just demonstrated that you are just another troll.
Plonk.
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-22, 6:25 pm |
|
"Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3D3C3C76.7060702@ics.uci.edu...
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
> > "Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3D3BA8A8.7080603@ics.uci.edu...
> >
> >>Bruce Burhans wrote:
> >>[snipped]
> >>
> >>Stop crossposting this stuff to the Linux newsgroup.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is going to your NG because it exists upon the Earth
> [more drivel snipped]
>
> Oh, you just demonstrated that you are just another troll.
> Plonk.
>
>
A hundred years from now, no one will remember the
Nazis.
But they will surely remember the Americans, who
left them a ravaged planet to struggle for survival on.
Ignorant bigots like you are what make America the criminal
institiution it is..
Trashing the planet is a crime of historical proportions,
and like all true crimes, is its own punishment, as you will
see, fool...
Bruce<+>
| |
| Joachim Feise 2002-07-22, 8:25 pm |
| Bruce Burhans wrote:
> "Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D3C3C76.7060702@ics.uci.edu...
>
>>Bruce Burhans wrote:
>>
>>>"Joachim Feise" <jfeise@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:3D3BA8A8.7080603@ics.uci.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce Burhans wrote:
>>>>[snipped]
>>>>
>>>>Stop crossposting this stuff to the Linux newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is going to your NG because it exists upon the Earth
>>
>>[more drivel snipped]
>>
>>Oh, you just demonstrated that you are just another troll.
>>Plonk.
>>
>>
>
>
> A hundred years from now, no one will remember the
> Nazis.
Godwin's law. You lose the argument.
Let me finish off with some final comments:
- You tend to rush to conclusions. Nowhere in my posts did I give
any indication of my nationality.
- If I want to discuss environmental issues, I do that in the
appropriate forums. The alt.os.linux newsgroup is not the appropriate
forum. Period.
- I probably have done more for the environment that you will do
in your lifetime.
- And finally, you display the mindset of a fanatic. Fanatism of any
kind is inherently wrong.
Plonk again.
| |
| Kevin Wilcox 2002-07-23, 7:25 pm |
| In article <J2F_8.10732$_C2.805147@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
> "DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3B0EB0.8060103@ankylosaur.com...
>> Bruce Burhans wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Imagine the environmental impact of something as
>> > simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
>> > for their living room this year..
>>
>> Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon, I'm
>> trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
>> is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
>>
>
> Where do you think alt.os.linux will be when the Earth will no longer
> support Industrial Civilization, which will be around 2050 according to
> most of the world's
> leading environmental scientists...?.
> But their calculations do not take into account sociological, political,
> and economic factors, which will
> cause the collapse LONG before then.....
> Please read the Living Planet Report 2002, or at least
> the summary, before you reply....
> No sustainable industrial agriculture, no internet. Period.
>
> http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/
>
> Shouldn't have to tell these things to an adult with a
> normal IQ, Dan......
>
> And if you just call me an idiot fear monger without
> reading the report summary first, then I am going to
> know that you are indeed a fool.
> Which makes you rather an ordinary American, doesn't
> it?
>
> Bruce<+>
Bruce....I've read the report...and I have to say that I am very
disappointed at the ego's of the small handful of ultra left wing
environmental fanatics. Short of detonating a bomb in the core of the
earth that could blow Earth into pieces, mankind will not be the end of
life. It is impossible. Yes, we may kill life _as we know it_, but
life on Earth will survive. Be it heat loving reptiles, cold loving
bacteria, et cetera, we can not destroy life on this planet. The
destruction of all human life may be a blessing for Earth, but I doubt
that will happen either. Let's assume for a minute that we DO manage to
eat all the food and pollute all the water on Earth. People start
dying. Great. Someone somewhere will have a water purifier for fresh
water. These same people will also have food banks setup with crops to
grow in and possibly private farms for their consumption only. Even if
only 100 people survive, mankind will have survived. There are numerous
other possibilities.
This also does not belong in a Linux newsgroup.
You also mentioned Nazis, which automatically kills the thread.
Think as an intelligent person rather than one worrying about whether or
not their wrinkled vegan butt will have enough vegetables to
eat...either way, all you've done is spam this group to spread
pro-environmentalist propaganda.
BTW - 3% of Americans are farmers. They produce enough food that
millions of tons of wheats and veggies rot on docks every year, on TOP
of what is sold in the US and other countries AND what is just _given_
to other countries. Food is too big a business in the US for us to NOT
have something to eat. This is why American Farmers get farm subsidies
- there is SO MUCH FOOD that the prices the farmers get are rarely
enough to sustain the farm.
kw
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-23, 11:25 pm |
|
"Kevin Wilcox" <fergus@thefergus.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:slrnajrsu3.i7p.fergus@dumbledore.hogwarts...
> In article <J2F_8.10732$_C2.805147@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Bruce Burhans wrote:
> >
> > "DanH" <danh@ankylosaur.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D3B0EB0.8060103@ankylosaur.com...
> >> Bruce Burhans wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Imagine the environmental impact of something as
> >> > simple as a family wanting a simple wooden bookshelf
> >> > for their living room this year..
> >>
> >> Would the machine used to make the bookshelf be Linux based? C'Mon,
I'm[c
olor=darkred]
> >> trying to work with you here and honestly trying to figure out why this
> >> is in alt.os.linux newsgroup.
> >>
> >
> > Where do you think alt.os.linux will be when the Earth will no[/color]
longer
> > support Industrial Civilization, which will be around 2050 according
to
> > most of the world's
> > leading environmental scientists...?.
> > But their calculations do not take into account sociological,
political,
> > and economic factors, which will
> > cause the collapse LONG before then.....
> > Please read the Living Planet Report 2002, or at least
> > the summary, before you reply....
> > No sustainable industrial agriculture, no internet. Period.
> >
> > http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/
> >
> > Shouldn't have to tell these things to an adult with a
> > normal IQ, Dan......
> >
> > And if you just call me an idiot fear monger without
> > reading the report summary first, then I am going to
> > know that you are indeed a fool.
> > Which makes you rather an ordinary American, doesn't
> > it?
> >
> > Bruce<+>
>
> Bruce....I've read the report...and I have to say that I am very
> disappointed at the ego's of the small handful of ultra left wing
> environmental fanatics. Short of detonating a bomb in the core of the
> earth that could blow Earth into pieces, mankind will not be the end of
> life. It is impossible. Yes, we may kill life _as we know it_, but
> life on Earth will survive. Be it heat loving reptiles, cold loving
> bacteria, et cetera, we can not destroy life on this planet. The
> destruction of all human life may be a blessing for Earth, but I doubt
> that will happen either. Let's assume for a minute that we DO manage to
> eat all the food and pollute all the water on Earth. People start
> dying. Great. Someone somewhere will have a water purifier for fresh
> water. These same people will also have food banks setup with crops to
> grow in and possibly private farms for their consumption only. Even if
> only 100 people survive, mankind will have survived. There are numerous
> other possibilities.
>
> This also does not belong in a Linux newsgroup.
>
> You also mentioned Nazis, which automatically kills the thread.
>
> Think as an intelligent person rather than one worrying about whether or
> not their wrinkled vegan butt will have enough vegetables to
> eat...either way, all you've done is spam this group to spread
> pro-environmentalist propaganda.
>
> BTW - 3% of Americans are farmers. They produce enough food that
> millions of tons of wheats and veggies rot on docks every year, on TOP
> of what is sold in the US and other countries AND what is just _given_
> to other countries. Food is too big a business in the US for us to NOT
> have something to eat. This is why American Farmers get farm subsidies
> - there is SO MUCH FOOD that the prices the farmers get are rarely
> enough to sustain the farm.
>
> kw
If you've read the report, which I seriously doubt,
then please refute its major points in detail..
The above garbage is just sloppy wishful thinking and
will not serve as a substitiute for any reasonable person.
http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/
Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
| |
| moonie 2002-07-24, 12:25 am |
| Lines: 33
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <Cwr%8.18096$xj6.839595@twister.southeast.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:09:38 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.26.203.202
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1027490978 66.26.203.202 (Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:09:38 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:09:38 EDT
Organization: RoadRunner - Triad
Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com alt.os.linux:265834
Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
> If you've read the report, which I seriously doubt,
> then please refute its major points in detail..
>
> The above garbage is just sloppy wishful thinking and
> will not serve as a substitiute for any reasonable person.
>
> http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/
>
>
> Bruce<+>
I won't get into the validity of your point or not. It is a well known fact
that doom and gloom organisations such as this exagerate their claims to
recieve more funding. Even NASA was guilty of this when the whole "Hole in
the ozone layer" was "discovered". First, it wasn't a hole, it was a
seasonal thinning of the ozone layer over antarctica, and it was only
discovered when NASA developed the technology to detect such things. It
could have been happening since the beginning of the ozone layer! BTW the
only way to deplete the ozone layer is to put out the Sun! Ozone is
created by the reaction between our atmosphere and solar rays.
Rant over, you have been reported for spamming alt.os.linux
--
moonie 
Registered Linux User #175104
ICQ# 83003404
AIM: mooniesdl3
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-24, 12:25 pm |
|
Richard Ballard posted this to <lt.magick> ONLY.
*I* chose to share it with everyone because of its
excellence....
Notes by me added below [......]
"Richard Ballard" <rball84213@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020724095259.06181.00000156@mb-cf.aol.com...
> In article <slrnajrsu3.i7p.fergus@dumbledore.hogwarts>,
> Kevin Wilcox <fergus@thefergus.homelinux.org> writes:
>
> >Bruce....I've read the report...and I have to say that I am very
> >disappointed at the ego's of the small handful of ultra left wing
> >environmental fanatics. Short of detonating a bomb in the core of the
> >earth that could blow Earth into pieces, mankind will not be the end of
> >life. It is impossible. Yes, we may kill life _as we know it_, but
> >life on Earth will survive. Be it heat loving reptiles, cold loving
> >bacteria, et cetera, we can not destroy life on this planet. ...
>
> Have you ever heard the expression "quality of life(style)"?
>
> >... The destruction of all human life may be a blessing for Earth,
> >but I doubt that will happen either. Let's assume for a minute
> >that we DO manage to eat all the food and pollute all the water on
> >Earth. People start dying. Great. Someone somewhere will have a
> >water purifier for fresh water.
>
> Water purifiers require energy input for operation. What energy
> source -- methane from manure?
>
> >... These same people will also have food banks setup with crops to
> >grow in and possibly private farms for their consumption only. Even if
> >only 100 people survive, mankind will have survived. There are numerous
> >other possibilities.
> >
> >This also does not belong in a Linux newsgroup.
> >
> >You also mentioned Nazis, which automatically kills the thread.
>
> If you replace the word 'Nazis' by 'extremist paramilitary farmers
> dedicated to protecting their private farms and limited crops',
> some validity remains. These farmers will fight to prevent others
> from stealing their farms. These farmers get to determine who
> eats. These farmers get to determine who survives. Have you
> ever watched the film "Dr. Strangelove" starring Peter Sellers?
> Do you remember Peter Sellers' final monologue?
>
> >Think as an intelligent person rather than one worrying about
> >whether or not their wrinkled vegan butt will have enough
> >vegetables to eat...either way, all you've done is spam this
> >group to spread pro-environmentalist propaganda.
>
> A person who can apply their intelligence to a changing environment
> (e.g., reduce consumption and eliminate waste, develop new and
> affordable techniques to survive) will be valued in an apocolyptic
> environment. An arcane academician or cleric with no practical
> application will not be valued, and probably will not eat. [RB
> comment: Clerics have served vital spiritual *and* non-spiritual
> roles in times of war and crisis.] Consider Kampuchea (Cambodia)
> after the Vietnam War -- monks, university professors and
> industrialists were marched at gunpoint to the countryside to grow
> rice. Protesters were left dead in the fields as a graphic
> reminder to other potential protesters.
>
> Compared to other more extravagent diets, a vegan diet is
> sustaining and affordable in times of crisis. I also have read
> Mormon-related literature discussing dietary recommendations
> in case of prolonged crisis.
>
> >BTW - 3% of Americans are farmers.
[ This is nonsense. There are more people than ever
before in the farming business. They are mining, smelting,
refining, forging, founding, machiining, assembling, transporting etc, the
materials to make the heavy equipment used (including trucks and trains and
boats-
farming was once a local/regional affair) as well as obtaining, shipping,
storing, refining, etc, the petroleum
involved, and this is just for starters....]
They produce enough food that
> >millions of tons of wheats and veggies rot on docks every year,
> >on TOP of what is sold in the US and other countries AND what is
> >just _given_ to other countries. Food is too big a business in
> >the US for us to NOT have something to eat.
>
> United States agriculture is based upon large mechanized
> corporate-owned farming, not small family farms that employ
> family-loyal employees. United States agriculture is heavily
> dependent upon nitrogen fertilizers (made from natural gas) and
> pesticides and herbicides (made from petroleum). The United
> States imports over 50% of the petroleum it consumes. The
> natural gas used for fertilizer production often must be replaced
> by petroleum to power electric generating plants [e.g., in
> California, an agricultural state with 'clean air' (no coal)
> restrictions]. What happens if the petroleum imports are
> disrupted?
>
> BTW, manure-based fertilizers represent a public health risk
> due to the possibility of spreading disease to and among humans.
>
> >This is why American Farmers get farm subsidies
> >- there is SO MUCH FOOD that the prices the farmers get
> >are rarely enough to sustain the farm.
>
> Yet malnutrition is a problem both globally and in United States
> urban areas -- the days of Department of Agriculture distributing
> surplus food are long gone.
>
> The food distribution system (with its middlemen) *does* add
> cost to food. If petroleum imports are disrupted food
> distribution will become additionally difficult and expensive
> -- food prices will rise and additional people will be hungry.
>
> I recommend that interested parties read the novel "Lucifer's
> Hammer" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. This well-written
> novel is a science/acocolyptic-fiction novel that looks at the
> societal changes resulting from a cataclysmic event. The
> cataclysm is bad, but the danger from desperate survivors
> is worse.
>
[ And the most dangerous people will be those that
now have their heads stuck in the sand......]
> <snip>
>
> I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch or a Pagan.
>
[ Nobody's perfect......]
> My home is my sanctuary.
> Moms split. No players in I owns.
> M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
>
> Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
> --
> Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
> Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
> Last book review: "Don't Know Much About The Bible: ..." by Kenneth C.
Davis
>
>
Bruce<+>
| |
| The Natural Philosopher 2002-07-24, 1:25 pm |
|
Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
> [ This is nonsense. There are more people than ever
> before in the farming business. They are mining, smelting,
> refining, forging, founding, machiining, assembling, transporting etc, the
> materials to make the heavy equipment used (including trucks and trains and
> boats-
> farming was once a local/regional affair) as well as obtaining, shipping,
> storing, refining, etc, the petroleum
> involved, and this is just for starters....]
If there were, then the economic vuiability of farming would be
compromised, because peasant farmers could do it cheaper.
The *only* thing that costs in this world is labour.
The *reason* we have tractors, not peasants, is becauser overall it
takes less human added value to produce a tonne of corn with a tractor,
than with a peasant.
From a mediaeval society, in which the popuilation of e.g Britain was
under a million, and most worked directly in food production, we now
have a population of 60million plus, of whom very few indeed work *in
any aspect* of food production, manufacture of agro machinery or
chemicals, or indeed marketing and distribution.
The trouble with you Bruce, sweetie pie, is that you make unfounded
statements that conform with your prejudices, not with teh actual
reality of life as we know it to be.
I certainly agree that the USA is tuining peasant farmers worldwide by
masively subsidising food production, but that is another issue...
>
> [ And the most dangerous people will be those that
> now have their heads stuck in the sand......]
>
Yes, that's you Bruce. Its just a different snadppit you play in from
the rest of the world, but your propensity for sticking your head in it
is even greater than teh rest of us.
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-26, 10:25 am |
|
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3D3EFD8F.6070304@b.c...
>
>
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
>
> >
> > [ This is nonsense. There are more people than ever
> > before in the farming business. They are mining, smelting,
> > refining, forging, founding, machiining, assembling, transporting etc,
the
> > materials to make the heavy equipment used (including trucks and trains
and
> > boats-
> > farming was once a local/regional affair) as well as obtaining,
shipping,
> > storing, refining, etc, the petroleum
> > involved, and this is just for starters....]
>
>
> If there were, then the economic vuiability of farming would be
> compromised, because peasant farmers could do it cheaper.
>
> The *only* thing that costs in this world is labour.
>
That's right. IF the food was consumed locally and
there were no transportation/storage costs.....
You need to fill in all the variables in an equation......
Bruce<+>
> The *reason* we have tractors, not peasants, is becauser overall it
> takes less human added value to produce a tonne of corn with a tractor,
> than with a peasant.
>
> From a mediaeval society, in which the popuilation of e.g Britain was
> under a million, and most worked directly in food production, we now
> have a population of 60million plus, of whom very few indeed work *in
> any aspect* of food production, manufacture of agro machinery or
> chemicals, or indeed marketing and distribution.
>
> The trouble with you Bruce, sweetie pie, is that you make unfounded
>
> statements that conform with your prejudices, not with teh actual
>
> reality of life as we know it to be.
>
>
> I certainly agree that the USA is tuining peasant farmers worldwide by
> masively subsidising food production, but that is another issue...
>
>
>
> >
> > [ And the most dangerous people will be those that
> > now have their heads stuck in the sand......]
> >
>
>
> Yes, that's you Bruce. Its just a different snadppit you play in from
> the rest of the world, but your propensity for sticking your head in it
> is even greater than teh rest of us.
>
>
>
| |
| Bruce Burhans 2002-07-26, 12:25 pm |
|
A P.S.
If all the machinery is so efficient, Joseph, then why
is U.S. Agriculture utterly dependent on 10's of millions
of Hispanic laborors paid far less than minimum wage ?
Bruce<+>
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3D3EFD8F.6070304@b.c...
>
>
> Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
>
> >
> > [ This is nonsense. There are more people than ever
> > before in the farming business. They are mining, smelting,
> > refining, forging, founding, machiining, assembling, transporting etc,
the
> > materials to make the heavy equipment used (including trucks and trains
and
> > boats-
> > farming was once a local/regional affair) as well as obtaining,
shipping,
> > storing, refining, etc, the petroleum
> > involved, and this is just for starters....]
>
>
> If there were, then the economic vuiability of farming would be
> compromised, because peasant farmers could do it cheaper.
>
> The *only* thing that costs in this world is labour.
>
> The *reason* we have tractors, not peasants, is becauser overall it
> takes less human added value to produce a tonne of corn with a tractor,
> than with a peasant.
>
> From a mediaeval society, in which the popuilation of e.g Britain was
> under a million, and most worked directly in food production, we now
> have a population of 60million plus, of whom very few indeed work *in
> any aspect* of food production, manufacture of agro machinery or
> chemicals, or indeed marketing and distribution.
>
> The trouble with you Bruce, sweetie pie, is that you make unfounded
>
> statements that conform with your prejudices, not with teh actual
>
> reality of life as we know it to be.
>
>
> I certainly agree that the USA is tuining peasant farmers worldwide by
> masively subsidising food production, but that is another issue...
>
>
>
> >
> > [ And the most dangerous people will be those that
> > now have their heads stuck in the sand......]
> >
>
>
> Yes, that's you Bruce. Its just a different snadppit you play in from
> the rest of the world, but your propensity for sticking your head in it
> is even greater than teh rest of us.
>
>
>
| |
| Otto Bahn 2002-07-26, 12:25 pm |
| Bruce Burhans wrote:
>
> A P.S.
>
> If all the machinery is so efficient, Joseph, then why
> is U.S. Agriculture utterly dependent on 10's of millions
> of Hispanic laborors paid far less than minimum wage ?
While we in apte wish this were XXXXing true
already, it isn't. Btw, we are also equal
opportunity enslavers, so race isn't an issue
when it comes to being Listed [tm].
We suggest you cry, because there is nothing
XXXXing funny about milling plutonium, at
least not from *your* pathetic point of view.
Otto Bahn
Durham Atomic Project
|
|
|
|
|