In article ,
Bill wrote:
In article ,
Boron Elgar wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 10:41:52 -0400, Bill
wrote:
In article ,
Boron Elgar wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 22:06:36 -0500, Charlie wrote:
How tiresome, your excuse to add to the planetary toxic load because
you, and others of your kind, choose to live in a rather unihabitable
area. Eff me, sounds like a toxic waste area, let's use your backyard
for nuke waste storage. An area that wasn't meant to support the load
to which it is being subjected.
Rather a Luddite approach. Tornado alley would be deserted. The entire
Ring of Fire would be empty, hell, even the Egyptians would have never
thrived near the Nile.
Boron
Why all the fuss ?
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/
Look at the map and then think 1900 Imperialist's and then who are they
and what color on the map. Some things never change that much.
You're over the edge and into fanaticism, not even to mention taking
this entire topic 12 ways to Sunday in different directions, each of
which seems to serve some political agenda. Really, this is one load
of over-ripe manure and not one that will benefit any plants.
I have a great idea. Go outside and play in the dirt.
Boron
Over the edge of what and what is 12 ways to sunday ?
Incoherent but perhaps it sort of strikes a chord and potential whirls
about.
Bill
I'm afraid all the facts have put the troglodytes into bunker mode. If
they don't understand it, they think it's an attack. I think Boron
missed the point about the ecological foot print and since the west
consumes the majority of the power in the world, a quarter of the worlds
energy. That is a very large denominator and will give a small ratio
when "life expectancy and life satisfaction/ecological foot print" is
computed. But it is very sobering to see France listed near the bottom,
for the same reason as the USA. Would I want to be a Columbian because I
would know that I had a small ecological foot print? I don't think I'm
ready for sainthood yet.
A more familar table of quality of life can be found at
http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/ but this doesn't include the cost
to the planet. It doesn't reflect sustainability and sustainability was
what we were talking about. The fact that there are areas of the world
that are inhospitable to humanity, is besides the point. The point is
can humanity continue to be inhospitable to the planet?
Good, thought-provoking site. Thanks.
--
- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html