On Tue, 31 May 2011 02:09:20 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

David Hare-Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 20:35:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

wrote:

1. Adopt a positive attitude.
2. Life (and gardens) will find a way.

I disagree with your two points on life.

#1 Adopting a positive attitude is a risky game in my book.

Those that think with a positive attitude tend to cut corners where they
should not. "Just get it done... And hope for the best".

You are so gloomy, I bet your glass is always less than half empty and
you would be shocked if it got half full.

Not only is the glass ( Earth ) is half empty with good ideas it is
polluted and leaking also. I say stop humans from breeding like rats... But
others believe this is a negative view, I say it is positive view.


Many environmental problems will be solved or at least ameliorated if
we can limit population growth. Short of the Chinese solution that
isn't going to happen quickly.

A person with a
negative attitude knows things can fail and will try and foresee all
negative outcomes and makes the best of it for the money and outcome. Spend
some extra time and get it right.


This is where your sour view disables you. This is a non sequitur.
There is no incompatibility between a positive attitude and using
foresight, planning and risk assessment. There is incompatibility
between a negative attitude and harnessing your maximum energy to take
the necessary action that your planning tells you is required.

How does this disable one?

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

Positive feelings don't allow you to do things that are physically
impossible but they a degree of faith allows you to get towards doing
your best. This is the basis of sport psychology, any kind of
leadership and one of the better aspects of religion. It is a
question of motivating people, you cannot motivate people well if they
feel hopeless.

I disagree with your presuppositions on incompatibility and foresight. I
see a lot of people with positive attitudes taking the primrose path to
solving problems. Many just get plain lucky. If It fails, we will fix it
and fix it and fix it... As things keep getting worse and worse.


You need rationality to make good decisions and optimism to act.


#2 Life does not always find away.


Short of a planet-cracking bolide life will endure, even then some
microbes might make it to start all over again.

The challenge in front of us is to find a way to endure that will
minimise death and pain.

Now who is thinking negatively! Minimize death and pain? Not improving
life and longevity? Hmmmmm......

This is playing with words. I never said there are no unfortunate or
undesirable things happening in the world. My optimism is that we can
do something about them. This doesn't mean the future is rosy (it
isn't) it means a partial solution is better than none.


The earth is in sad shape because of reckless human behaviors. People are
always putting profit over health and environment.

That is true but it points to the solution: humans must fix what they
carelessly put at risk. Hiding away and saying "oh woe is us" will
not get it done.

Cool, you keep on fixing those nuclear power plants in Australia.
Me I say get rid of them. But those with positive attitudes say "We can fix
it".
Yea right.

We don't have any nuclear power plants. The attitude you refer to is
optimism without rationality, I never suggested that, please don't put
words in my mouth.

If the way you defend it says anything I don't think your dour world
view is of a very rational origin. Anyway I don't want to get too
personal so let's not go any further in that direction.

D

"Brooklyn1" Gravesend1 wrote in message
...
Ten years? In ten years several posters here will be dead, you
imbecile!

LOL. Fair point.

"Nad R" wrote in message

If the Earths environment gets real bad due to global warming, it will not
be the end of human life. Nature itself will be destroyed, but humans and
selected animals may continue in a controlled indoor environment. Like
living on another planet like Mars or Eaarth.

How do you see this as being a possibility where nature itself has been
destroyed?

"Nad R" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 20:35:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

wrote:

1. Adopt a positive attitude.
2. Life (and gardens) will find a way.

I disagree with your two points on life.

#1 Adopting a positive attitude is a risky game in my book.

Those that think with a positive attitude tend to cut corners where they
should not. "Just get it done... And hope for the best".

You are so gloomy, I bet your glass is always less than half empty and
you would be shocked if it got half full.

Not only is the glass ( Earth ) is half empty with good ideas it is
polluted and leaking also. I say stop humans from breeding like rats...
But
others believe this is a negative view, I say it is positive view.

A person with a
negative attitude knows things can fail and will try and foresee all
negative outcomes and makes the best of it for the money and outcome.
Spend
some extra time and get it right.


This is where your sour view disables you. This is a non sequitur.
There is no incompatibility between a positive attitude and using
foresight, planning and risk assessment. There is incompatibility
between a negative attitude and harnessing your maximum energy to take
the necessary action that your planning tells you is required.

How does this disable one?
I disagree with your presuppositions on incompatibility and foresight. I
see a lot of people with positive attitudes taking the primrose path to
solving problems. Many just get plain lucky. If It fails, we will fix it
and fix it and fix it... As things keep getting worse and worse.


#2 Life does not always find away.


Short of a planet-cracking bolide life will endure, even then some
microbes might make it to start all over again.

The challenge in front of us is to find a way to endure that will
minimise death and pain.

Now who is thinking negatively! Minimize death and pain? Not improving
life and longevity? Hmmmmm......

The earth is in sad shape because of reckless human behaviors. People
are
always putting profit over health and environment.

That is true but it points to the solution: humans must fix what they
carelessly put at risk. Hiding away and saying "oh woe is us" will
not get it done.

Cool, you keep on fixing those nuclear power plants in Australia.

We only have one and it's tiny and not used for powere generation -
something to do with nuclear medicine IIRC.

Me I say get rid of them. But those with positive attitudes say "We can
fix
it".
Yea right.

Unfortunately I don't think that 'they' are even saying that much. I think
that those who should be saying 'we can fix it', either don't know there is
a problem, or are ignoring it because anything needing fixing is (they
think) beyond the next election.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

Positive feelings don't allow you to do things that are physically
impossible but they a degree of faith allows you to get towards doing
your best. This is the basis of sport psychology, any kind of
leadership and one of the better aspects of religion. It is a
question of motivating people, you cannot motivate people well if they
feel hopeless.

That sort of 'leadership' approach has always given me a case of the squits.
I never watch team sports because of all that jolly hockey sticks coaching
stuff which makes me want to gag. Such an approach doesn't allow for more
than one mode of motivation and I believe that individuals can be motivated
by many and varied techniques/approaches. Give me a rationale rather than
that warm and fuzzy fluff stuff.

In article
,
Chris wrote:

On May 30, 4:24*pm, Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 wrote:
ImbecileChris wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Ten years? *In ten years several posters here will be dead, you
imbecile!

Thank you for that cogent, reasoned, detailed, and appropriate
response.

You forgot 'accurate', IMBECILE! LOL-LOL

Please remember to take the blue pill in the morning and the pink pill
in the evening.

NOT the other way around.

Chris

And now a few sane words.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:24:14 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

Positive feelings don't allow you to do things that are physically
impossible but they a degree of faith allows you to get towards doing
your best. This is the basis of sport psychology, any kind of
leadership and one of the better aspects of religion. It is a
question of motivating people, you cannot motivate people well if they
feel hopeless.

That sort of 'leadership' approach has always given me a case of the squits.
I never watch team sports because of all that jolly hockey sticks coaching
stuff which makes me want to gag. Such an approach doesn't allow for more
than one mode of motivation and I believe that individuals can be motivated
by many and varied techniques/approaches. Give me a rationale rather than
that warm and fuzzy fluff stuff.


I am no team sport fan and the rah rah stuff is no good to me
personally but it does work on most people, especially groups of
males.

Likewise a leader is no use to me unless I have a rational reason for
going where they are going but that ought to be part of the package
anyway by my definition of good leader.

Forget about my examples, let's go back to the original topic. How
are you going to get humanity to change their energy, transport and
food systems?

The approach of rational persuasion based on evidence has been a
conspicuous failure so far. Why? It has been successfully countered
by an irrational denial campaign. Bullshit baffles brains. Or at
least has done this far.

Fear will jog people out of their apathy and get things moving. Once
you have done that what will motivate them to accept the transitional
hardships? Hope for the future. If they feel hopeless they will not
act as effectively, it will take longer and the consequences will be
harsher.

David

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

Positive feelings don't allow you to do things that are physically
impossible but they a degree of faith allows you to get towards doing
your best. This is the basis of sport psychology, any kind of
leadership and one of the better aspects of religion. It is a
question of motivating people, you cannot motivate people well if they
feel hopeless.

That sort of 'leadership' approach has always given me a case of the squits.
I never watch team sports because of all that jolly hockey sticks coaching
stuff which makes me want to gag. Such an approach doesn't allow for more
than one mode of motivation and I believe that individuals can be motivated
by many and varied techniques/approaches. Give me a rationale rather than
that warm and fuzzy fluff stuff.

I agree with that FarmI. I hate team sports and never watch them. I prefer
to watch individuals sports, if i actually ever watch sport of any kind,
like running or biking.

I was going to comment on that also. The key word here is "Religion".
People who believe are those of a "team" like mind. Very difficult to
change those mind sets.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

If the Earths environment gets real bad due to global warming, it will not
be the end of human life. Nature itself will be destroyed, but humans and
selected animals may continue in a controlled indoor environment. Like
living on another planet like Mars or Eaarth.

How do you see this as being a possibility where nature itself has been
destroyed?

I believe the human race can go on without nature. Food stuff probably can
be completely manufactured from basic elements. Quality of life may not be
there, but humans could continue. It may be true that I watch to much
science fiction also.
Way too much...

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

David Hare-Scott wrote:

If the way you defend it says anything I don't think your dour world
view is of a very rational origin. Anyway I don't want to get too
personal so let's not go any further in that direction.

The old saying "Who said that the human race was rational" actually the
correct word was "logical" from star trek. Yes, religion does play into an
optimist view point. A god would not let this happen. One more reason I see
no hope for the human race.

As an atheist, I know it is an impossible task to change people's view
point on many things. Perhaps if you view that only an optimist can change
peoples view point then maybe I will agree on that.

I will let it end here. You can have the last word if you wish.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

songbird wrote:
Nad R wrote:
...
If the Earths environment gets real bad due to global warming, it will not
be the end of human life. Nature itself will be destroyed, but humans and
selected animals may continue in a controlled indoor environment. Like
living on another planet like Mars or Eaarth.

nature itself will be fine. individual
species might go extinct, but it is likely
that many others will continue along just
unperturbed. others will thrive in the
new ecological niches created.

i would have enjoyed living on the moon
and having to learn how to grow things in
a closed system smaller than the earth.
with the system i've got going for worms
it would be fun to take it up a notch.

so far efforts at large scale closed
systems have not been very successful so
i think it wise to keep the research
going.

are you aware of any other long term
closed systems like the biospheres? i'm
not. last i looked all similar systems
still need a large source of raw materials
and have to have a large space to disperse
waste products. that alone warns us of
the perils of overpopulation and we are
bound and determined to ignore it...


songbird

The human race will figure it out or go the way or perish.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

David Hare-Scott wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:24:14 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

Positive feelings don't allow you to do things that are physically
impossible but they a degree of faith allows you to get towards doing
your best. This is the basis of sport psychology, any kind of
leadership and one of the better aspects of religion. It is a
question of motivating people, you cannot motivate people well if they
feel hopeless.

That sort of 'leadership' approach has always given me a case of the squits.
I never watch team sports because of all that jolly hockey sticks coaching
stuff which makes me want to gag. Such an approach doesn't allow for more
than one mode of motivation and I believe that individuals can be motivated
by many and varied techniques/approaches. Give me a rationale rather than
that warm and fuzzy fluff stuff.


I am no team sport fan and the rah rah stuff is no good to me
personally but it does work on most people, especially groups of
males.

Likewise a leader is no use to me unless I have a rational reason for
going where they are going but that ought to be part of the package
anyway by my definition of good leader.

Forget about my examples, let's go back to the original topic. How
are you going to get humanity to change their energy, transport and
food systems?

The approach of rational persuasion based on evidence has been a
conspicuous failure so far. Why? It has been successfully countered
by an irrational denial campaign. Bullshit baffles brains. Or at
least has done this far.

Fear will jog people out of their apathy and get things moving. Once
you have done that what will motivate them to accept the transitional
hardships? Hope for the future. If they feel hopeless they will not
act as effectively, it will take longer and the consequences will be
harsher.

David

I see the biggest problem with people is specialization. People become
dependent on each other. Team sports requires a leader and each member of
that team are specialist for success. People need to become self reliant
for a better life. When a specialist fails, the team fails. If more self
reliant people are around survival will be greater.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"FarmI" wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Because you cannot get people to do something they believe is
impossible and you cannot get them to work their hardest if they don't
see a positive outcome at some time now or in the future.

That sort of 'leadership' approach has always given me a case of the squits.

Is "squits" some down-under sexually transmitted disease... just
askin'.

http://www.fairychronicles.com/Fairy...ok/Squits.html

FarmI wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:

Ten years? In ten years several posters here will be dead, you
imbecile!

LOL. Fair point.

and being usenet most of the people who
pass on we don't really even know about.

i'm hoping when it is my time that there
will be a big worm feast in some hole in
the ground someplace with a lilac planted
on top (i'm severely allergic). let the
buggers have their last laugh tickling my
funny bone. perhaps i'll sneeze them
out of the ground with a good fart or two.
the old windbag revenge...


songbird

David Hare-Scott writes:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 02:09:20 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

David Hare-Scott wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 20:35:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
wrote:

wrote:

1. Adopt a positive attitude.
2. Life (and gardens) will find a way.

I disagree with your two points on life.

#1 Adopting a positive attitude is a risky game in my book.

Those that think with a positive attitude tend to cut corners where they
should not. "Just get it done... And hope for the best".

You are so gloomy, I bet your glass is always less than half empty and
you would be shocked if it got half full.

Not only is the glass ( Earth ) is half empty with good ideas it is
polluted and leaking also. I say stop humans from breeding like rats... But
others believe this is a negative view, I say it is positive view.


Many environmental problems will be solved or at least ameliorated if
we can limit population growth.

Yep.

--
Dan Espen