Forum Thread

we must advance into survival of system-earth (and we who dwell thereon/within)

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    There's no denying that man plays a role in terrestrial degradation unto destruction. There's hardly doubt that this could result- (or is -ing) in global eco-armageddon, a synergic confluence of factors such as climatic, demographic, even tectonic and volcanic. An epic-exaggeration of "fictionalized documentary" is presented in the book, ALMIGHTY GORD OF ANTITHESIS. This post-apocalyptic panorama may be but satire -- but then again it could be actual prescience -- prediction.
    Two other books consider comprehensively (and non-fictionally) this dimension of evolutionary diminution unto detriment, perhaps even destruction. One is ADAM'S CURSE. The other THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE. As for just depiction, as dismal and minimal and haunting as extravaganza of extinction can be -- the recent THE ROAD (book and movie).

    The dilemma; unless we go Chaos-Creationist (which reading carefully the Old Testament might justify as reaction, though not realization), unless we assume-propose that man is something "special" and other than an evolutionary progression-form of animal . . . . we have to recognize that man is a part of nature, a component of natural process!!! If man is destructive of nature, can we but accept that even through paleo-historic perspective natural process has been cyclical: emergence-destruction, warming-cryonic, prolific-pestilent, ascendent- ass-end-ent when the empires (examples of natural complexity/supersedence) drained the nature-substantives (ecology). So many examples: the deforested-then-desertified Middle East, unto the South American monumentalist milieu that so suddenly were entwined, envined in their vacancy.
    To position man as some "prima causa" existential (even environmental) is, in my estimation, a bypass of biology into bigotry!! From one perspective, man didn't make himself. From another, even the deleterious doings now discerned as detrimental (from mining through fracking) have been predicated upon advantage, even ecological advantage. With coal as primary fuel, the forests were not castrated beyond potential to re-seed. With petroleum came a reduction in the soot factor (and, I believe, as well, actual carbon content of effluent). Obviously medical and pharmaceutical factors were exponential advances of not only human, but life (veterinarian-species) existence. That hygienic and even antibiotic "immersions" as protocol and prescribed parameters have resulted in "mutational-resistant microbes" was, until the realization, a non-issue considering the relief from suffering and the increase of lifespan that these "advances" provided. (And for years they were absolute advance).
    To retrogress to past paradigms and premises is impossible. There are, due to population, far less premises! In the past, come disasters from ecological to viral, there could be the migration of the masses. But now there are already masses in the target zone! In the past there were the alternatives source and resource. Aside from the proportionate demand of present population, the absolute essence of alternatives (other than "advanced-systematized") doesn't exist. Care to become a hunter of wild beasts for civilian meat-supply? Care to be a gatherer of fruits and vegetables for the masses? Should we return to the primal propulsion of four-legged horsepower and thus deconstruct socio-economic advance and expect full-scale economy family-farming to remove any necessity of commuting? And at the same time, within the city such as New York we would be depositing (not in the atmosphere but) upon the ground X tons of manure and gallons of urine per day much to the enhancement of the population explosion of rats and other vermin? Compiled and edited by Mike Wallace (of TV's "60 minutes", and others) GOTHAM is an epic book, in aspects almost an emetic look at what conditions have been, were, prior to progress, even progressively/potentially problematic . . . in NYC.
    Progress and advance should perhaps be perceived within the perspect of organic growth and maturation. The eventuality of the latter is aging. Of the former obsolescence or even detriment. But for the functional duration of existence, nature is being manifested through a component (in the present concern, man) as advance, even as evolutionary process. Should we decry aging because its eventuality is demise?
    And for ecological concerns, death is not predestined. For the earth, though not a singular system (much less a perpetual motion machine) is not a simple organism with a life-span preordained by genetic and proteomic programming. Rather, the earth's complexity includes R & D as, yes, a process of nature!!! And searching print and online resources of information, the extent of mainstream (not earth-hugging green-fag fervents) investment and involvement in "alternative energy" science and system is amazing. Major corporations (including Exxon-Mobil, Excelon, Shell) are heavy into wind, solar, even wave, thermal, hydrogen, and beyond.
    If anything needs to be curtailed it's not scientific advance. That needs to persist, proliferate, pervade society's systems which must continue for there to be society as we know it. A comprehensive presentation of this perspective is presented in the book THE WAR EFFORT GOT US OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION . . . NOW WE NEED A GOVERNMENT FUNDED PEACE EFFORT . . . . . there are so many ways and means to implement even existing technologies (and products) in revised, advanced systems to cease the pollution problem that is, really, pretty much the primary concern.
    Returning to "basics" as socio-economic-ecological systems would be synergic-suicide. Think of any metro-city (especially such as New York or Beijing . . . . deprived of ultimate technological systems. Picture post-invasion Baghdad "exponentialized".
    The basics we need to return to: 1) through advanced tech and implementation and installation . . . hybrid (wind, solar, grid, and other combination) regional (even single building) generation for light-demand (such as electronics) electric power. Lighting per se by LEDs. 2) Automotive innovation, battery-powered (based on material-handling devices) commuter-cars, but also revised work-week (4-10hour days?) and staggered start-end work-day times. 3) "gray-water" re-use rather than pristine fresh water in which to shit and piss. 4) roadway traffic light sequenciation for traffic flow and highway lane confluence to avoid convergence-cluster.
    The just-above and more considerations are detailed in the last-mentioned book just above.
    And I may have exceeded propriety of length at this point. So for this week, I close, except to thank those who've replied to my rants.
    It means a lot to know somebody's out there even interested enough in what I'm saying to take issue with what I'm saying. Thanks to this site and its members for the chance I have to say it!!!!!
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    You said it all; so I have little to add. The only exception is that humans have the bad genes which tends to love to destruct; so it totally depends on having the right leaders and educated followers to make this a more liveable world. Way too often the solution for our leaders is war or creating one or two etc. Sorry may be I sound negative but "greed" plays a huge role.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    To one specific respondant to my last-week's . . . . and all others who read this week's . . .
    Agreed, greed is a species problem. Uniquely our species. The "alphas", dominants, leaders of other
    critters function for the benefit of the herd or flock or pride or gaggle or whatever gathering. But we see
    through history that even the most depraved and demented and destructive (of their whole populace and
    realm) ascend to positions of prominence and persecution and privilege and possessing so much that there's
    only starvation left for the masses to eat (short of worst-case-scenario of each other).

    At least the modern world has philanthropy and charity and governmental-global interoperations in cases.
    And in this country the significant disparity of wealth-control (the 2% of the $98%) still allows that all but
    the few "through the cracks" have roof, food, and generally even a standard of poverty that would be
    unimaginable luxury to vast populations in the rest of the world.

    Absolute equality (wealth-distribution) would pay but a pittance to each of the billions of us. And ere long
    there would be those by creativity or covetousness, ambition or con, connivance or collaboration, would
    be the inception of the next cycle of those wealthy and those not. Thus, the value of graduated taxation
    which distributes dire disequilibriums of dollars. And if not for the provision to amass wealth, capital would
    only derive from "bubble" bonanzas (speculations) . . . and philanthropy and grants and such benificences
    (even post-facto-excess aggrandizements) would not have funding. Capitalism works, as long as the
    entire spectrum of populace is provided for. Greed is gathering for the harvest of humanity's breadth of
    incorporation, so to speak. Taxes on corporate "windfalls" are dispersed into socio-economics' fields of
    function and endeavor.

    But in the actual,even drastic, differences of wealth possession the problem and solution for the population
    (especially jobless) doesn't lie. Again, take away everything everyone's worth and divvy it up evenly so each
    of our 200+ million fellow-Americans gets the same . . . . and we'd end up with pittance beyond pocket change.
    Thank the Bush tax rebate bonanza as a bottom-out, not bonanza. Yes, the ultra-rich should make less take-home
    and want to pay more into the system through higher taxes. If I were making even a mere couple million a year I'd
    gladly settle for an after-tax one million to try to survive on . . . . so that I could pay-into ("proportionate dues")
    a decent share for living in this country. But the solution to providing income for those who can't get jobs thus
    paychecks . . . must be a government program (and economic infusion) that gives (even forces) people able to
    function in various positions, occupations, even professions.
    It took perhaps the most massive "socialistic" intervention imaginable to keep the global economic system from
    a domino-demolition of its deflated delusions. So what if it seems socialistic (even "Rooseveltistic") for the
    Fed. to become the entrepreneur and provide the venture capital and jobs and . . . . .

    Gee, that money that workers make from whatever "domain" of enterprise . . . it's the fuel of the private sector
    system cause for damned sure the government ain't about to be running Walmart or Apple or Gap or Sears or Such.