'Consumption' - a pretty spot-on measure after all.

Post #26,475 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:11:08 AM Reply	'Consumption' - a pretty spot-on measure after all. Old name for cancer, which aptly describes the process. We may get 'richer' (we say) through the religion of consumption - if we are willing to define 'wealth' in that way: Growth is good. Funny how that changes when you have a growth on your ___ (?) So you see no supreme irony in cancer being about unrestrained growth* - while we are not happy with anything less than an exponentially expanding what we call, 'economy' (er YAN oxymoron. As in economize). * while at once being The most Popular disease we have! - and have brought to other cultures (as we hook them on junk-food chains too): who formerly experienced a tiny cancer rate - check Japan, for one. You may explain the concentration of 'riches' via some fanciful notion of our -what?- 'seeding growth' around the world? Isn't the underlying assumption there: this isn't a zero-sum game? But that happy definition appears to lose sight of another concept - control. The energy usage? Sheer mass of stuff/person that we control: is quite a disproportional share of all there is. No? Our per capita accumulation of stuff - produced often by processes which create orders of magnitude more detritus (much of that toxic) than the particular toy - is surely a measure of something. (Entropy at very least?) However these logistics play out in 'physics' (or literal) 'space' - as our local usage/capita ascends uninterruptedly: isn't it odd that we imagine this trend may continue indefinitely? Not to mention: is THIS then, the meaning of life for us: "Consume as much stuff / energy as possible while also increasing in number - as casually" Izzat it - after the long slow climb from the slime? The Answer isn't 42 after all; it's just... EAT. MORE. --> ??? Sorry Gerard - my take is that we make the (false but cute) caricature of the lemming seem positively brilliant. Should the rest of the world acquire our fascination with waste (the larger part of each piece of stuff) .. well, Malthus has been patient (and ignored, if not ridiculed) and we enjoy imagining that a Murican! can even confound I=Ioe^Kt Yeah.. Sure We Can.. WTF has math got to do with What We Want! I mean - the cosmos may be 'finite and unbounded' and all, but I'll bet that the local neighborhood still weighs a few septillion tons and - it's circumference isn't noticeably growing either. So when there are just humanoids left.. after we et or killed off about every other critter: and then we look around - won't we call that The Boring Death? Ashton Watchin the Circus, is all. Don't change a thing.
Post #26,481 by gtall 1/30/02 8:09:26 AM Reply	Depends on how you calculate waste One of the biggest environmental pollutants is methane. Our cows fart too much. So you have a choice, you can (a) allow people to go hungry, (b) have a lot of farting cows, (c) get people to eat a diet rich in vegetables and other good stuff. You probably pick (c), good for you. Now, how will you be generating the crops? Do you (a) get farmers to produce more by giving them more fertilizer (cows make good fertilizer), (b) get a lot more farmers to produce a lot more stuff, but in enviromentally sound ways even if they have to use all available space and cut down the trees to do it, (c) make genetically engineered crops that do not rape the soil of nutrients and don't need no stinkin' pesticides. Who knows what you'll pick, I'll pick (c) for you because you are probably environmentally sound (if not otherwise so...snicker) and you don't want no stinkin' fertilizer causing algae growths in your mostquito pond. You'll be wanting some real good science to produce those genetic marvels, even if you breed them the old fashioned way. Now produce an economy that will allow you the freedom produce the eggheads that produce the science years before it is needed. And please do it in an environmentally sound way too. No coal fired power plants to produce the electricity, you'll be wanting to use solar. Of course, you'll need to produce the solar cells, produce them in an environmentally friendly way too, I won't allow you any backsliding. Your scientists will need to commute to the labs, give'em bikes. Oh, and produce those being conscious of the environment too. The point, Ashton, is that you want a perfect world to spring from a perfect world. It won't. You have a dirty world and the "economy" is nothing more than people doing what they do. From that, you must produce enough food, clothing, and science to keep'em all happy. I contend you haven't the faintest of fuzzies on how to make that work, and neither do all the other "anti-consumers" who somehow thinks this stuff grows on trees. By the way, China has 5 billion people, get cracking! Gerard Allwein
Post #26,488 by wharris2 1/30/02 9:00:30 AM Reply	Startling statistic Something like 70% of the soybeans currently grown are genetically engineered. (Now to what extent that means, whether it's actual put this gene here and take this gene out, or whether it's just advanced hormone therapy, or selection, or what, I don't know.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #26,526 by mhuber 1/30/02 11:14:15 AM Reply	Predator inefficiency completely eats the difference. As a life member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) I wish your argument worked. But it doesn't, because the amount of resources (land, water, energy, chemicals) it takes to produce X calories of beef is far higher than the amount of resources it takes to produce X calories of most kinds of edible vegitation. Even taking into account the fertilizer that cows produce. It doesn't take evil technology to make eating plants less damaging than eating cows. At pretty much any technological level, carnivores do more damage. Except perhaps in terms of making an economy run. Farmers can produce more edible calories without expanding the fields or resorting to exotic biotech, simply by reducing the number of cows. Fertilizer might be a challenge without any cows, but the number of cows could be reduced quite a bit before a fertilizer shortage would occur. Except for those exotic biotechs, which tend to require fancy chemicals instead of dung. No, I'm not some kind of vegitarian activist - I buy my dead cows by the quarter cow, and there is a chunk of dead cow ready for my lunch right now. Also some rice. I recognize that I am consuming more resources than I really need to. So be it. I do not aspire to be harmless. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #26,585 by gtall 1/30/02 4:46:21 PM Reply	Re: Predator inefficiency You are correct that producing animals requires much higher more stuff. But that wasn't my point. You could have substituted your argument for producing more veggies in place of mine for producing more veggies. The result would be the same. We still have to produce the infrastructure to manage the change. And that infrastructure is complicated, expensive, and requires a lot of technologies. Anyhow, I doubt we could eliminate raising animals in place of veggies because animal products are used in a lot more than just food. You'll be wanting to replace all those too. That will require more tech, start now, time's awasting... My point was that in order to fail to consume all that Ashton wishes us to fail to consume, he has no way to get from here to there. We get in the way because we want too many things. We even want the things that will allow us to consume less, and have to produce those things, thus starting the cycle all over again. But I do not think it is a zero sum game. We can consume less, but we won't get there by attempting to change human nature, we'll get there because we've learned how to become more efficient and do it in such a way that we would want to do it. Gerard Allwein
Post #26,565 by Ashton 1/30/02 3:17:05 PM Reply	It's all soluble without magic. But only after enough take the 12-step course beyond that comfy level, denial. Meanwhile we shall indulge our fav econo-fantasies, elide from our mentation the concept of exponential (That's the way to deal with scary things that go bump in the night!) And order another HumVee (the wanna-be UAV version) with the white rhino-skin seats and the Bose stereo - so we don't have to hear the sounds of the things squashed by the (optional with A/C) caterpillar treads. As mentioned above: justifying the horrendous side effects of billions n'billions of cattle as "a marvelous source of protein" is ~ like our other pseudo-economic theories for the maintenenance of bizness as usual: Hey! next quarter's gonna be Great. Who cares about quarter III - until quarter II? We could fix lots, IMhO - but I doubt we'll begin to try until likely, we will have missed all the windows of opportunity. It's just 'US' - and I Gotta be Me(-Me-Me). Better get started on that boffin-clone farm - to Keep The Good Things Flowing (like ketchup.. ketchup.. if'n ya ever catch Garrison Keillor & Co. ?) Hey I know! Pay 'em with stock options. There - all fixed. Ashton What, me worry? Won't happen on My shift! ZZZzzzzzzz Oops - time to turn the Ocelot on the Bar-B-Q
Post #26,566 by Another Scott 1/30/02 3:18:28 PM Reply	Nit: Most cow methane is due to burping. [link\|http://www.durable.gc.ca/radio-video/radio/radio1_e.phtml\|Here]'s a Canadian radio show report about it. The gas is methane. It's not the most plentiful gas linked to global warming; that title goes to carbon dioxide. But kilo-for-kilo, methane is said to have 21 times the warming effect of CO2.And it's becoming more abundant in the atmosphere every year. Methane is produced by all plant-eating animals, including the world's 1.3 billion beef cattle and dairy cows. Dr. Paul McCaughy is a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Brandon. World wide, cattle produce enormous qualities of methane-probably about 15 per cent of world wide emissions of methane. Individual cattle can produce about 65 kilograms of methane per year. Actually, the gas is produced by bacteria in the cow's digestive system. According to the experts, about 85 per cent of that gas escapes through the animal's mouth and nose in the form of quiet, but frequent, belches. McCaughey and other government researchers are now looking for ways to reduce that gas production. Among their findings so far: methane levels can be cut substantially when the animal is served high-quality feed, rich in alfalfa and young grasses. McCaughey says the results of this research will benefit both the environment and the farmer. Methane is an energy loss to the cow and if we can somehow reduce methane production, we can improve the bottom line and make cattle production more profitable for farmers. So that would be a win-win situation for both society and the farmer. Emphasis added. Cheers, Scott.
Post #26,571 by Ashton 1/30/02 3:36:02 PM Reply	Gotta Love.. the implications and our next plan - Just like the new Palm XLII with add-on 42-'fix anything module': All we gots to do is reengineer the cow for less burping -- er maybe reengineer the bacteria for less burp-factor in cows -- er maybe reengineer the humanoids for more resistance to the new strain of bacteria which tends to interact with the reengineered corn fed the cows - and the reengineered deadly bees which pollinate the corn and ... ... (But DON'T ponder for very long: WTF SAYS..? we POSITIVELY NEED 1.3 billion cows/cattle-steers, yada yada.) Ashton I never admit my species origin, when travelling - it's so humiliating whenever they find out..
Post #26,484 by marlowe 1/30/02 8:56:05 AM Reply	Malthus has been patient with us? Of course he's been patient. He's been dead. And with the exception of Jeremy Bentham, the dead don't socialize much. If the West is really no different from the Rest, why should we have been given a reprieve from the dismal laws? It's a singular circumstance, which calls for explanation. Something better thought out than "just you wiat!" [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,560 by Ashton 1/30/02 2:50:25 PM Reply	Gosh marlowe, sometimes your rhetorical questions are just too precious! If the West is really no different from the Rest, why should we have been given a reprieve from the dismal laws? Golly.. I mean - that was a question? OK I'll bite - er Power? The ability to subordinate the needs of the many to the fantasies and weapons - of the few (for a time) ? (Of course, once the agar dish is full of the remains of cannibalized spores - the whole Petri dishful dies - but that won't happen til the next fiscal quarter, so why worry?) Adam Smith was lots smarter than the folks who think he was sleeping with Ayn Rand - so was Malthus, though he lacked modern spin doctors to make the medicine go down with the sugar syrup. Thanks for your support. Ashton
Post #26,586 by marlowe 1/30/02 4:47:49 PM Reply	Begging the question. Whence the power? Did Anglo-Saxon civilization get a visit from the power fairy? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,597 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:25:21 PM Reply	The more rapacious 'won', of course ..but continued the rapine long after parity was achieved. That became a habit, then a tradition - and now it seems to be all we know, to keep selves occupied during waking hours. So - is that the best we can supply as a 'Purpose' for hanging out in these parts? - get as much of everything as you can.. then try to get some more? Repeat. B o r i n g. And it makes the 'entrepreneur' the epitome of maudlin conversationalist: you always Know What S/he Wants, and it's always the same: my very Own Monopoly! Ashton
Post #26,600 by marlowe 1/30/02 7:02:59 PM Reply	Big problem with that theory. Conflicts with real world. A lot of loser types I can name are way more vicious and predatory than some winner types I know. It's not hard to find groups with an inflated sense of entitlement, and a ruthless determination to collect, who nonetheless are stuck at the bottom of the totem pole. Common street thugs. New Guinea headhunters. Day traders (yes, they kill, sometimes.) Those drunken losers who fall for get-rich-quick scams, and then go on a shooting spree when things don't turn out the way they planned. And that's just financial rapacity. What of the lust for power, and for respect far beyond what one is entitled to? Arab terrorists. The IRA. Chechens. And do you really not know any decent, honest people who work for a living, and happen to be doing well at it? If not, you need to hang out with a different crowd. And if so, can't the same principle apply to entire cultures? Why not? Not everyone who wins cheats. And not everyone who loses plays nice. Far from it. Be careful what underdog you root for. It might be rabid. Or just stupid. Really, Ash. If you'd actually thought about what you said for even a moment, you'd have realized how silly it is. You're envious. Get over it. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,670 by Ashton 1/31/02 1:43:53 PM Reply	Any use of the word 'real' to bolster a stereotype is doomed to failure - as is the usual reply: of YAN 'opposite'. This isn't argument - it's contradiction. Ditto 'power fairy' type excrescenses.. And your adolescent ideas about 'losers and winners' - hell, Billy is perhaps the biggest seeming-Winner to be.. so evidently: a 'real' Looser. You appear still to imagine that there are only Two POVs, and also believe that the usual polit-speak of inane polar opposites actually has 'meaning' (!) There are many reasons - none of which constitutes causality - for the US ascent to now virtual Imperial hegemony over any #2 or the rest. Our position is bolstered by our single-minded devotion to the mercantile, mechanical model of all things + our jingoistic, very Christian-like Certainty [a lot like the certainty your every comment oozes] -- that there is no need to examine any other peoples' POV: Ours is Best by definition, since we hold the \ufffd on those. We manufacture new nonsense words to justify our every action. We invented! the TLA (and we believe those fake words - that's the scariest part). For this tissue of self-referential 'morality' to continue, there needs to be ultimate power finally backing it up. We have that - the best nukes, delivery systems and.. a group well-conditioned to destroy the world on orders, if need be: to save Our idea of "democracy" (by Corporate surrogate, of course: here And abroad). Just as in Vietnam - kill the country and it's gooks - as we always dehumanize Every 'enemy' - to save them for Murican 'goodness'. Still the rampant mindset in US and us IMhO. No, not that any rocketeers long to see this magic stuff used (well, every techno type secretly wants to see His system perform) - just that: in the End (and it will Be That]: They Will Launch.. us all into terminal madness. No one out there can counter devoted, sanctimonious M.A.D. Certainty - backed by apocalyptic weaponry. And we're so insouciant: we feel actually smug about possessing!* this Damocles sword over the continuation of the species. Smug is the word because the Decision is already made: We Will Launch. * Who possesses Whom.. Don't talk to me about your fanciful idea of any real world or for that matter, about 'reality' of any label. You can't ever get past the cant, it seems. Erwache! Gehabt, kindern. Ashton
Post #26,722 by marlowe 1/31/02 4:18:34 PM Reply	Methinks you're suffering from reality envy. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.

Welcome to IWETHEY!