by yesplease » Tue 05 May 2009, 18:19:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'O')k, I guess we just have a different interpretation of the phrase "sure there is."
"Sure" in my dictionary means "Certain."
"Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain."
I generally think "could" means "might" not "will."
"Used with hypothetical or conditional force"
So, just a little language gap between us, as usual.
You're missing the subject of "Sure","a way out". In other words, it's certain that there is, aka sure there is, "a way out", such as so-and-so. In terms of language, if I'm replying to someone's post, isn't their content included in my post via implication, or do I have to type out everything explicitly? If someone says "There's no way I can do so-and-so", and I say "Sure there is". That doesn't mean that they will fer sure do it, just that they can. Iono, maybe I just use language differently.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Tue 05 May 2009, 21:30:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e can't understand everything we read on the first go. Better luck next time, too!
I have to admit I have an almost autistic-like literal interpretation of what people write and do tend to need things to be explicit. But that's my problem and not the problem of those who post. I will try to be better about asking for clarification.
"iono" is a bit of a problem, you might want to leave that one out, for our friends in foreign lands.
Shoot, I probably am Autistic (spectrum), so I can relate in that context. And the "slang" stuff I do use, well, it just seems random to most people.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by mos6507 » Tue 05 May 2009, 21:52:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'Y')ou don't think anything is being accomplished by the transition town movement?
I wouldn't say that. But are they tribal?
Depends on your definition. It's community building if that's what you mean.
by yesplease » Tue 05 May 2009, 22:02:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '.').technically a high standard of living for even 10 billion people is a possibility.
And about 10 other species, right? Sure. That'll work out great, I'm sure.
We can have ten billion people w/o the crazy rate of species extinction we see today. Most extinction will probably be from habitat destruction and GCC. Investing in the undeveloped world, reducing our consumption of wood and meat, and transitioning away from FFs are all possible within the next two decades. If we don't change, then as usual, the only ones to blame are ourselves.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', 'B')ut I also fully understand what all this is doing to our species and to the planet. Our civilization is sick, and is a sickness. Our industry and technology is killing everything. It's BUILT IN to the system we have. It is not sustainable, it is going to end, and that is a Good Thing, despite all the temporary horrific human suffering and death it will cause. The fact that I am a hypocrite who uses paper towels and plastic bags, and plays video games instead of sitting outside reconnecting with this amazing planet that I am part of, doesn't change any of that one bit.
I think you're being a bit strict with the definition of hypocrite. If we take it far enough everyone is, but that's not useful since it ignores gray areas. In terms of industry and technology and their impacts, they aren't killing everything as a whole. Different applications have different impacts. Odds are we can minimize most impacts fairly easily. The only thing that will change is who gets paid what, which is why there's so much contention over it. Do we need all the timber and meat we get from destroying rainforests and mangroves? No way. The same goes for overfishing and energy from FFs. People can do just fine on less meat and more vegetation, fewer new homes, and if the end result is TEOTWAWKI, then people will almost certainly do most of the same stuff in a small EV that they did in a large SUV.
It seems that the biggest difference between my outlook and the outlook of others on this site is that they believe humans won't respond to threats to their well-being by changing, and I do. Granted, there are impediments because we're looking at a huge shift in the economy, and all the people who would loose out are throwing everything they can to delay addressing problems, so a transition won't be ideal, but nothing is. Will we loose more species? Sure? Will we loose most species? Probably not. Odds are the outcome will be someplace between the worst, total destruction super dieoff time, and the best super eco-village hippie harmony.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by Narz » Tue 05 May 2009, 23:21:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote(' Hermes', '
')I live in a town of less than 2000 pop, raise chickens (30+) and goats (30+) myself, have fruit trees and gardens and eat from all of the above for a portion of my food. Get a further portion of my food from the immediate surrounding community. Am on the road to being able to get ALL our food from our own land and our neighbors. Furthermore I have friends and neighbors here who are professional farmers and am intimately connected with what they're doing.
You know what a crop is my man?
If you want to be a hunter-gatherer why you farming & ranching. You say the lifestyle sucks yet you practice it. Can't expect many converts, can you?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote(' Hermes', '
')Frankly it strikes me as a tactical retreat on your part, trying to cover up your screwup.
Your assumption is your screwup not mine. Need clarity, ask, don't just assign someone's statement to your issue of the week.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his was not a complex statement I made. Please re-read that exchange and see if you can figure out what I was saying there. I believe most others who read it understood what was being said.
Using reason is too dangerous. We should resist temptation to utilitze technology not approved by John Zerzan (books are ok as is selling them on Amazon).
There is no strawman, read what you wrote in your first post. Pure doomsterbation - society can't continue, everyone should & will be living like me, blah blah blah. Wishful thinking.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')This is all tangential bullsh*t. The important point Narz made is that the death toll required for the earth to support everyone going Dances with Wolves makes such a suggestion just as useless as suggesting we tractor-beam Titan next to us and suck off the hydrocarbons.
Dances with Wolves, I love it. 
![[smilie=5dunce.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/5dunce.gif "5dunce")
