This brief article mentioned curbing over population at the beginning (in header) but then never actually addressed how we go about curbing over population.

So how is overpopulation going to be addressed?

My guess is pandemics, war, natural disasters and starvation.

Myself, I have chosen not to have any kids (well actually, no woman has expressed a desire to have kids with me anyway!)

Just wondering if the report mentions a global pandemic and subsequent destabilization of economies as an "interim" scenario; the planet taking care of itself. No, I don't believe Earth "thinks" but I do believe that the planet is self regulating, that by overpopulating and creating the means to transport ourselves quickly and efficiently (although at an environmental cost) across the globe, we humans are the authors of our own coming misfortune. Whether its the avian flu or something else, I can't imagine the next twenty or so years will be free of an humanitarian disaster the likes of which we've never witnessed. Meanwhile, I wish I could get rid of this cold that's been hanging around...

not a chance. there isn't only one "economics" to guide policy, and the one chosen is invariably intimately tied to politics, and by extension, to the dominant institutions in society. At present these are the huge multi-nationals (where Exxon generates more revenue than Saudi Arabia) and the way they are presently structured, the behemoths will take themselves down and the ecosystem with them before they would change.

It makes me laugh when economists talk of economics as if it were physics, with one clearly laid out formulation that has withstood severe testing. it is not Economics is a branch of applied sociology and comes burdened with all the attendant uncertainties.

the required changes are political and sociological. then the economics will follow, while blithely telling everyone that it is leading ...

Did President Bush say the U.S. was addicted to oil, or did he say the U.S. was addicted to foreign oil?

He said he wanted the U.S. to reduce its addiction to foreign oil by 75% by 2025.

This will be meaningless as long as oil is still the addiction-just switching to importing Canadian oil (despite Canadians' energy needs-THANKS NAFTA and smil'in Brian) will not affect the global price of oil.

Yeah economics as science!!!!!!

MOre like witchcraft (no disrespect intended to Wickens!), remember VooDoo economics!

the planet is *&^%$#

unless of course GAIA finds a way to flings us of her back!

I might be pessimistic, but it shouldn't be long before some dummie comes on this site and debunks and trashes the efforts and wisdom of 1400 well meaning scientists from 95 countries speaking with one voice that is trying to bleat, "We have, are and will continue to wreck this planet perhaps to a point of no return unless attitudes change, and if it changes, we have a chance. If it doesn't change, we don't have a chance."

The worlds checks and balances against disaster are the nanolife doing its cleanup when disease sets in. Is a pandemic our best chance? Is this what it's going to take to take our environments seriously? Is this the best we can do?

The world is still an oil driven economony and until this changes, whatever GWB or any other future corporate puppet president who bends over for the markets has to say can be taken as worthless. As cruel as it sounds, we have a group of elite oil barons who are getting rich to the expense of life, and are they eating their children for breakfast? Yes. Maybe not literally, but most certainly, they are metaphorically and they are shortening their own childrens lives in a literal sense, regardless.

Oh, its not the silver spoons that choke the children of the rich as much as it is, sending them out into an environment laden with chemicals and bad air. It's the criminal mind that says, "I won't get caught!" Like father, like son, and get caught they do, only this time, they get to take everyone else down with them with their own pollution, and it isn't instant like a bullet or a knife. Its drawn out like cancer or obesity from polluted environments, shaving off decades of life within large numbers of people who never knew they had this time in them.

The tie... the shirt tie was symbolic of someone in service to the English, aristocratic rich. Servants to the rich man. Voluntary slavery. It's quite the history that few know when they tie that noose around their neck every morning before work. We are so weak on history. So blind to the way things began. Its like the hand shake. I come in peace, I have no weapon in my hand. We are so blind to our own Origins of doing things. The languages we speak, the days of the week, the calandar, we are so Romanized and unaware of it.

When we face the true origins of our suffering and pains, the human condition, we'll have a chance. Until then, there are too many criminal minds that have made too much money in oil to stop now, and although a poor man can teach a rich man how to identify a criminal, it is difficult to get the rich man, even a poor man, to realize that they might very well be that criminal, regardless of whether or not the rich thinks they won't get financially or environmentally caught, or the poor think that they never had a hand in it, wearing their ties and filling their gas tanks in service to the rich.

Bun:
You are correct. It is sociological and political.

Its good to see that donations have exceeded the $30,000 mark for the tyee, by the way. Thanks out to the donors.

I tend to buy into the "adapting mosaic" approach. If you cannot even come to grips with what is taking place in your own watershed, your own tribe of friends, forget wasting your time trying to orchestrate a grand survival plan for Mother Earth.

This journey through the eye of the needle ahead is one taken a step at a time. We're incredibly slow at it though, and just don't have much time left for "free lunch"

Hey Brain:

Agree with most everything you say, but as a slightly off-topic aside, I'm not so sure you have properly represented how neck-ties came into fashion. And that, as they say, is how bad info gets passed around.

My understanding was that soldiers originally began wearing them as a handy, dandy tourniquet to deal with sword wounds. Although a quick google search doesn't back me up on that, so I could be talking out of my ass.

Rather, it appears ties have a military origin as a symbol of rank or heroics, and were subsequently adopted by dandies and European elites. Seems women have always dug a dude in uniform, the reasons for which would probably be grist for an interesting discussion in and of itself.

We now return you to a discussion about stuff that actually matters.

So, what then?

Scenario 47, "Governance by Lying Idiots" American energy companies offer huge offshore bribes to Quebec seperatist leaders, who orchestrate seperation to make Canadian energy supplies available to the Eastern seaboard of the USofA. This triggers a general Balkanization of North America which fragments into twelve or sixteen seperate Principalities ruled by Southern Baptist TV personalities and local Billionaires who got rich by stripping local economies. Science is outlawed in 84% of them. Before these can settle down, the great Death wipes out 6 billion people, all moths, butterflies and flightless birds. Humanity is reduced to small isolated communities few of whom remember how to make a communications system or retrieve data from a disk. The secret colony of slaveholders on Mars become the mainstream of humanity. The promised thousand years of peace begins, but within two hundred years the art of writing is lost, so no history of it is possible.

So, whaddya think? My scenario more pleasing than theirs?

"But the presenters were resolutely optimistic."

Huh? While optimism may be helpful, in this situation optimism without pragmatism would be incredibly facile (and ultimately worthless), and just lead to more of the vacuous platitudes already in wide use with respect to "the environment".

The pragmatism needed to "get there" (protecting and enhancing ecosystem services) from here is a monumental task, and requires grokking and grappling with the following profound, systemic challenges:

- our important political leaders are willing eco-phobes and continue to predominantly serve a corporate agenda;
- mainstream media represents corporate interests;
- corporations, for the most part, are rapers and pillagers to serve their shareholders and deliver the highest ROI, ignoring and/or degrading natural capital in the process;
- our education systems remains eco-phobic and eco-illiterate for the most part;
- global citizenry remains largely indifferent;
- the most enthusiastic advocates of change and eco-understanding are largely marginalized socially and politically;
- conventional scientists and scientific organizations continue to hide behind the pretense and fog of objectivity and willingly refuse to engage in pragmatic discussions on holistic topics, e.g. the environment;
- mainstream culture is exuberantly consumerist, reflecting predominance of corporatism and capitalism.

I might be optimistic if I saw more willingness to pragmatically address these issues. Otherwise it is prudent to plan for global - and local - collapse.

.

Now, it's been a long time since I read about the history of the necktie male tradition, so I don't recall the source, but my memory is the one quoted from Stump.

Now again, reaching into the distant mists of time, my "memory" is that it was introduced into Europe, originally from the Turks, who wore brightly coloured ribbon or strips of cloth into battle, from helmets, lances and such. The Europeans of the day, likely during the Ottoman conquest, I believe of Hungary, Austria etc., became convinced it was these brightly coloured strips of cloth that was the source of the prowess and effectiveness in battle of the Turks. Which practice the Europeans picked up and adopted themselves very quickly, of course.

From which the necktie, worn by the well dressed male, of which I am fond of wearing myself when stepping out, evolved. The brighter and more colourful the better for me. :-)

My understanding of the history.

Stump: Geez, you got me thinking about the accuracy of my own information. The way I heard it (from another blogger, oops) is that the tie was fashion first introduced with house servants wearing them to signify their servant role to English aristocrats. As I first heard it, the role of the tie later became the symbol of service in the area of business, and we haven't questioned its origin in fashion, really, all that much since, until today.

After further search, it appears that I was wrong, as the tie first began as a class distinction, as opposed to orginating from service to class and originated definitively in Croatia, then France, and England from there. As it is with fashion, especially so fashion that has no practicalities, one can easily assume that class or servant to class distinctions prevailed as would wigs or other unnecessary fashions of the day. Your analysis on my post concerning ties is, therefore, quite correct and I'm glad you caught it. ;-)

Hey this one is right up my alley! For those of you who have not read my future scenario I'll recap!!

We have already experienced collapse of local economies and all the pain that goes with it. Some permanent others a sign of what may come.... Washington DC Blizzard of 19__ , grocery stores running out of staples. No transportation, no food. Quebec 199_, ice storms, no power for some for weeks. Grocery stores run out of staples, generators sold out. Power grid shut down East coast. Hurricanes in the gulf, all will lead to looting, lawlessness and chaos. We spin this whole global market on oil and energy, the workforce so specialized that we are inviting collapse. I don't see any other scenario but disaster! It's so obvious it's funny. Gaia will be fine without us, and as I've said a thousand times, Dolphins will then rise to their proper place as stewards of the planet.

You either get this message or you don't. The facts all point in one direction... "It's the end of the world as we know it...." Sing it with me.....

Optomistic?! Well George Bush did say the American people need to detox from there oil addiction. Maybe he's looking for a way out of Iraq. It may have been Ed Deak who said that all Empires decline from bankrupcy. The US looks to be just about ready to toss in the towel. Thats whats the debt load points to. Guess what happens when the US decides the American dream is on hold? That's right, a lot of pissed off people with guns!

We have potential for inovation and incredible creations like music, art, sailboats, but we don't know shit about the ecosystem that supports us. So the sooner someone comes out and announces that we are now officially 65 years away from returning to the caves and a more subsitance existance is our best case scenario, we're in peril. Add it politics, religeon, geography, greed and all the bad eco forcasts and you now get a small idea of the task ahead.

Remember the easy picking resources will be long gone. Cheap energy is already on it's way out, going the way of the cod. I think we need an official theory that comes out and tells it like it is! That's the slap in the face we need to wake up and end the nightmare.

Chuckling now... it does appear that military roots are also there using ties or cloths around the neck as practical, or beyond fashion, but it would be more like a bandana with a functional purpose in a military role. This is quite a different purpose to what a neck tie has evolved into, which is a fashion that is used to signify a status, or class, having no other purpose. Anyways, enough comic relief for now.

Thanks, clubofrome for your treatise of hope!
The real issue of course, is why these scientists have gotten together from around the world to raise concerns on this changing planet. At some point as clubofrome has pointed out, we'll have to ask very real questions and leave our motives out of it, letting the facts speak for themselves.

In a nutshell, global warming is likely the worlds number one issue, taking precidence over all others, since our man made disturbance and pollution of ecosystems all around the world have an accumulative and potentially irreversible effect, if left unchecked.

The CFC's that are already in the trophosphere are estimated to have long halflifes that will take decades to fall out. Combining ozone damage with accumulated green house gases, and we have what we have now. Record rain in Vancouver, record warm temperatures winter and summer, and all of the strains on our ecosystems with such changes to our environments, here and abroad.

Regardless of whether or not we want to take credit for the "speed" of which global warming occurs... since we know global warming being a natural phenomenon that occurs without the presence of man is correct, the assertion that man made atmospheric pollution of molecules that contribute to the buildup of the proven greenhouse gases of H2O, CO2 CH4 and N2O, combined with the man made depletion of O3 has nothing to do with accelerated global warming, is false.

Although ozone is also a greenhouse gas (responsible for less than 1%), depleted ozone or O3 leaves a great deal more radiation from the entire spectrum of waves to collide with greenhouse gases, specifically infrared on up to the shortest gamma rays. The result is global warming.

Less atmospheric O3 means increased X-rays and gamma rays coming through our atmosphere, which leads to less life, specifically plankton in northern regions. In reality, O3 is the only atmospheric gas that can effectively deflect short waves. Less atmospheric O3 also means increasing global warming dramatically, in parallel to its own depletion in relation to increased infrared, visible light and UV rays coming through to collide with greenhouse gases to create heat. All in all, there is a balance of O3 that is optimal for life. Human pollution has greatly disturbed this balance.

We know through ice assays from EPICA Antarctic drilling of the ice cap some 3.2 km's, that our atmospheric makeup of greenhouse gases has also changed dramatically from the industrial workings of man, specifically with CO2 and N2O. As EPICA findings have indicated, over the last 650,000 years, we have 130% more CO2 and 180% more methane gases in our atmosphere than at any other time over this period.

We also know that the eccentricity of the Earths orbit is a major factor in the melting and reformation of ice caps, and that we are getting ever closer to the sun. EPICA ice assays also prove this to be the case with indicated timelines of 100,000 years to each major ice age. What we don't know is what the history of the ozone was like for the last million years.

What we know definitively, is that the ozone has been depleted dramatically over the last 40 years since NASA has taken atmospheric measurements of gases in the 60's, and this continued ozone depletion from CFC's or presence of free radical chorine molecules in our troposphere, combined with the elevated presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is definitely greatly accelerating global warming and will continue until ozone is able to heal or build itself up to pre CFC era levels. This is estimated to take several decades, possibly more.

While greenhouse gas emissions should be a primary focus, the depletion of the ozone should take even greater precedence. Technically, it is chemically possible to neutralize the damage that CFC’s are still doing to the ozone, but the big question remains. How? And who will pay for it? And as long as we’ve still got money mantra chants and blame global warming on anything other than man...

The corporate status quo will never be changed. It is the same paradigm that causes child poverty, the isolation of the disabled in our communities, the deaths from environmental pollution. The reality is that we are parasites, with delusions of grandeur believing that the resources of the earth were put here for our benefit alone. What good is the property, houses, cars and cool clothes when you're lying dead from the result of this very consumption? It used to be that the resource robbing rich would never see the the long term effects of their greed, but that has changed and the sewage pipe of toxic waste has made a u-turn into their own backyard. The moneyed have started to build their own escape retreats (such as Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones in Ontario).

We are doomed. We can't even get the genuine support of the left wing politicians; empty chin wagging "we appreciate your concerns", how often have I heard that one. It takes real political awareness, acceptance and will to change, and if there was it would change astonishingly fast. But it won't and I say bring it on, the sooner we're gone, the sooner the meek shall inherit the earth.

Is politics the answer? If we could only unite on one issue at a time, using all of our experience and our 3 degrees of separation to bring the government to heel. There are enough of us who care, but we are too spread out, many of us just barely able to feed our families. Back in the 70's, shortly after the period BCMary spoke of, there was organized activism and strong coalitions. It worked for a while, until the moles undermined the structures, but surely we know how to spot them now. eh?

What is interesting about his article is that scientists are putting together theorized models that require thinking out of the box. In the past, scientists have only put together what they know in terms of physical evidence. To come out with theories that are based on political manuveurs and resource consumption, is going beyond what scientists have been traditionally known for. This article is a clear demonstration of the integration of environments that aren't physical persay, but are greatly affected by them, the environments of sociological and political behavior.

Whether or not the average person is willing to admit it, science has moved well beyond the realm of biology, physics and chemistry, becoming integrated in a number of areas, most notably areas that deal with human behavior, either phycological or sociological. Such theories or scenerio's need to reflect what we currently understand in all areas of science, as science is the study of all things physical. This leaves no realm or area, either living or inanimate, untouched, including the sociological and phycological behaviors of the human mind. At the heart of this article is this cutout:

"The report's basic premise is that healthy ecosystems provide humans with a range of "services" -- things like food, clean water, clean air, buffers from natural disasters and even spiritual renewal. To the extent that these "ecosystem services" are degraded, so is the quality of human life.

And without serious behavior modification, we're headed for a bad run."

It is the serious behavior modification that must be addressed, regardless of how cold or phycological this sounds. Bad behavior has bad consequences and the themes of the lust for fleeting power and control of other nations, groups, life and resources will not stop being relived until a complete shift has taken place that reveals the craziness our current world is facing, and the sanity required to identify, challenge and provide working solutions to these problems.

Our present, local challenge as we all know, ranges from trying to keep this country intact from a Harper NCC agenda to decentralize federal powers and weaken our country from the inside out in every which way, from controlling our media, to our markets, to selling our crown corporations, most notably the CBC and dismantling of the RCMP province by province, union busting, bilingual and multiculturalism, as well as the creation of East West divisions in this country...

Our lessons learned from trying to survive this empirical U.S. threat to our sovereignty, if we choose to learn them, will be instrumental in revealling the examples the rest of the nations throughout the world will need to follow in order to minimize the damage of the U.S. until it spins inevidably into an unstoppable economic doom.

There are two kinds of peace. The first exists with dominant individuals or groups controlling passive ones... and its a peace that no one in their right mind will ever want to pay. The second exists as a result of practiced equality and fairness. Without this second "behavioral modification", there is only one alternative that takes on many forms. The alternative is War.

My memory got it a tad wrong. :-)

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021009.html

The main culprits for societal self destruction have always been economic theories, originating with religions and priesthoods.

Economic theories, mostly based on religious, or pseudo religious dogmas, have always been the biggest destroyers and killers, and the present neoclassical theory, forced on Earth about 30 years ago, is the biggest crime wave and mass murderer in human history.

If we really want to save the world, which makes no difference to me at my age, first we'll have to close down all university economics departments until impartial studies can be conducted on the criminal idiocies they teach. Fire all economists and take away the banks' right to money creation. Close all money markets and strictly regulate the stockmarkets to ensure they're not forcing ecological destruction for short term, monetary profits.

The main cause for the present ecological destruction are the banks that "create" incredible amounts of imaginary capital for resource control. That money is worthless until it is converted into resources and the responsibility for convertibility is passed on to the public through their governments.

When the banks were deregulated, in Canada's case by Mulroney, in secret, in 1991, money ceased to exist and became a licence for the control of resources and energy for the benefit of a self appointed ruling class.

Now we, the whole world, and future generations are paying the price with their health and lives.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

murdock, I'll go out on a limb here and argue your concerns about who will profit are like a deck hand on the Titanic asking who has the contract on life boats.

Perhaps you will profit, but more than likely if resources etc. were to be left as they have always been, nobody and thus everybody would profit.

As it is now some people are making huge profits off "our" resources yet we will all share in the misery when the pat-due bill arrives with the morning sunrise someday.

It certainly is a delimna writing about global warming. Do you go for the gusto and chase everyone into panic mode or do you soft sell the future and play into the hands of the deniers?

I guess you can look at it and argue that Darwin's theory means some will survive so we aren't all lost. But what are my odds on being a survivor? And your grandchild's?

I don't really have to worry for myself. I'm in my late 50s and given the genes I inherited I'll be just a memory by my 80s at the latest.

Quality of life will likely already be impacted to some extent, but the environment is unlikely to call me a victim.

Janet 666 you are certainly right in that we are parasites and, I am glad you now see some of the futility of exploiting the earth's resources and not factoring in the enviromental impact, as I mentioned in my last post to you on a different article.

There is a cost to everything and we, collectively, have one friggin' big past due bill to pay for.

I can see that it would certainly add a lot of weight to the anger of young people who are born into a poisoned world where those who do the poisoning make huge profits, yet things continue to decline for everyone else.

Nothing to lose, nothing to protect. The very people who put men on the moon can't wipe their own ass.

There will come a time when the horrors of global warming will pale beside the ire of those who suffer and seek retribution from the pigs who have profited by it.

Maybe that's the only hope.

Wow, did we come a long way from the original article. What needs to be pointed out, perhaps, is that if the research under discussion is correct, there may be some amelioration available for the doom-scenarios that we are all tempted to revel in (I'm reminded of my dog rolling in rotten salmon on the beach).

Which scenario do YOU like? How can we work, together and singly, to make it more likely to happen than the others. A lot of the rest of these blogs just seem like various forms of autoerotic asphyxiation.

Don't we have some work to do besides revel in blasé terror? It's as if Woody Allen has reiterated his "All life is divided into the horrible and the miserable" routine.

Yes, we have some ugly and daunting problems to confront, so let's confront them, not celebrate them.

I've been working on this problem with some world class scientists' help for 21 years, one of them working on the UN report above, and our conclusion is that until the licence for ecological destruction is being sanctified by fraudulent economic theories, and enforced by governments, there's no way out.

We can not have contradictory theories and systems ruling the world. On one hand the rule of simple physical laws we all learn in highschool, the other, by fraudulent economic theories coming our of our universities and enforced by stupid politicians, urging the breaking of those laws in the name of "wealth creation".

The politicians are not really at fault. They're just the ignorant, or paid off pimps for the enforcement of criminal theories, all over the world.

Like the fraudulent GDP, growth and productivity figures and the stockmarkets that thrive on ecological and human destruction.

Ed Deak,

allan you have a reading disability, try to read, or have some one read to you, my last post to you in the "Company of Others". No where, anywhere, do I advocate any use of the earths remaining raw resources, it was your good friend climber who wrote that drivel. I am a reduction, reuse and recycling advocate. You are a phony and a creepy old man, stop stalking me.

Ed Deak:
I agree for the most part of what you are saying, but I'm not so sure that your claim of "politicians really aren't at fault" or minimizing their accountability is wize.

Our institutions, as this article points out their existence to serve us, if we can use them wisely, our systems are only as infallible as our own human nature.

In order for any government to work, it is top down, but once every few years or so, its also bottom up. We as collective voters, have a duty to fulfill on election day, and that is to serve the public by electing the candidates that we feel will do the best job in serving the public back.

Locally, we elect councillors and mayors. Provincially, we elect MLA's to look after our regional concerns and Federally, we elect what should be public servants who look after the greater good of this country. In fact, candidates shouldn't even run if they can't be trusted. This is how it is supposed to work, IN PRINCIPLE.

How it does work on the other hand, is an often ugly example of politicians serving themselves or special interests and as a result, our nation as a whole gets let down. Is it the politicians fault? Well, we elected them into office. Did we have better choices? We likely did, but often, VOTERS vote for their own special interests. When we look at why things fail and break down politically, it begins with the voters and the quality of the candidates running for office, but hold on! Wait just a minute!

Was the voter properly briefed on the potential conflicts of interest and motives of these candidates they voted for? Was the media biased and for how long? Decades? Its was clear as day to me that the Globe and mail was bought by NCC money in this latest election. Were voters aware of where Stephen Harper has been these last 20 years? Were they aware of his blatant conflicts of interest as former president of the NCC? How can voters do their jobs on election day, when they aren't properly prepped?

If we wonder why governments fail us, its because we unknowingly elect people who are already privately bought with special interests before they even get into office and who is number one on this list? Stephen Harper. And to top it off, we, as collective voters don't think about the candidates that are best for our country. We think about the candidates that are what is best for the regions we are from. You know, for some reason, that's what I thought provincial elections were for.

Look at the Bloc in Quebec, or the Con sweep in Alta, or the NDP support in BC, or no Con seats in the tri cities and tell me its not voters looking out for what they think is best for their region. The ideology that voters have in federal elections, "I want whats best for Alta, or Sask, or Quebec, or whatever province I'm from" just plain sucks. The regional voting that is going on shows blatantly how biased the media is regionally, how narrow in scope and self interested the voters are, even apathetic or paranoid in some ways, and how incomplete overall, voter preparation in federal elections truly is.

And boy, did the NCC led Cons ever play us through the media. Its not really the politicians fault? Some of them were corrupt well before they ran for office and when you have what could be the majority of parties that are either corrupt, inept or both and get elected through lies, media propaganda, broken promises and above all, unprepped voters...

off topic, sue me

Ich bin ein Danish

Thank Allah for the Tyee

Cont.
Look at Alberta. A province that has been blessed with oil fortunes, brainwashed with media so much so, that anger is still there over Trudeau's NEP. The East just wants our money, and so on and where's the money going? Its goin' south! How brainwashed are they? It didn't matter if you were pinnoccio and ran for the Cons, you were going to get elected in Alberta. The herd mentality, the East West polarization, the oil wealth, the pride, the bought media for decades... we see the same things in Quebec, we are seeing polarization between urban and rural, and its media caused...

Voters need to be reminded of what is really at stake, so much so, that if we believe ourselves to be honest and ready, we should run and serve. We need to be reminded of what it takes to be a good prepped voter.

And, if you all think you are powerless, think again. There's nothing stopping any of us from writing editiorials for all the papers across this country, especially with these themes, for there is something far stronger out there than lies. Its the truth and the humility that comes with it that keeps us from forgetting it.

culture.ca
http://www.altstuff.com/newspapr.htm

Pick and choose. There isn't one thing stopping any of us from using that "elderly experience" of ours to tell it like it is. We get frustrated sometimes because we feel like we're the only ones who are in the know, well, don't sit on it... tell 'em! Like the article says, use the systems that are already in place!

Knowing what I know about the NCC is enough for me to seriously consider making a career off of Steven Harper as a journalist. To me, I see Harpers presidential reign and involvement with the NCC as a journalist's wet dream. As a political strategist, the exposure of the NCC agenda to the public is enough ammo to keep Harper from any real power, regardless of how poorly the Liberals do on their end. The key is in presenting the same evidence over and over in long and short versions over time through the media until the entire country is aware of what this NCC agenda truly is.

At present, I believe the majority of eligable voters in this country don't know what this NCC agenda is. If the majority of voters knew, the Cons would have half the seats they have now, and the Libs would be forced themselves to retreat from such policies if considered, but the facts have to be presented through the media and so far, I see a Globe and mail that is heavily controlled by the NCC now, especially in this last election, so the battle is becoming one that is uphill.

I'm tempted to make some calls with a prepared portfolio of timeless pieces on healthcare and environmental concerns, but mainly pieces designed to reveal the NCC's agenda in its most ugly of forms, and what a Harper majority at any time in the future would mean. Its very tempting. There is a career there for someone like myself, and I'm quite young yet (40).

When we get closer to the truth of it, what we see is that there is great power in the masses. Most of us are brainwashed into thinking that its top down, but in a functional democracy, it's down top. Its all about getting the democracy to function by getting the truth to voters before election day, and so while many politicians are reactionary during campaigns, the best run campaigns have a well thought out plan that is contrived to either keep this truth from being said, or promote it. Its script in a play.

Apologies for the rant and thread hog everyone, a little off topic as well, but anyways, point is, we aren't helpless. We just aren't using the systems designed to serve us, and we aren't networking like we should. Most environmental concerns cannot be dealt with without our networks. Fact is, we are a little too lazy to look for them and stay on top of it. Organizations? Check out this site click onto endorsers as a sampling:

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91

In the end virtually all issues are integrated with common threads, the action is in the media, public forum number one and if any commentors wills, goals and plans are real and the health of the world and all of its life is your own special interest, then by all means, you should be the one talking and writing, with students like myself reading and listening...

Brain,

While I sympathize with your angst, I have been researching this subject for 61 years now, starting with standing by an operating table in a MASH hospital, holding the legs of victims, as they were being cut off. Then 7 years in an English university town, and ever since, looking for the "common denominator of history's tragedies". I found it in 1985.

History is usually taught as the chronicle of events, which is a grave mistake, because historical events are the results and effects of religious, or ideological theories, but very few historians even think, or dare to think of looking at those events from the point of "causes".

As wealth can not be created, only taken, history is the chronicle of the attempts of temporary energy control.

I'm only interested in the, usually faith based , causes.

Politicians, or if you like "rulers", whether their power is elected, inherited, or imposed, always rule through religious, or ideological beliefs.

And this is the key to the common denominator, which in the case of our present "globally competitive market capitalism", is the fraudulent definition of economic efficiency.

The fate of humanity and of the whole world hangs on this single sentence, which is: " Economic efficiency is the most monetary outputs for the least monetary inputs". In other words, profits.

The wars, conquests, colonizations, mass murders, ethnic cleansings and environmental destructions, either at the local, or now the global scale, through history, have been committed under "divine orders", which also include the "words of prophets", who very often were the human examples of pigs.

Without religious, or ideological support, no dictator, or elected government can rule. AND THEY KNOW IT. This is why, in the past, the shamans looked for the outcome of battles and the fate of kings in the intestines of sacrificial goats, or by throwing virgins into volcanoes with the pious approval of their parents.

Just as we now are listening to the words of brainwashed economists, spewed out of corporately controlled universities, like Victoria's sewage into the ocean. Harper is one of them.

Until this mental and ideological pollution is stopped, we can whistle up the wall, it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

The GDP, Growth and Productivity crap wasn't invented by politicians, they're only the enforcers of the crime wave such fraudulent calculations cause.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

I do understand the despair that comes out of your voice in this piece Janet66. And there is much you are absolutely correct about. (And there has been a near complete unravelling of "the left" in any meaningful form and influence, no doubt, along with the great grassroots coalitions of the people that, including organized labour, for a time, did wield a rather incredible and positive influence on capitalist society.

And while I certainly can't deny all that of which you speak, for it is simply true, I do hope that your are wrong about the prospects and that we are "doomed". And there is a real possibility, even likelihood that we are doomed, as you say. There is no absolute guarantee that humans are going to get it right in the end. I just hope and work on the "assumption" that your are wrong. :-)

And, if it is to be that we turn it around in the end, for nothing, not even doom is written in stone, outside of all the excellent points and observations that Fait Lux makes, and others here, we really are going to have to break with that tendency to become mere "doomsayers", which it is all too easy for all of us to slide into sometimes. For it is in too many of us becoming that, all hope really is lost. (Why even waste our time in these conversations here, for example. All is doomed and a waste of time and effort.)

Otherwise, it ain't over 'til it's over. And I never have liked to think of myself as a quitter-, otherwise me and my family wouldn't have got even to here, which it ain't much but it is something. And there were times that our prospects did look truly grim before as well.

But guess what?

Through dint of effort and a bit of luck, we are still here and supporting each other.

(Can you imagine what it was like for that generation that stood in the midst of the economic and social devastation of the Great Depression of the 1930s for example, and then emerged from that only to find themselves amidst the horror of the Second Great War against fascisim. It's no wonder thereafter they embraced the shallowness of the Prosperity Time after the war, and then turned inward as a generation until they died and left it to us to carry on. We think we've had it bad. )

Fiat lux; I begin to appreciate your choice of moniker here.

So what can you propose? We must be led, you say. Leaders lead, by whatever authority, followers follow. How do we begin to convince people that the old Capitalist bugaboo, "The Market" is a con job and what do we ask them to do instead?

If they stop suddenly going to work, the "Market" will soon take away their homes and their children will have to learn to eat bugs. This is why even though they all do really know that they're being lied to, and that things are getting very bad, they still get up each day and go to the mine, or the factory, or whatever. So their children can live indoors and eat.

I mean, suppose the pope, the Dalai Lama, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Gates, Mohammed and Sting all got on TV one day to say we should save ourselves from all these 'scenarios'.

What could they possibly ask people to do that would, in fact, save us from them?

Stop waiting for leaders to lead? Lead yourself? Organize with others? Act in concert with others, and be prepared to do whatever is going to have to be done to turns things around, and right the great wrongs and greed of our time?

It seems we do still need "leaders", but which is the really regrettable part of it all, I think, and only because too many of us still lack the ability to lead ourselves and yet act in great concert with our fellows.

Though like yourself, Bailey, while I couldn't resist interjecting myself :-), I really would like to hear what Fait Lux has to say about it.

It is not enough to have a good analysis of what is wrong, I also think, but to wrestle with the "devil that is in the detail" about how to right it. Which is where it can get messy, for sure. Yet of which there is not enough attention paid.

And until those devils do get addressed, it seems to me, we will forever languish into "doom" as mere keyboard revolutionaries, for sure. :-D LOL.

Bailey,

The credit for "Fiat lux" belongs to Jerry West, owner/editor of the Gold River Record, one of BC's few independent papers, who so far, published 157 of my columns, with another due tomorrow morning.

I have to go and do some real work now, feed the chickens, clean out the coop, pump water for the cattle, then back to a large painting I have to finish like right now.

I didn't say "we must be led", but "we're being led", usually by crooks and idiots.

My lucky break was when I found myself a family and homeless refugee, alone in a foreign country at the age of 18, realizing that everything I have learned until then were lies, so I had to think for myself and never stopped.

I don't want to lead, or follow anybody. What we need are not leaders, but people who can think for themselves and the public good without implanted falsehoods.

Also, there's a great difference between "work" and "earning money".

We can have an society and economic system based on the simple, easily understandable definitions of 4 well known physical laws: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws on Reaction and Speed.

Some people would call it "social conscience", which is another ideological nonsense that means nothing, but hides the real facts of life.

If and when humanity reaches the maturity to accept the obvious fact of "Wealth can not be created, only taken", and that "Costs can not be cut only transferred on other sectors, the environment and the future", it may have a chance for survival.

Now back to real life and work.

Cheers, Ed Deak.

Why be gloomy? Those who say we doomsayers are black and fearful and paint a picture of dark despair, once again show they just don't understand the big picture! Those that understand the fragile web of life tend to have their priorities straight. Gentle creatures who have been lucky enough to stumble onto the most important things in life. Knowing that the human animal functions best and is healthiest when it is happy. Knowing that happiness is a choice, not a destination. The knowledge required to come to the conclusion that human existance is in peril here on earth is based on lessons we have learned for ourselves and from those that have been here a while and have seen it for themselves. How can you not be moved when Ed Deak recounts and shares his life experience here with us. We are truly lucky and show our intelligence when we listen to and respect our elders. Do you think those who commit home invasions and assault on seniors understand anything about what we are speaking? Do you think George Bush has given the go ahead to assassinate Hugo Chavez? Do you think the Monsanto Corporation has the best interest of the poor and starving as part of their corporate culture? Do you think perhaps we may have taken a wrong turn somewhere on our road to building a society?

I will continue to pack in as much fun and recreation I can from this life and celibrate what ever time we do have on this tiny world. The rest of you living to work and creating wealth in all likelyhood will be the catalyst for the end game. I hope your search for wealth was worth it! I hope your last thoughts aren't "gee, I wish I could have earned more money, and worked a few more years." You are the gloomy ones. Your negative vibes fill the ever shrinking space we have left. Forcing out nature as you build your castles and pave over our farmland. Still you just don't get it. We are all amazed by your ignorance. That's why we sometimes just stand around and stare in unbelief! That is, of course, when we are not having fun....

Maybe one last observation.... perhaps if you understood what we are talking about you wouldn't need viagra. When you eliminate the mental dysfunction, you eliminate the need... other that medical reasons we'll say. You want a pill to fix everything, including sex! Think about it!! You can't wrap your head around one of lifes great pleasures without turning to a medical manufacturer? Funnier still is your need to wrap yourself in a metal and plastic condom called a luxury auto on your way to London Drugs to pick up your renewal prescription, cause you can't f*** with out it anymore! I like to stretch my analogies just a bit! There is no technology fix coming. It's all in your head. You can't insulate yourself from life, you are life.

Happy Friday!

And indeed, a happy friday, Clubofrome. :-)

Now, I too must tend to some real life matters. Which doesn't mean I don't value this "cerbral" time. :-D

Which should be, "...cerebral.." of course. Don't ya hate it? :-)

That's my being a neurotic perfectionist side.

You guys!....

OK then, let me make a stab at answering my own question. The key to any solution would seem to be some kind of land reform.

Humans all by their nature organize into families. This is the key that those who exploit us use to keep us in line. They have the power, through that 'market' they keep rubbing our noses in, to ruin our families if we step out of line. Take away our homes and scatter our families through the allies and Salvation Army missions.

If our families were stable and safe, if we had homes that could not be taken away, we would all be able to work co-operatively, from stable bases, without the need to compete intruding itself above the interpersonal level.

We could then take full advantage of our greatest strengths as a species; our diversity. We could approach our enormous problems from many directions, chase our common goals in many ways, all pursuing our own ideas to accomplish our common goals.

It's always in such situations that humanity seems to shine brightest, I think.

With an ever increasing population at some point the world will just have to accept we can't all live here. Some countries are going to have to be voted off the planet. We can either have a big war or just let them die of old age and not replace them.

Assuming Ed Deak is right about wealth transfers, there is just not enough wealth on planet Earth to transfer North American middle class living standards to 8 billion people, or 16 billion, or 32 billion etc

clubofrome,

Don't think I don't notice your reference to sailboats, directly and indirectly in every one of your posts.

I want one of those cool Dolphin Party t-shirts.

Oh, and Mr. Deak? I'd like to recommend to you the early works of Robert Heinlein. anything up to and including "Friday".

This is juvenalia of the fifties and sixties, and somewhat propagandistic to boot, but your interest in applying the laws of physics to societal matters makes me think you'd enjoy it.

TANSTAAFL.

Save the world! Why? So a bunch of disconnected scoundrels can continue making war as part of their quest for wealth or so a bunch of religeous zealots can make the armaggedon fantasy a reality. I'll just carry on like I did during the millenium meltdown; laughing at those who live in fear of future catastrophe.

Mr.Haskel; May I offer an observation? The very young often overlook the fact that everything changes, all the time. A lot.

It makes them prone to despair when things get nasty bad. But as you live you will notice that things sometimes do improve, and when they do it's usually because of something somebody did.

If you try sometime to save the world, or some part of it, you might not completely succeed, But I'll bet something will change. And I'll bet that looking back you will consider that whatever you did was probably not wasted.

Bailey... wasn't that the theme behind 'Catcher in the Rye'? But if you really understand change you will also understand the term 'the more it stays the same'.

I just have to head down to the castle and work for my lord for a few days and then I can work my own field the rest of the week. About 10 more generations and my family will be able to buy a horse and in about 600 years go to a school.

Same old same old

You're on to something there Frank.... Survivor, Planet Earth. The stakes are high and they play for real! We should start building the Celestial Ark now so as to be ready to fill it up with those unfortunate Milky Way colonizers who will be moving on. I've never watched an episode of TV's Survivor but the premise has sort of trickled down...
First the weak, infirm and poor will have to go because they are weak, infirm and poor. Next, those who argue with the band council. It's get along or "get along little doggies." Once we have some alliances formed we can start contests for food, shelter and energy. A round robin schedule or a double knockout tournament in each region with the losers heading off on a one way trip to Alfa Centauri. Teams can also be formed by tribes, with traditional rivalries intact. We'll save these matches for prime time Saturady night.... right after HNIC. Old foes and disputes could be rekindled... English vs French, Protestant vs Catholic, North vs South, Christians vs Muslims. Yes the ratings on FOX would shoot through the roof. Alternatively, there's always rollerball. I think that was based on Corporations as nation states, battling for profits and dividing up the planet. Here are this weeks scores.....
Monsanto 8 Cargill 3, Haliburton 5 Shell 4 (OT), Wal Mart 2 Pfizer 0, GE 6 Pentagon 4, Oprah 7 World Bank 2

janet666, sorry but you seem to dwell permanently in some paranoic state in which hatred is your only emotion and now you think people on Tyee are stalking you.

I probably am old compared to you, you might even find me creepy and a phony, but rest assured I am not stalking you sweetie.

Not with your ugly disposition.

Sorry, but I don't get the hots for people who seem to express themselves in the negative on a constant basis and that's saying something given my gloomy view of the world.

Sister get back on your meds or go and see your doctor about getting on some because you are off the wall in your accusations. If it really is you against the world, ask yourself why.

That was a well deserved and appropriate rant clubofrome.

How sad that people never really develop much beyond the consumer stage of life, like tadpoles in a fish tank thinking they have the run of the place as long as they work their asses off to catch those little flakes that trickle down.

Quality of life, forget it man, we want quantity and when it all breaks or dies, we want an entire new set of consumer goodies to keep us distracted and absolutely ignorant of the storms on the horizon.

Throw off the consumer chains folks and wake up. Our time here is definitely limited because we are still too stupid to get beyond the pleasures of greed.

For the past week I have been helping friends cut and burn pine trees on their 90-acre property. Thousand of trees have died in the past year from Mountain Pine Beetle infestations.

Not related to this topic?

Think again. The Pine Beetle is now into about its 20 year of a cycle no one sees an end too.

Why?

Because BC and much of Canada will not again in out lifetimes see periods of -40 C that last three to four weeks.

Global warming has brought us increasingly pleasant winters. No more -40 and no more natural means of controlling the spread of the pine beetle.

What other unpleasantries await us as our environment declines?

I'd suggest lots, especially as some of the new problems are exacerbated by the impact of other problems.

It is certainly going to be a very interesting 21st century weather wise and gets me to thinking how will parents explain the new realities to their children?

Denial, anger, scapegoating (that'll be the biggy, I bet), or a rational explanation on how previous generations were so gaddamned greedy they didn't give a crap about the harm their over-consumptive lifestyles were doing to the environment.

Fiat Lux:
I've found your personal story to be quite motivating for me today. I'm in total agreement with your statements on beliefs being at the center or motive to all political will. Some of it is quite hypocritical, and some of it is quite obvious. But the main issue with democracies is in getting voters up to speed, and bowling over the apathy and paranoia that now exists, with the clear examination of what does and does not work in terms of what we do believe as leaders and followers alike. In this respect, I'm well aware of most causes behind the harmful effects of political policies and agendas. The main theme of the book I'm currently working on is entirely about beliefs.

A politicians ego projection of what they believe to be superior to the beliefs of others is to me obvious when I see leaders that neither consult or search for the will of the people they are meant to serve.

The fundamental breakdown in government is rooted entirely on what public "servants" believe, but its also what voters believe. How can we have functional beliefs based on half truths, fallacies and lies? It can't happen.

So, while I see your definition of religion as loosely defined as having a belief of any kind, not necessarily stuck in the realm of what is spiritual, as persay the belief in the self serving power of money or control or self serving at everyone elses expense as being the heart of the identity the large minority choose and make attempts to hide, I believe...
and I hope, rightfully so, that the majority of us are choosing to believe in something else and if I'm right, if my own ideology or religion is correct, that truly is something we can find hope in. Nevertheless, properly packaged, valid and complete information in its time and place is what we all need the most, regardless of how well meaning, or even criminal we might be.

When it comes to what we believe in, regardless of our differences in how we think we got here, there are certain realities, certain truths and common denominators we all share that are undeniable, unless one risks being outright shamed.

We all have roots in this country and world, roots that come from our families, families of our own, families that we were born into or adopted by, proponing the beliefs all functional adults believe in; the belief in whats best for, and being stewards of the lands, environments and the children and life to come; and we have criminals, traitors amoungst us that would sell this fundamental belief in life, however long or short lived it may be, for the fleeting power of the day.

To fight this war against such criminals, all anyone has to do is tell the truth as best they can in its time and place it is most suited for, and go with the hope and belief that it will be enough if the truth is told and heard, as ultimately, we do live in a democratic society. The truth I speak of carries with it, humility and its power is very real in the face of this kind of war. And, last I checked (and glad to know you participate in larger venues), there is still media in this country that isn't bought like the globe and mail was by the NCC in the last election...

Allan,

Luckily, we don't have too many pine trees on our land, so our loss won't be too bad. But it is only a question of time before the bugs mutate to start killing the other evergreens.

We had a horrible tent caterpillar infestation here in '94-95, stripping all the aspens and poplars. It was killed off by a few days of -40. Today, it would carry on until no trees are left.

However, I would suggest, it is not the previous generations who were so goddamn greedy to bring on this mess, but the economic theories that licenced irresponsible behavour, criminal sciences, like the Green Revolution, GM and Terminator seeds, the incredible energy inputs demanded by automation so the corporations can fire workers to steal their wages, while calling it "efficiency", etc. etc.

Without such licencing many of our present problems wouldn't exist. And it is all in the name of "Cost cutting" and "Wealth creation".

Ed Deak,

Allen: Although this isn't a cure all for global warming (the above post is a little more to the heart of it), there are biological controls for beetles that should be tried, especially with the pine beetle, as, you have noted quite accurately, cold winters are a thing of the past. Below is a cutout from a web site on controlling Japenese beetle populations in West to Eastern states, and the prairies as well.

"Biological control, Bacterial Milky Spore Disease - Bacillus popilliae Dutky, has been effective controlling the grubs in certain areas of the eastern United States. It takes 2 to 3 years to be very effective and while the spore count is building in the soil you should not use an insecticide against the grubs that are needed to build the count. This bacterial organism is specific for controlling Japanese beetle grubs and is safe for the environment. Another one, Bacillus thuringiensis variety kurstaki is also effective against the grubs."

Within the last two years, western states tried bacterial spores with tremendous success against the Japenese beetle through the release of spores in strong warm harvest winds. The effects were a virtual wipeout of the Japenese beetle in the mid western states in a matter of 10 to 15 days. The weather conditions and time of year are essential for quick responses.

There are also a number of natural predators above nanolife that can be introduced for specific beetle population controls. The problem with the pine beetle is that we aren't looking deeply enough for the biological controls, be they bacterial, parasitical or otherwise that can keep the pine beetle in check and until we do look for those natural controls, the problem will only accellerate with global warming.

What should be noted is that there is going to be a good deal of money spent by provincial and federal governments to try to find controls for the pine beetle. There is nothing stopping anyone here from hiring biologogists and chemists to fulfill the obligations of government contracts with sound solutions. Interested?

Brain, I appreciate the info on some of the science that is being brought into this crisis. I'm familiar with BT, which you noted is effective on grubs.

So far no one has been able to find an effective combatant against the MPB, abd it's my understanding they have been trying biological controls fruitlessly.

I hear rumours(and nothing more), that our government experts have all but thrown their hands up in frustration over their inability to do anything worthwhile.

One of the problems is the sheer size of the infested area in BC now. How do you attack it on so many fronts and with what and what impact will that have on people, animals and so on...

The ideal answer, I think, would be some form of biological agent that sterilizes the bugs perhaps. Something that wouldn't end up in our watersheds and influence our past times as well.

Some suggest we just burn the infested forests. Again, it's a huge area and certainly not all contiguous, spreading from the northwest down into the Kootenays.

My concern with that is how much of a trade off in health and environmental factors should we make to save our pines by filling our skies with smoke and flame.

And, as Ed Deak rightly pointed out, there are other rather unpleasant visitors showing up annually in the back yard as it is.

Ed we saw that caterpillar infestation about the same time, although not to the extent you describe.

I was a bit hasty in blaming earlier generations in that today we are consuming materials and spewing out toxins at a rate far beyond the wildest dreams of yesterday.

BTW, I want to say I am quite taken with your arguments on history and economics and the links to the various 'estates' that feel obliged to tell us what to do and how to think.

Give us more my good man.

Wow, thats a huge report. Well, I cheated and went straight to the conclusions, http://www.millenniumassessment.org/proxy/Document.780.aspx, but I think there are some very strong recommendations. A lot on moving planning down to a local democratic act, and tax shifting which I support.

As well as regional disparity, and general economic documents, as well as ideas about sustainability and education. Fun stuff, compliments by evening reading on the global green charter, http://www.global.greens.org.au/Charter2001.pdf, so it was definately a complimentary document.

BTW, I saw some random comments on Bush's State of the Uni-nation address, and his environmental bit wasn't as bad as it some made it stand. (CTV has the whole thing available on its website, and if you fast forward through the 40% on the war and terror, you can actually get a few posiitve glims) His reducing reliance on foreign oil was complimented by an increase in research funding for renewable energy, and he even meantioned hydrogen cars, and using canola oil in engines. He also threw in cleaner burning coal, which is i guess a bit better than dirty burning coal, and a move to increase "clean, safe" nuclear energy production. (he actually emphasized clean and safe, and really, really tried to pronounce nuclear..)

I'm tired so will offer this short and sweet suggestion to help stopping the madness that so many here so elequently described.
People joining together en masse and occupying all the stock exchanges buildings in as many cities around the world as possible, going in shifts for as long as it takes. Just physically prevent the machine from running as much as possible.

Dangrice, please. Gee W. is the man who went into Iraq to remove all those Weapons of Mass Destruction and you are going to buy cleaner anything from him?

Don't waste your money on him. I've got some higher and longer bridges that'll do you just fine.

Crass, you are correct. It will take major, sustained civil disobedience in some form to stop this madness.

But are we capable of rising up in strong enough numbers to do anything? It seems to me far too many people would rather die than give up their toys.

Maybe if enough children start to have nightmares over their future world parents will be forced to pay attention.

Oh Allan,

I'm not trusting him, I just wanted to bring to light what it was he actually said. The speech was rather dumbed down as usual, and words and actions are two seperate things. And yes, he still is mentioning WMDs in the speech. On coal and nuclear, I thought it was funny that he had to put clean and safe in front of them. Kind of like describing a sweet smelling fart. Doesn't sound so bad.

Also, its worth a watch. The republican clap trap was almost too much to bear at times. However, it was funny when Bush mentioned that congress defeated his plan to "save social services" (save as in the new cut), the democrats on the left side of the house started cheering. Bush got a little flustered at that..

The problem goes far deeper than toys.

For one thing, children are brainwashed into wasteful practices, and lifestyles, from day one. When we were living in England, over 50 years ago, there were several USAF bases around Cambridge. Many officers had their families staying with them, the children going into English schools. There were complaints by the teachers in the papers, already then, over the wasteful behavour of American children.

One of the main trends of the neoclassical theory is the forced depopulation of rural areas and the jamming of people into cities, where they have to rely on bought supplies for everything, jacking up the GDP and corporate profits. They call this "growth", in reality, it is mindless waste, because, for example, every person moving into a city requires 1400 US gallons of water by official calculations, putting increased pressures on the ecology.

Then comes the demand for specialization of the labour force, which causes incompetence that, again, has to be filled with increased expenses and resources. Specialists are not necessarily paid more as compansation for their skills, but also to cover their increased survival costs, caused by incompetence.

Few people realize, and it is carefully hidden in economic calculations, that every worker replaced by automation is causing increased pressure on ecosystems, therefore increased real costs to the economy. Automation does not reduce, but increases real costs and transfers them on the ecology and the future through waste, pollution and depletion.

When people lose their former resource bases their survival depended on, and the benefits of resource conversion is taken over by the artificial entities of corporate shares, the humans must look for, and governments must provide them with other resource bases. This causes increased and more pressure on ecosystems.

Now, look at the inefficient design of modern cars, compound curves, no bumpers, sculptured head and tailights, all costing large monetary and energy inputs to repair and replace.

We bought our first VCR, 20 years ago for $700.
Today I can buy a better one for $55. While this appears to be a great saving, in reality, it again puts great pressure on ecosytems in the form of waste, while jacking up the fraudulent GDP.

The same applies to all kinds of equipment that can no longer be repaired, or there are no people to repair them. A friend buys a new computer printer every time the ink runs out, because it is "cheaper", while the old one goes into the garbage, again increasing waste and pollution.

This list could go on and on, but all this waste is accounted by economists and governemnts as "growth".

The French philosopher, Descartes, was 19, when he coined the phrase "Cogito ergo sum", but our universites hand out diplomas and doctorates for the opposite.

Figure it out !!!

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Fascinating discussion, thanks to everyone for sharing your wisdom and feelings. Here's my little piece, hoping to share something positive here. From what I can gather, the kids and youth of today seem to be much more clever, perceptive, caring and sensible than we were at their age. Maybe this is where our hope really lies. I know, we don't really have the time to wait for them to grow up, the situation is so critical ... but still, I am so often struck by how kids can see straight through the system we have constructed. So many of them see the problems very clearly. They are growing up thinking for themselves, unlike most of us did. They have access to so much more information than we did, so that high intelligence and reasoning are occurring at a much earlier age now. As most of you know, we now have child activists as young as 8 or 9 years old, who actually get things done.

Generally, many highly thoughtful children and youth view our present political and ecnomic system as a "dinosaur" which will eventually die off, as it must. There is a wealth of originality coming down the pipes from the next generation, believe me. It will be wonderful -- providing we are all still here. Perhaps a slow evolution into a more inclusive and logical system will happen, bit by bit, piece by piece -- incorporating the creative genius of the upcoming generation.

The only other thing I'd like to say is that I'd like to try some of what "clubofrome" is smoking.

The Language Nazi in me just wants to say to janet666 that one of my favourite commentors is surely neither phony nor creepy nor old ... and

Brain, old smartass: could you for heaven sake spell Allan, not Allen?

Allan: do not be afraid.

Everybody: thanks for some marvelous threads lately.

You'd think the apparent fact that we can't outsmart a bug might be a warning as to just how powerless and insignificant we are compared to Mother Nature. But, I fear it will just spawn more technological attempts at control and even bigger unforseen problems, in a bizarre variation of "the old woman who swallowed a fly".

Dangrice:

Hydrogen cars might solve a few problems with the noxious emissions from fossil-burners but that's about the only plus... and lots of people argue that there's still plenty of emissions involved, just at a different link in the chain. Further, a 'solution' that attempts to preserve the current mindset and usage patterns surrounding autos is ignoring reality.

BC Mary: (chuckling) :-) Dumbass habits truly are hard to break... workin on it, love.

This world has three defences against global warming. The first defence, is the canary in the coal mine. It is the artic ice pack. The artic is the most vulnerable to global warming due to its altitude. The artic pack is on the ocean, so once it melts, and begins to break away from the coasts of Russia and particularly Greenland, as this is the last coastline to melt, the canary will have effectively died. This is likely to happen far sooner than anyone realizes, especially in the light of Bush regimes and dramatically increased consumption of energy in China.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/
When we click onto sea ice cover on photo galleries, we'll get the picture. The maps that outline the ice pack with sat pictures of 79 and 2003, reveal visually why the news isn't good. We have lost 9% of our artic ice area (separate from greenland) over the last 25 years, but we have lost an estimated 23% of our artic ice volume since that time. The problem is, this will accelerate over time and the ocean currents will change dramatically as a result, along with the weather. Coastlines will rise slightly, but signifigant coastline rises can only happen with melts from Greenland.

The second line of defence the Earth has is with Greenland and it, too, is in trouble. Once the artic pack is gone, Greenland melts will accelerate much more dramatically. Already, there is evidence that it is melting and as water comes between the ice packs and land surfaces, water acts as a lubricant. If the artic pack disappears and as ice chunks break off and Greenland melts accelerate, this world will be in serious trouble.

The last line of defence is antartica. Antartica is likely our saving grace. It is the fifth largest continent of the Earth, and the highest. It would take an Earth that is 18 to 20 degree's warmer than it is now to melt and as it melts, the altitude of Greenland is predicted to rise with the reduced weight, further stopping the planet from losing its ice in its entirety. If antartica reaches the summer melting point, then planet will truly be doomed. The atmosphere will expand to approx 2 1/2 times the height it is now, and the atmosphere will no longer be contained within the gravitational pull of the Earth. From there, we lose our water and this planet becomes uninhabitable.

The reason why these scientific studies use a 50 year timeline to the point of no return, is that this is how long it is estimated to take for the artic cap to melt and Greenland to begin melting at an accelerated rate. If humanity continues to believe the propaganda by the oil companies and leaders like Bush, this world's end will happen by man's hand.

In order for this to happen, we would have to ignore entirely geothermal and wind energy potential, ignore advances in science, ignore the potential of true democracies and freedom of speech specifically in the press, ignore the common denominators of survival, ignore the worlds very real checks and balances concerning nano life dangers to humanity, but above all, ignore what will turn it around. LIFE!!! The belief in LIFE!!! The knowledge that green life producing higher levels of oxygen will not only reverse damage done to the ozone, but suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Cont.
The decisions that we make now... regardless of how old or young we fool ourselves into thinking we are, will decide our destiny and again, it comes down to what we believe in, for we create what we believe.

If we believe we are hopeless, that there is nothing we can do, then we do nothing and it becomes hopeless. If we believe in life, life is the result. If we believe in religions that call on war, destruction and death, religions that push money mantra's and oil driven economies, then this is what we are going to have. If we believe in healing, we will heal. We will find the ways.

What we decide to feed our hearts will decide the will we take, the goals we set our sights on and the plans we pursue, but mark these words. For global problems, it will take global efforts and ultimately, I think, as growing pains are, perhaps, a global shame before global redemption.

This much is certain. The leaders that are proponents against kyoto today, and for wars over oil, are the fools of tomarrow. Things are going to get worse, before they get better, but they will get better... as Clubofrome points out, we create what we believe! This is our potential. Its time we realized it. And, for those who believe that they are too old to fight such causes... there are none that fight more ferociously than an old lion...

"Humanity will be on the verge of discovering its true destiny when we plant a shade tree, under which we know full well we shall never sit."
- Steven Gnash

The Mayan calendar ends in Dec. 2012. The speculation is that it either means the end of Earth through a polar shift, which could be caused by the imbalances created by the pumping of oil, or "the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment"

I would be 85 by then, if I'm still kicking, but I hope and fight for the second version till the last minute.

Of course, it is out of pure selfishness, as I would like to see many future generations enjoying some of the work I leave behind, both as a cabinbetmaker and an artist.

Ed Deak,

Why thank you BC Mary.
You're right, I'm a lot younger than Coyote.

Well, Ed: :-)

There is that potential! The true magnetic poles do like to shift around a bit, that's a fact! And this world doesn't stay perfectly round, either, with all of this ice and water weight shifting around... but I'm likened to believe that we'll be alright until the packs melt above ground, particularly in Greenland and Antartica, so I'm hoping for your latter Mayan suggestion that we are headed for the age of enlightenment, myself... out of pure selfishness, of course! ;-D

I've never been clear about that magnetic shifting stuff. When the poles shift, does the spinning magnet that's the Earth actually flip over? It would seem to me that the orientation of a spinning magnet would be set by the orientation of all the other magnets in the field.

Or is it supposed to keep it's current position in relation to the rest of the galaxy?

According to scientists the poles have already shifted to a certain degree.

In the Mayan "prophecy", the shift would happen suddenly, which means the new poles, or if you like the shaft around which the Earth rotates, could end up around the Equator. This, if you believe the prophets, would cause a tremendous imbalance inside, causing the very thin, hard skin of the Earth to break open, allowing the flaming magma to pour out and destroy everything.

I'm only quoting what I've read on this subject by the "prophets", many years ago and wash my hand on the accuracy of the predictions.

On the other hand, there is ample scientific evidence, proving that the poles have shifted several times during the past few billions of years. Or 7,000 if you're a fundamentalist Christian and the scientific evidence was only put there by God, or gods, only to test our faith.

Now I go down to my shop and do some work.

Ed Deak.

There seems to be dismay that some of us are inclined to comment in apocalyptic terms, ignoring the fact that we are riding with the four horsemen of the apocalypse, pestilence, famine, war and what's that last one, oh yeah, death. Sure we are discussing the issues, but its talk talk talk, and talk minus action equals zero. There is NO POLITICAL SOLUTION. Our economic and systemic dependence on the continued extraction of raw resources will prevent any politician from developing a political will to enact legislation to stop the destruction of our own habitat.

I have a solution however, one that everyone left, right, MOR, green, red, blue can support: STOP THE FLOW OF GARBAGE. Stop burning, dumping, spewing the waste. Don't buy takeout, newspapers, new paper, boycott over packaging and if you want a political agenda, legislate waste reduction requirements for all industry. This is the only resource management that is palatable to government. Once we are required to put the garbage back into the system, we will have a surprising amount of new resources, instead of paying industry to destroy them. One very well off garbage magnate once said: "A garbage dump is a goldmine in reverse."

You may think this is a simplistic answer, however, we are a disposable society, throw away boxes, throw away people. If we were required to think about everything we threw in the garbage, a different consciousness would infuse our world/Gaia. Resource extraction is based on our need for more, to replace what we throw away. Stop making the garbage and find ways to reuse it.

As simple as this solution is, no one accepts it, they keep focusing on the front end, instead of the back.

To Janet666 there is one possable answer to the dilema of garbage that you speak of which I have been proposing for years which has created some laughter at times. i.e. that no garbage, no sewage should be allowed to leave the area in which it is produced. By that I mean your own home or property or at least the block in which each of us lives. There is nothing which provides better incentive for caring for this world than having to clean up our own mess.

Not with your ugly disposition.

Sorry, but I don't get the hots for people who seem to express themselves in the negative on a constant basis

so, allan if I had a "nice" disposition you would be a stalker.

not "people" allan YOU

You have consistently directed personal negative comments to me from the start, singling me out for "your" special attention.

Comments such as:

"Janet666, I'd urge you to offer the same advice to the Greens, but first that party has to purge itself of people such as yourself who can't look beyond the status quo."

or

"Janet666, you are still bitter that Glen Clark didn't fall down on his knees when you holier than thouers showed up to tell the NDP what to do."

or

"Here's a little advice lady. If you want to influence politics get involved."

or

"Standing on the sidelines whining "I hate them all" might get the odd idiot on side with you (see post immediately below yours), but it doesn't advance any agendas."

(a misquote by the way, which you revel in)

or

"Perhaps you and Climber can launch the grand new party that'll bring peace and prosperity to our world.

Your first statement could be "I don't yet hate this party."

or

"Otherwise, you comments are tired, dated and certainly show you haven't got much beyond the headlines."

or

"I agree janet666 has gone overboard on her description of people and her obvious dislike of so much.

Her latest post is frightening, in my view."

or

"It's actually quite sad to see someone go so overboard and to try to find blame in everyone other than the one starring back in the mirror."

or

"Frankly janet666, you are a classic case of burn out, in my humble opinion."

(your opinion is neither humble nor knowledgeable, allan)

or

"Despite all those words you placed above, not once did you seem to reflect an iota on how you might have been part of the problem, or heaven forebid, a part of a solution."

or

"I do not remember if you had an opinion on the Marxist Lenonists, Libertarians or the Humping Beaver Party, but, I wouldn't bet against it."

allan, you have negatively STALKED me from the begining, because I dared to criticize your precious NDP. Or maybe it was your precious Progressive Reformed Alliance Conservatives. No other "men" on the board have received such critical largesse from you (and shame on the rest of you for allowing such obvious attacks continue) or good natured BCMary who sure won't rock anyone's boat.

You want to know why the revolution failed in the 60's Mary? It was the deeply ingrained chauvinism that made a distinction between "strong" men and "aggressive" women.

BUT here is the clincher, couched in the language of allan's age group and which shows absolutely no compassion whatsoever, if the allegation were true:

Tell me allan what university gave you your psychiatrists degree?

As I said before, stop following me around making your ugly little personal assessments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You may be humoured by some of the others, but personally I don't think your contribution to global warming...

is very positive as I think someone has already pointed out.

Yes, Comox, someone once said, "think globally, act locally" and you should ignore the laughter because you are absolutely right. In addition to the costs of dumping we have to add the costs of trucking the waste, sometimes hundreds of miles cross country, across borders. Lakes, rivers and oceans are routinely used by engineers as disposal solutions.

janet666, grow up.

To begin with I do not appreciate your allegation, no matter how bizarre it may be, that I am somehow stalking you.

If I am doing anything wrong, then I would suggest you complain to the editor or the police or who ever you wish.

But please, if you do that. Show them, also, the posts you wrote that I was responding to with those comments above.

It's a little thing called context and let me explain.

You have taken virtually everything I have stated about you and simply re-presented it.

And then, of course, you tried to pick it apart.

Yet, nowhere is there any reference to your earlier comments, so most people who read your diatribe (above) might not know that your first posting here let us know you "hate" virtually every political party ever thought of.

I could go on and rewrite every silly comment you wrote, but that's just overdoing things a bit.

Now, in fact, all the other comments I made to or about you after that first one were in direct response to comments you directed at me.

And some of those comments to me were not for tender eyes. So you engaged in your own personal spat with me as much as I threw stuff at you. Probably felt good to get a few in, eh?

But you're now saying that I am somehow endangering you. I think what I am exercising is my right to free speech, just as you have sister.

And, I might add, you comments were all pretty much political statements. Once you play that game you never really have clean hands again.

Now, as to your complaint that I am singling you out. Sorry, but I was singling out the individual who made, what I thought were off the wall comments.

That's you rather than everyone else so you're getting the criticism. Is that a surprise?

allan I notice you have difficulty writing paragraphs more than one sentence long. Perhaps if you were coherent, learned how to spell and understood some of the words you use like "context" you would sound more intelligent.

janet666, it certainly is interesting that you are now trying to pick apart my writing rather than dealing with your perceived troubles.

It would appear you are now stalking me. But it's alright. It shows just how small and petty you really are.

As for my choice of words, I'd suggest context is exactly what you left out of all your rants here so far.

It not surprising though as so far you have only really been able to get one message across here on Tyee, that there are a lot of things and people you hate and don't understand.

BTW, the one sentence paragraphs were meant as a favour to you.

No I'm not, you are.

RE: Ties

Very pertinent to the survival of the planet, to be sure.....

I think the Turkish-origin thing may be more or less correct, as Ottoman fashions were imitated and adapted in European courts. But the introduction of the tie as we know it, IIRC, was in the Regency and in the fashion diktats of one Beau Brummel, who also came up with the basic suit-and-tie-with-dress-shirt format that is now standard. There were ascots and such before, but it was Brummel who came up with the thin tie; but not with the string-tie, which I think was from the American frontier, or perhaps Ireland, and may have a different origin.

Probably there's a history of ties and other neckwear on wikipedia that could explain all this but I haven't looked it up yet.

Check out this story about Sweden's decision to wean their country off oil completely...http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1705315,00.html

Would we go as far? Could we? What happens if we don't lessen our reliance on oil when the supply eventually diminishes?

There used to be a guy running a dune buggy that ran on water around Ohio in the 70s. You can Google water fueled dune buggy.

Water contains Hydrogen to burn and Oxygen to burn it with. All we need is a way to electrolize or catalyze the two gases apart in a carbeurator, and the world is saved.

Exxon might spank, however.