mainstream "going green"

"i dunno man, i cant help but laugh.. i guess its better than crying.. "

I get your sentiment now. I understand what you believe now, this is good. My reasoning still stands undisputed and realistic - I have cried because of this and laughed when I realized that even in death we are to move forward to better days.

I would apologize for my assertiveness, but I am not a person that sugar coats the facts. I intend to come off as unbiased as possible, still I defend myself to the extent that it benefits me and this usually involves laying off, most the time. I have become, due to experience, a person that enjoys simple pleasures - my assertiveness comes off as such because of the simplicity of my writing.

Have good dreams everyone and may we merge our thoughts with the world.

 

Tsurugi - I appreaciate the comment, some elaboration would benefit me because I will get to know you better, in the context of the way you communicate.

 

Living sustainable in a completely unsustainable system is not the highest of goals IMO. If things collapse, or politicians power trip so bad that they make crazy laws making your lifestyle illegal, say goodbye to your whole setup. Your water will still be poisoned, air will still have smog, and the rest of the world will encroach upon you. You are a lone potsmoker in a world where possession has you hanged. You are a brightened soul in an ocean which wipes away your significance. You're powerless as a water drop, but an ocean is something to be feared.

I believe as humans we have to move together. We have to move in unity towards common goals or else we fall apart. To me this is the very nature of existence. Whether its two couples who have lost communication, two brothers who have argued and stop talking, or two business partners who lost sight of their original goal. In unity we glorify each other's being and help each other grow.

That's why I always if you want to change you gotta be Intelligence + Wise + Compassionate. You have to be crafty like a politician, carefully selecting your words as to not put up people's defenses yet be able to get to slowly progress in a "debate". Really it's not a "debate", simply you knowing that they are in the "wrong" and that you are in the "right" and trying to get from point A -> B calmly. Intelligence in being able to instantly counter any arguement that the other person brings up, and compassionate in being able to not make the person feel defensive or "stupid" when you defeat their argument. Then in that moment when they're vulnerable you gotta bring yourself down to his level for a minute or 2 (rapport), and then you gotta come out with the honest and passionate speech about what drives you!!

You also gotta be in the right situation too, and have select timing. You have to be the craftiest politician of all time yet all your intentions must be true and honest. If you have that innate ability, you would be surprised how many people you can convert to your side. I've actually turned a whole party of drunking HS seniors -> College Seniors from the usual conversation fair to talking about the environment, sustainability, poverty (usual party killer ehh?), and much more. But you gotta be a politician like I said.. or a bit of a puppetmaster. It doesn't only take truth to deliver a message effectively, but a smile, empathy, and much more.

 

Its been attempted all your talking about and more. You have little knowledge of the actual experience of talking to someone, from the looks for it. The main problem is interpretation is contextual to the persons ideals. Essentially, compassion to them, considering the major ideals of this society, would seem like pity. Wisdom will seem like condecension. A top of this reality, which I have experienced first hand in attempting to speak to people about issues affecting our world, especially in university, there are hordes of people like this. Even worse, there are even more people who have made judgements about environmentalism and environmentalists that do not allow for proper communication. Ie. One time I was speaking with this girl about environmental problems. I said that I knew about the subejct alot because I went to school. She then said environmentalists know little about the problems, because their views are one dimensional. I attempted to explain how they were not but she continued on saying how arrogant I was for even attempting to prove her opinion on environmentalist differently. One time I approached a lady about environmental issues, telling her that I had done 4 years of schooling. She felt like she had to be smarter than me and gave me little room to speak, debunking all of my claims with the fated myth that 'scienctists have the situations under control' or 'the government has things under control'. These are serious issues and people who are uneducated(majority of people in this world) have no capacity to comprehend that they do not yet understand these issues.

Ontop of this, the majority of people work ridiculously stressful jobs. Life is already very difficult, considering that relationships like mairrage and familial, are stressful as well. Throw a number of misconceptions in here and we have a ridiculously large task THAT the media and media owners are perpatuating, evolving, who are keen to the types of changes that could occur in dialogue between an environmentalist and a ignorant average joe. They essentially premptively strike down this movement, through various forms of psychological mechanisms, that are perpatuated through TV, RADIO, MOVIES and MUSIC. So here we are with absoltuly no chance of ever using these AMAZING tools and we seem to think that simple dialogue can make this movement bigger?

 

Also the crazy laws your talking about, wont seem to affect me, considering that the power that be, really just want population reductions. One small group of people living 10 hours from a major city with no way to transport themselves to that city, pose no threat. I still believe that population is to big, after all, we need a big reduction in people, I just do not want to be a part of it.

 

Population really isn't a problem, its RESOURCE management. And I personally don't know if it's big brother's agenda to try and chop off a section of the population.

Feeding tons of grains to fatten cows. Using fertilizers on our lawns so we can cut and regrow our lawns 1000x.

I guess it all depends on the parameters of "winning" and "losing". Is a loss for environmentalism equal to societal collapse? Hitting the point of no return and suffering? Having big brother enable laws which prevent more sustainable lifestyles?

I guess when I read your posts i hear words like "hopeless, powerless, insignificant" and it makes me think you've given up. That you've completely given up on talking to people and that you're going to go hermit up in a mountain somewhere. I'm not really sure where you stand this aspect of spreading the truth.

Me, I think things will change for the better. I don't really have any benchmark or timeline to go by but I simply have faith. Sure things may get worse, MUCH worse, but I believe that they will get better.

 

"Population really isn't a problem, its RESOURCE management. And I personally don't know if it's big brother's agenda to try and chop off a section of the population."

I have to disagree. Proper resource management would only occur if we all lived a sustainable farm community. I agree it could get better with the current population, but it would take everyone moving to sustainable farm communities for a majority.

Also we would need better access to energy efficient technologies - both the process through which they get developed and the process through which they get appropriated.

The concept of 'giving up' does not reflect what has happened for me focusing my effort into self sustainablility. I feel bad that this is what you think, yet all will come to balance with enough focus. As I expressed earlier I would never 'give up' on myself. I say myself because I am a part of the environment. So for you to claim that I have given up, you have to prove that I am, to the best of my knowledge, giving up to destruction, myself.

Look - Measure the power that mediums of communication have, as a mechanisms that can speak to millions of people at one point in time and a system that is trusted by those millions of people and then recognize what your voice(a voice that is already questioned for integrity, honesty and unbiasedness by that mechanism) can do to affect change.

Then add into account the extremity of the changes that need to occur and how the extremity is something that those with the media will not let happen without a fight.

 

that is simply not true. sustainable urban agriculture can easily provide for the inhabitants of most major cities.

more negativity..

 

Using 3rd world techniques growing non-"select" food crops takes less than an acre per person per year.

It's all about resource management. Growing what naturally grows best. Eating what naturally flourishes. Getting rid of lawns for forever.

 

really is a simple concept. in ideal areas a 1/10 of a acre can produce 6000 pounds of organic fruits and vegetables a year. CSA's are springing up in every major city in the world and growing daily. rooftop gardens are becoming code in some cities,the transformation into sustainable urban living has already began.

the united nations drew up plans long ago, and we all know the same people who control the united nations control the media,the corporations and the governments of the world..

 

I looked a resources internationally. If you have ever heard of the term 'environmental immigration' you would know that resource scarcity is the next main reason why people will immigrate. Naturally, they would immigrate to countries where resources are plentiful. The important of this lies in recognizing that a major problem that exist in relation to this is water scarcity. By the year 2025 most middle eastern countries will have severe to extreme water, shortages. A major united states under ground aquifer, will be almost completely depleted by 50-75 years. This aquifer is the source for fresh potable irrigation for 25 % of americas major farm land. It is the home of most productive farm land in the lower united states. Resource depletion hits different places, at different times and in different ways. Your solution would never work for urban areas that will suffer from water scarcity. Arizona is already facing the shortages of water that I speak of. Mexico city is also going to feel these problems in the near future. Your solution is only viable to specific location that has excessive water resources not to mention, people who have the TIME and MONEY and KNOWLEDGE to successfully feed themselves.

Negativity is useless - I am aware of the facts, it would be better that you refute my comments with more reason that in your previous posts. I 'll add more later, but I feel your needs and I agree with them.

 

first i never said all cities i said most,

second what youve just said is not entirely true either,with recycling of water,advancements in air harvesting and greater conservation efforts in most places it can be done. as far as the people to do it? lol there are plenty of people eager to get paid to grow others food in urban areas. the people who are doing it now cant keep up with demand in most places.

im pretty much done here.
you just wanna rail about how you believe it cant be done.. my daddy had a saying,cant never could do nothin..

go find someone else to talk down to.. lol

 

The way I see it, environmentalism has been a truist mainstream phenomenon for at least 3 decades now. And much of it plays right into the hands of capital.

 

Good, hardly anything you say is backed up, or reasonable. It would be better if we simply just gave it up at this point, especially considering that you constantly express the need to make a judgement about what my intentions are. Your perspective has gotten the better of you and even though that seemed to be talking down to you, your sense of threat comes from the credentials that I have made explicit and your need to compare yourself to me, in order to generate an opinion of yours. I see that you probably do nothing about it anyway and maybe your just hoping that things are changing so that you can keep some positive sense about the world and I understand that. Still my hope comes from the fact that all this is permanent and that there is no real ultimate need to despair. I have no hope, hope is maybe, I let my focus and conclusions lie in facts and reason, as does my communication.

 

and youve provided ZERO evidence to back up ANYTHING you have said..
so your opinion is absolute fact and above reproach but everyone else must provide evidence for their words to be credible?? lol

i can back source every word i have said in this thread but quite frankly i aint wasting my time being you have provided nothing to backup what you have said.

your so fulla shit your eyes are turning brown..lol

take your jack in the box degree and go pedal your garbage to someone who doesnt have the ability to critically think a problem through. its obviously too hard for you so you rely solely on what some professor taught you out of a book.

what a waste of a education you are..

 

I gotta agree with Hippie.

IMO extrapolating data that far into the future is ridiculous. It's like guessing how many people in 2010 would be using record players or walkmans based on 1980 data.

The world is too dynamic of a place for you to simply put a stamp on it and seal the case. The world is able to exist in thousands of forms which you have not yet imagined, but you only see it as "this", doom, or "little farmers".

Surburbia could become self sufficient farming communities. Innercities may become bustling economic centers. Giant monofarms may be chopped up and doled out as parcels.

"Hey, you know that invasive species Garlic Mustard that we've been trying to eradicate?? It turns out we can eat it!!!!"

"Holy shit.... dandelions are edible??? They're everywhere!"

You know you can pull starch out of corn husks and make flour from it? You know you can bite into the rind of a green coconut and suck sweet sugars from it?

In the rainforest there's a tribe of people who chop down 1 tree a year and can pull enough starch from it to feed their family for a year.

Your paradigm of the world consists of wheat, corn, rice, pigs, cows, chickens, corn, fertilizers, pesticides, GM crops. If the world doesn't continue by that system then it is FAILURE in your eyes.

My world is so much bigger, so much more dynamic and ever expansive. I understand deeply where you've coming from in your thoughts about the world, I really do. It just seems to me that you've completely forgotten the human spirit.

 

The problem still stands. How are you going to convince the millions of people in the world that their system which relies on fossil fuels, will self-destruct WHEN scarcity of these fossil fuels, is a major goal of the elite, the people who have the majority of peoples trust about these problems, will try to no end to do the opposite?

I am greatly disappointed in you hipphillbilly, gravely. I will never speak with you about a subject that requires critical thinking again, you simply have no capacity to do so and your offensive posts reflect that. We have a bad relationship, your opinion is obviously incompatible with mine, for reasons that are beyond each other control - its true, we were trying to direct each others thinking to more logistical future projections.

Tsurugi Oni - You have failed to address the 'grave' problem, leaving all possible solutions aside, what mechanisms will you use to convince the masses, which will be effective in communicating difficult to understand information and hypothesis about the environment? Every major mechanism that is critical to achieving this is under the control of people who above all else desire scarcity. My viewpoint is mixed - I believe that even with face to face, people to people interactions, we are far to deep in problems to fix everything, without the ability to access large mediums of communication such as television.

There is also an extremely contradictory point that you made which I will bring to your attention.

"IMO extrapolating data that far into the future is ridiculous. It's like guessing how many people in 2010 would be using record players or walkmans based on 1980 data.

The world is too dynamic of a place for you to simply put a stamp on it and seal the case. The world is able to exist in thousands of forms which you have not yet imagined, but you only see it as "this", doom, or "little farmers".

Surburbia could become self sufficient farming communities. Innercities may become bustling economic centers. Giant monofarms may be chopped up and doled out as parcels.IMO extrapolating data that far into the future is ridiculous. It's like guessing how many people in 2010 would be using record players or walkmans based on 1980 data.

The world is too dynamic of a place for you to simply put a stamp on it and seal the case. The world is able to exist in thousands of forms which you have not yet imagined, but you only see it as "this", doom, or "little farmers".

Surburbia could become self sufficient farming communities. Innercities may become bustling economic centers. Giant monofarms may be chopped up and doled out as parcels."

Beggining with the first claim - it is not difficult to project such facts about the future. Simply claiming the world is dynamic is not enough to prove that at current rates of extraction, fresh water resources, fossil fuels, wood from forests and fish stock populations, will collapse INEVITABLY. With current tools in scientific analyzation, involving constants in how much is extracted and how much naturally replenishes itself, the GREEN movement has generated its mandate and message. In saying such an outlandish comment, you deny the very movement you defend, this movement depends on this what you said was a problem - an extrapolation of information about the future.

Secondly, your claim about urban agriculture contradicts what this claim, as it is a claim that reflects an extrapolation of information about the future. The critical point I am trying to make is that the facts I have brought about water, can be used, considering that not matter how dynamic you see the world to be, water will be consumed indefinitely into the future and at current rates/quantities available, we will see problems in water and crop irrigation and the all encompassing scarcity that is constantly being pushed onto us by the elites.

Suggested Readings: Water Wars By: Diana Wards - The middle east projections are in this book. Politics of water and how it will shape future wars/immigration.

Thom Hartman - The last days of ancient sunlight. This book has historical information about how civilizations crumbled in the same way the current trends predict about ours. We are not exempt from history, essentially. The alluvial aquifer in the lower united states that provides 25% of the fresh produce to U.S. consumers, gets attention here and it was where I got the fact that I posted here. Also the one about Mexico City.

PS. I live in a city, urban agriculture is not coming close to providing even a minimal percentage of total food consumption from what I see with my own two eyes. For it to do so, I would surely have to see may community gardens where I live, which is Toronto,something that I do not see. Can you please provide links to this info, I know about cuba and their urban agriculture. But I have not heard anything substantial and notable in the context of the present problems, in regards to this.

 

certainly not by repetitively saying nothing can be done, nothing will work, its too late..lol

they are? really now? interesting, i guess this push for green energy,carbon taxes,etc. is all just a illusion to keep folks strung out on oil..lol

oh i am so hurt..

oh praise the lord and pass me a copperhead.. i sincerely hope you are a man of your word..

its you who lacks the capacity to critically think a problem through and come up with solutions,not i..

if the truth hurts then perhaps you should look whithin yourself and examine self change.

trust me, we have no relationship whatsoever,neither bad nor good.you must be a sad and lonely person if you consider a internet debate a relationship..lol

finally we agree on something..

if thats what ya wanna call it..

now put your money where your mouth is an cease to direct anymore of your pompous, arrogant, negative drivel my way..

 

Shoo shoo, hippie, enough wasting your time with trying to make me feel threatened. Skoot, shoo.

 

surprise, surprise, your not even a man of your word..

trying to make you feel threatened?? :smilielol5:

man,, your one strange dude..lol