rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it
yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))

Mike

"Mike" wrote in message
...
rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt
it
yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))
Mike

a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

rob

a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all
but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

rob



Get rid of money then :-))

George.com wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt
it
yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))
Mike

a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

I'm very sympathetic to your pov and I think that people are becoming
more and more aware of the need to respect the world in which we live
AND its resources. However, I think too, that to all too many such
thinking is a luxury because poverty does not tend to enable grand
gestures. Nor of course, does greed. I don't begin to have any
answers to this but when you have people destroyng rain forest so that
they can have land to farm on or timber to sell and at the other end of
the scale, a country like USA refusing to sign up to the Kyoto treaty,
there's still one helluva struggle going on. Nonetheless, I'm an
optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to
get there.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

.. Nonetheless, I'm an
optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to
get there.
--
Sacha


You must be joking or have your head in the sand. Maybe both.

"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...

George.com wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give
or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat
of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth,
spoilt
it
yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of
man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))
Mike

a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth
will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all
but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space
to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do
root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

I'm very sympathetic to your pov and I think that people are becoming
more and more aware of the need to respect the world in which we live
AND its resources. However, I think too, that to all too many such
thinking is a luxury because poverty does not tend to enable grand
gestures. Nor of course, does greed. I don't begin to have any
answers to this but when you have people destroyng rain forest so that
they can have land to farm on or timber to sell and at the other end of
the scale, a country like USA refusing to sign up to the Kyoto treaty,
there's still one helluva struggle going on. Nonetheless, I'm an
optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to
get there.

too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess we
have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to
clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter balance
the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than many
and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely unsustainable.
The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife brings
back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and doesn't
even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its ingrained
in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through someones
window.

rob

too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess we
have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to
clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter balance
the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than
many
and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely
unsustainable.
The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife
brings
back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and
doesn't
even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its ingrained
in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through someones
window.

rob



rob I was recently on a World Cruise and called in at Port Kelang in
Malaysia to visit Kuala Lumpur and the road from Port Kelang to KA, the
journey takes about an hour, 'was' lined on both sides with Rubber
plantations. I say 'was' because for as far as the eye can see, these have
been grubbed out, the land built up and houses and houses, and flats and
flats and factories and factories are being built. The UK is no longer the
manufacturing nation of the world, hasn't been for a long time and what was
left, Maggie Thatcher destroyed, the manufacturing is over on the other side
of the world and that is why they are ripping the place up to build houses,
factories and accommodation.

But think on a bit, all of these rubber plantations ripped out. Synthetic
unbiodegradeable plastic to replace it? Adding to your concerns? and Sacha
says we are now considering the environment more? To coin an ex net nannies
favourite expression, "I think not"

Look around you in this country. Houses going up on virgin soil and rain
which 'did' land on said soil and soak into the water tables, now down the
inaddequate drains and into rivers and after flooding the low lands, and the
house which have been built on them, out to sea. I wonder why we have a hose
pipe ban in force in April ???????????????????

Solution? Get rid of money.

Mike

"Mike" wrote in message
...

too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess
we
have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to
clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter
balance
the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than
many
and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely
unsustainable.
The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife
brings
back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and
doesn't
even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its
ingrained
in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through
someones
window.

rob



rob I was recently on a World Cruise and called in at Port Kelang in
Malaysia to visit Kuala Lumpur and the road from Port Kelang to KA, the
journey takes about an hour, 'was' lined on both sides with Rubber
plantations. I say 'was' because for as far as the eye can see, these have
been grubbed out, the land built up and houses and houses, and flats and
flats and factories and factories are being built. The UK is no longer the
manufacturing nation of the world, hasn't been for a long time and what
was
left, Maggie Thatcher destroyed, the manufacturing is over on the other
side
of the world and that is why they are ripping the place up to build
houses,
factories and accommodation.

But think on a bit, all of these rubber plantations ripped out. Synthetic
unbiodegradeable plastic to replace it? Adding to your concerns? and Sacha
says we are now considering the environment more? To coin an ex net
nannies
favourite expression, "I think not"

Look around you in this country. Houses going up on virgin soil and rain
which 'did' land on said soil and soak into the water tables, now down the
inaddequate drains and into rivers and after flooding the low lands, and
the
house which have been built on them, out to sea. I wonder why we have a
hose
pipe ban in force in April ???????????????????

Solution? Get rid of money.

Mike

all of my roofs drain into soak holes, no storm water. Eventually when I
figure out a way they are going to collect water for the garden. Big
problem, retrofitting an existing house in an asthetically allowable way. I
don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. I will get there and
probably a hell of a lot quicker than most others but even then it may be
too late. I have a company car which costs me nix to run but requires me to
drive for the job. I won't change the job so the gas goes with the car. If
things were different I would be driving a 20 year old merc run on waste
vege oil. Most people who have the option don't think of it.

rob

I have a company car which costs me nix to run but requires me to
drive for the job. I won't change the job so the gas goes with the car. If
things were different I would be driving a 20 year old merc run on waste
vege oil. Most people who have the option don't think of it.

rob



as I said it's money. You are more than likely unable to change your job for
financial reasons/committments. You could tell the company that you don't
want their car and that they could pay you milage to run your old Merc, BUT,
they get a good deal from the Leasing Company to provide you with a car and
to pay you milage would be expensive for them, plus, with an old car, the
possibility of your unreliability and not earning your keep. Money issues
left right and centre there.

I organise reunions for ex service people and the company I use did have
their own coaches, nice big brand new all singing all dancing ones. They had
to be on the road to earn their keep. Not always possible, so the company
got rid of them and hire in. I was with the General Manager on Tuesday
finalising a reunion in Torquay next weekend. She just send an office email
to the coaching manager, '2 coaches Saturday Torquay to Exeter am return pm.
Sunday possible coach for sightseeing tour. Don't know how many, will notify
Friday night. Get them laid on' No capital expenditure for the company.
Money money money again

rob I am not argueing with you, I am 100% with you. I have a huge South
facing sloping roof and I live on the south part of the Isle of Wight. Water
in the garden hose laying around gets too hot for the hand. What could that
roof do for my water heating? Even in the winter, behind glass in my garden
room it is hot. BUT, money money money again, how long before I get my
investment back? ;-))))

Mike

George.com wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...

rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt

it

yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))
Mike


a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

rob

Try 'beyond the Stone Age' as in back to dust! We have no future
existence unless you mean by our molecules passing through the dust and
water tables to be part of other things.

It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?



Richard.




--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

....

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the
time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings
about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals
ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems
very doubtful at any time.

In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature
is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness
such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to
name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient
general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural
world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running
directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the
morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals
etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth
solely for man's use.

....


We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?

....

The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a
moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation
as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife
in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through
of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all
the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there.
Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality
like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to
tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on
cold hard facts.


michael adams

....






Richard.




--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

rob

"George.com" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of
all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to
deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of
the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

....

I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or
don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists
in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in
any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both
biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East
policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts
mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter.

* an actual location in Israel/Palestine/Jordan/?

Just like all Fundamantalists, these people - quite possibly Bush
included are quite happy to die early in the belief they're destined for
heaven. They wiped out the Native Americans on that pretext and its
quite possible they're willing to wipe out the entire world as well

I personally put my faith in Big Mac Whoppers, Triple Burger Kings,
and unsustainable health care costs, bringing the land of the free
to its knees before we ever get to that stage. The lure of frying
onions will prevail. But that's another matter.


michael adams

nil desperandum

....



rob

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"George.com" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of
all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily
explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to
deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of
the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

...

I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or
don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists
in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in
any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both
biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East
policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts
mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter.

sure, a number of the fundamental christians in the US are extreme right
wing in their politics and economics. In their warped logic god and looney
tunes libertarianism are one and the same. If you take away their belief in
god you are simply left with wacko right wing nutters who believe the free
market is infalliable, that it is never prone to failure and that any form
of government intervention is a sin. These economic alchemists probably see
no need for governments to do anything about environmental degredation as
their free market will solve all problems. Their degree of faith in the
mystery working of the market almost amount to witchcraft, something the
bible frowns on. Other more enlightened US christians obviously do see a
place for environmental issues in their faith.

rob

michael adams wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...



It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.


...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

Of course, as you say capable but tied to our roots, hence the term
'human animal' and the animal that we are, we just use bigger tools to
sort out differences or our own greed fro the want of other's property
or inheritances.


New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the
time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings
about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals
ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems
very doubtful at any time.

In that case we may well understand the 'senses' of plants also and
start shitting on the land once again, to form part of that symbiotic
nature built up between man and flora.

In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature
is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness
such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to
name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient
general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural
world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running
directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the
morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals
etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth
solely for man's use.

We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?
...

The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a
moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation
as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife
in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through
of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all
the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there.
Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality
like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to
tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on
cold hard facts.


michael adams

...

I don't deny the moral aspect of the human structure which is an inward
looking concept as it puts man at the centre of his own world ("how do
'I' relate to the world") but I was taking an external stance, looking
in on man whether from that meteorite we were worrying about some five
or six years ago and that would reach here in about fifteen years now,
or some virus that too has a survival plan of its own which involves us
as a host.

After all, we're only the dinosaur Mk II waiting to happen and it's no
big deal. It's been a great ride and especially as we are in the
uk.rec.gardening group we should be even more aware that there are
seasons to *every*thing!


Richard.

--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html