What makes practices environmentally unsound?
Immortalist
resources.
Our current, untenable, profit-focused economic model depletes
forests, oil, farmland, topsoil, water, atmosphere and species beyond
a sustainable level.
If we use the Sumerians as an antimodel: as the land was overworked,
water sources eventually disappeared. And use forestry as a
counterexample: forests secure land and store water, acting as natural
dams. Logging delivers paychecks, but doesn't consider flood damage
from tree loss. Eco-economists would say that the logger and the town,
while temporarily profiting, pay more in the end in rising insurance
costs, flood damage to homes and infrastructure, increased taxes and
disaster relief funds.
Should we try to design a profitable economy that accurately reflects
the social cost of abuse of resources? What about shifting taxes from
income to environmentally destructive activities, such as carbon
emissions? Should individuals and towns receive tax breaks for
deploying solar and wind-generated power?
All world leaders need to agree on what makes practices
environmentally unsound.
Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth
by Lester R. Brown
http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Economy-Building-Lester-R-Brown/dp/0393321932/
BOfL
Governments are in the business of collecting taxes, and spending them
unwisely, because those that control governments are unwise.
The 'shepherd' only looks after the sheep with a profit motive.
BOfL
Sir Frederick
The legacy breeding processes are self, community, country and earth,
destructive. Too many people is unsound.
Rod Speed
> Eco-economic theory calls for harmony between
> our economy and natural resources.
Meaningless waffle.
> Our current, untenable, profit-focused economic model
Leaves all the rest for dead, stupid.
> depletes forests,
Doesnt need to.
> oil, farmland, topsoil, water, atmosphere and species beyond a sustainable level.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> If we use the Sumerians as an antimodel:
The world has moved on a tad since then, fool.
> as the land was overworked, water sources eventually disappeared.
And nothing like that has happened in modern times.
And there is a reason why it hasnt.
> And use forestry as a counterexample: forests
> secure land and store water, acting as natural dams.
Mindlessly superficial.
> Logging delivers paychecks, but doesn't consider flood damage from tree loss.
There doesnt have to be any flood damage with forestry done properly.
> Eco-economists would say that the logger and the town,
> while temporarily profiting, pay more in the end in rising
> insurance costs, flood damage to homes and infrastructure,
> increased taxes and disaster relief funds.
Then 'eco-economists' are terminal fuckwits when
ALL of that can be avoided by doing forestry properly.
> Should we try to design a profitable economy that
> accurately reflects the social cost of abuse of resources?
Hordes have already stopped abusing resources.
> What about shifting taxes from income to environmentally
> destructive activities, such as carbon emissions?
No thanks, that would fuck the economy when
it wouldnt be possible to do that world wide.
> Should individuals and towns receive tax breaks
> for deploying solar and wind-generated power?
Nope, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.
> All world leaders need to agree on what makes practices environmentally unsound.
Not even possible.
> Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth
> by Lester R. Brown
> http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Economy-Building-Lester-R-Brown/dp/0393321932/
Just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
Tim
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7atmodF...@mid.individual.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> Eco-economic theory calls for harmony between
>> our economy and natural resources.
>
> Meaningless waffle.
>
>> Our current, untenable, profit-focused economic model
>
> Leaves all the rest for dead, stupid.
>
>> depletes forests,
>
> Doesnt need to.
>
Your point being?
>> oil, farmland, topsoil, water, atmosphere and species beyond a
>> sustainable level.
>
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Can you substantiate that? No. didn't think so.
>
>> If we use the Sumerians as an antimodel:
>
> The world has moved on a tad since then, fool.
>
>> as the land was overworked, water sources eventually disappeared.
>
> And nothing like that has happened in modern times.
>
Ha ha ha. Go have a peek at a map of ocean dead zones, go walk down a beach
and don't find a plastic bag.
> And there is a reason why it hasnt.
Because you are in denial?
>
>> And use forestry as a counterexample: forests
>> secure land and store water, acting as natural dams.
>
> Mindlessly superficial.
Yes, you are.
>
>> Logging delivers paychecks, but doesn't consider flood damage from tree
>> loss.
>
> There doesnt have to be any flood damage with forestry done properly.
>
>> Eco-economists would say that the logger and the town,
>> while temporarily profiting, pay more in the end in rising
>> insurance costs, flood damage to homes and infrastructure,
>> increased taxes and disaster relief funds.
>
> Then 'eco-economists' are terminal fuckwits when
> ALL of that can be avoided by doing forestry properly.
You must be an economist!
>
>> Should we try to design a profitable economy that
>> accurately reflects the social cost of abuse of resources?
>
> Hordes have already stopped abusing resources.
>
>> What about shifting taxes from income to environmentally
>> destructive activities, such as carbon emissions?
>
> No thanks, that would fuck the economy when
> it wouldnt be possible to do that world wide.
>
>> Should individuals and towns receive tax breaks
>> for deploying solar and wind-generated power?
>
> Nope, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.
>
What sense is that?
>> All world leaders need to agree on what makes practices environmentally
>> unsound.
>
> Not even possible.
>
>> Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth
>> by Lester R. Brown
>> http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Economy-Building-Lester-R-Brown/dp/0393321932/
>
> Just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
Yes, yes you are, indeed.
tgde...@earthlink.net
The only unsound environmental practice is population growth. If the
world population were a stable 300 million, we could burn high sulfur
coal and all drive Hummers, and things would be just fine.
We probably wouldn't *choose* those practices under that scenario,
since it wouldn't make economic sense, but the ecosystem would not be
perturbed in a significant way.
-tg
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then help set an example for the rest of us "breeders". Go down to
your mommy's basement and drink a gallon of drain cleaner. Hell,if it
doesn't kill you at least your bowels will be unclogged.
Eric Gisin
news:467a3850-4619-4645...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth
> by Lester R. Brown
> http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Economy-Building-Lester-R-Brown/dp/0393321932/
The problem with environmentalism is its leaders are paranoid intellectual morons.
From http://www.reason.com/news/show/133282.html
"Could food shortages bring down civilization?," asks environmental activist Lester Brown in the
current issue of Scientific American. Not surprisingly, Brown's answer is an emphatic yes. He
claims that for years he has "resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only
individual governments but also our global civilization." Now, however, Brown says, "I can no
longer ignore that risk." Balderdash. Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute, has been a
prominent and perennial predictor of imminent global famine for more than 45 years. Why should we
believe him now?
For instance, back in 1965, when Brown was a young bureaucrat in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, he declared, "the food problem emerging in the less-developing regions may be one of
the most nearly insoluble problems facing man over the next few decades." In 1974, Brown maintained
that farmers "can no longer keep up with rising demand; thus the outlook is for chronic scarcities
and rising prices." In 1981, Brown stated that "global food insecurity is increasing," and further
claimed that "the slim excess of growth in food production over population is narrowing." In 1989,
Brown contended that "population growth is exceeding the farmer's ability to keep up," concluding
that, "our oldest enemy, hunger, is again at the door." In 1995, Brown starkly warned, "Humanity's
greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest." In 1997, Brown again
proclaimed, "Food scarcity will be the defining issue of the new era now unfolding."
Sir Frederick
You feeling guilty after your dozen "breeds"?
With cloning you could go for hundreds of thousands.
Just think, they could support you in your present
senescence.
ZerkonXXXX
> Eco-economic theory calls for harmony between our economy and natural
> resources.
Since all economy is based on this same harmony, why alienate the two?
Day Brown
First, it was curiously noted that the Chalcolithic tels on the
floodplains of the rivers that empty into the west end of the Black sea
were regularly placed 3km apart.
Second, it was observed in the digs, that the tels were occupied from
8000 to 4000 BC, the vast majority of which, founded as villages, stayed
villages for 4000 years. There were a few trading towns of perhaps
20,000, but no evidence at all a capital city or dominant administrative
center. It looks more like a free trade zone.
Third, soil cores reveal they farmed the same land for 4000 years, yet
the presence of tree pollen shows they never clearcut. Nor is there any
evidence of what use that much wood would have been. The succession of
pollens in the layers suggests they were using crop rotation with
periods of pasture or fallow, just as we see in the Medieval record of
"Life in a Medieval Village" by Gies or other such sources.
Which was the chicken or the egg? The region was blessed with a
particular combination of resources, but needed, then as now, to avoid
warfare in order to develop and ship them to market. Which has something
to do with why there's no evidence of warfare across the whole span of
4000 years. Goodison & Morris, "Ancient Goddesses" dug into a virgin tel
specifically looking for signs of warfare to settle the point, and
failed to find any.
The salt mines at Hallstaat and Salzburg go way back into the
Paleolithic, but it was in this era when industrial scale mining began
with shipping salt all the way down the Danube to the world's first
plank hulled fishing fleet built by the Cucuteni. And along the way, in
the Transylvanian mountains there was gold and Chalcocite. Both of which
were contaminated with arsenic. Which resulted in a massive fish kill on
the Danube in recent times.
But back then, when the Chalcocite was smelted, the result was arsenic
bronze, the toughest by far, of all the bronzes. And below the mountains
on the Rumanian delta, not unlike American delta land, there were
tarpits and oil seeps.
As we might expect, all these resources in a capitalist free market led
to a technological explosion. The first bronze produced the first metal
wood working tools, which produced the first planks, to build the first
plank hulled sailboats. Which had sails and rigging made of hemp, which
is why "canvas" sounds like "cannabis".
Over 250 carved stamp icons in antler, bone, ivory, stone, clay, etc
were used to label baskets and bags for storage and shipping, and in
turn led to the first writing, 7000 years ago.
Dolls, dollhouses, doll temples, doll furniture, and both animal and
hominid figures have been found, some naked, but some dressed in
tailored garments the later Scythians were still known for. Some of the
dollhouses had chimneys.
I could go on, and have, at length. When these digs were first looked
into, it was thot the timber frame communities were cheap rudimentary
copies of the stone and brick work of the Levant. Until C-14 came in,
and it was realized how much older this civilization is. But what they
made, which produced economic stability includes what they didnt make.
No palaces. No capital city. No monumental brick, much less stone,
architecture. It was all timber frame. Only 3 sites were fortified. One
on the NE border in Ukraine, one in the SW border near the Balkans, and
one at a copper mine in Southern Germany. They also found what looks
like a Hudson Bay trading post, from 5000BC, outside Paris. But while it
looks like a round fort, its actually a cattle corral for a stockyard.
What makes practices environmentally unsound is the alpha male rule that
wants as many perks and status symbols as possible to get as much pussy
as possible to bear as many sons as possible for allies in warfare- to
extend the empire as much as possible. Well beyond, as we so often see
in history, any economic advantage.
This whole environmentally friendly system was run by women. Who had a
number of herbal forms of birth control and abortion that empowered them
to keep the population within sustainable limits. Communities expanded
to the scale of economic profitability, but no further, staying the same
size for thousands of years.
This is no different than the Mosuo of SW China, living in the very same
kind of communal housing as they have for uncounted centuries. They dont
have marriage as we understand the term, so the women dont bear more
kids than the communal ecosystem and economy can raise properly.
Nor does it appear different than indicated by Tocharian documents,
whose women ran several Silk Road cities before the hegemony of the
Mongols. The brothels in Kucha were owned by the city. The queen was, in
effect, a madam. Since she didnt need a harem, she didnt need a palace
to keep them in, a castle to protect the palace, nor the taxes to pay
for it all. The profits from the brothels supported the government.
They too, farmed the same land for millennia, never destroying the
fertility of the soil, and did it in a harsh desert climate. Kuchan wine
is still favored in China. When the Kuchi coo by the brothel door, the
men who'd been on the Silk Road came running. And paid with the curious
perforated Kuchan coin, like washers, known as "cash".
You wanna know what is sound? go look at the people who been there and
done that. In every case I know of, they were ruled by women.
Rod Speed
> Why not look at sound practice?
Why not indeed. No point in looking at ancient history tho,
the real world has moved on just a tad since those days.
> First, it was curiously noted that the Chalcolithic tels on the floodplains of the rivers that empty into the west end
> of the Black sea were regularly placed 3km apart.
And then the real world moved on just a tad past that approach.
> Second, it was observed in the digs, that the tels were occupied from 8000 to 4000 BC, the vast majority of which,
> founded as villages, stayed villages for 4000 years. There were a few trading towns of perhaps 20,000, but no evidence
> at all a capital city or dominant administrative center. It looks more like a free trade zone.
There werent any 'free trade zones' at that time.
> Third, soil cores reveal they farmed the same land for 4000 years, yet the presence of tree pollen shows they never
> clearcut.
Hardly anyone was actually that stupid and it isnt that easy to
do with the sort of primitive tools available in that era anyway.
> Nor is there any evidence of what use that much wood would have been.
Which might just explain why they didnt bother.
> The succession of pollens in the layers suggests they were using crop rotation with periods of pasture or fallow, just
> as we see in the Medieval record of "Life in a Medieval Village" by Gies or other such sources.
> Which was the chicken or the egg? The region was blessed with a particular combination of resources, but needed, then
> as now, to avoid warfare in order to develop and ship them to market. Which has something to do with why there's no
> evidence of warfare across the whole span of 4000 years.
Just because there is a lack of evidence doesnt mean it didnt
happen with areas like that with very poor archeological evidence
because the way they did things didnt leave much evidence at all.
> Goodison & Morris, "Ancient Goddesses" dug into a virgin tel specifically looking for signs of warfare to settle the
> point, and failed to find any.
All that proves is that they didnt put the results of warfare in there.
Hardly surprising if the warfare was rather chaotic etc.
> The salt mines at Hallstaat and Salzburg go way back into the
> Paleolithic, but it was in this era when industrial scale mining began with shipping salt all the way down the Danube
> to the world's first plank hulled fishing fleet built by the Cucuteni.
> And along the way, in the Transylvanian mountains there was gold and Chalcocite. Both of which were contaminated with
> arsenic. Which resulted in a massive fish kill on the Danube in recent times.
> But back then, when the Chalcocite was smelted, the result was arsenic bronze, the toughest by far, of all the
> bronzes. And below the mountains on the Rumanian delta, not unlike American delta land, there were tarpits and oil
> seeps.
> As we might expect, all these resources in a capitalist free market
> led to a technological explosion. The first bronze produced the first
> metal wood working tools, which produced the first planks, to build
> the first plank hulled sailboats. Which had sails and rigging made of
> hemp, which is why "canvas" sounds like "cannabis".
> Over 250 carved stamp icons in antler, bone, ivory, stone, clay, etc were used to label baskets and bags for storage
> and shipping, and in turn led to the first writing, 7000 years ago.
> Dolls, dollhouses, doll temples, doll furniture, and both animal and hominid figures have been found, some naked, but
> some dressed in tailored garments the later Scythians were still known for. Some of the dollhouses had chimneys.
> I could go on, and have, at length.
You have indeed.
> When these digs were first looked into, it was thot the timber frame communities were cheap rudimentary copies of the
> stone and brick work of the Levant. Until C-14 came in, and it was realized how much older this civilization is. But
> what they made, which produced economic stability includes what they didnt make.
> No palaces. No capital city. No monumental brick, much less stone, architecture. It was all timber frame.
Hardly surprising given the tools needed for stonework.
> Only 3 sites were fortified. One on the NE border in Ukraine, one in the SW border near the Balkans,
Those buggers always were pretty fierce.
> and one at a copper mine in Southern Germany. They also found what looks like a Hudson Bay trading post, from 5000BC,
> outside Paris. But while it looks like a round fort, its actually a cattle corral for a stockyard.
> What makes practices environmentally unsound is the alpha male rule that wants as many perks and status symbols as
> possible to get as much pussy as possible to bear as many sons as possible for allies in warfare- to extend the empire
> as much as possible.
Mindlessly silly. You've just contradicted yourself
with that claim about the dearth of fortifications.
And even you should have noticed that the vikings werent into much in the way
of fortifications but were into some pretty gung ho warfare. Mongols in spades.
> Well beyond, as we so often see in history, any economic advantage.
> This whole environmentally friendly system was run by women.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> Who had a number of herbal forms of birth control and abortion that empowered them to keep the population within
> sustainable limits.
What actually kept the population under control was the fact that they
knew fuck all about medicine and got to die when they were seriously ill.
> Communities expanded to the scale of economic profitability, but no further, staying the same size for thousands of
> years.
Until we invented the technology that allowed progress past that.
There might just be significant limits to what you can do without iron etc.
> This is no different than the Mosuo of SW China, living in the very
> same kind of communal housing as they have for uncounted centuries.
And plenty more did that without letting women rule the roost too.
> They dont have marriage as we understand the term, so the women dont bear more kids than the communal ecosystem and
> economy can raise properly.
Mindlessly silly.
> Nor does it appear different than indicated by Tocharian documents,
> whose women ran several Silk Road cities before the hegemony of the
> Mongols. The brothels in Kucha were owned by the city. The queen was,
> in effect, a madam. Since she didnt need a harem, she didnt need a
> palace to keep them in, a castle to protect the palace, nor the taxes
> to pay for it all. The profits from the brothels supported the government.
And they didnt last long once the mongols showed up with a much better way of doing things.
> They too, farmed the same land for millennia, never destroying the fertility of the soil, and did it in a harsh desert
> climate.
And plenty of others ended up getting done in by the climate.
> Kuchan wine is still favored in China.
Whoopy do.
> When the Kuchi coo by the brothel door, the men who'd been on the Silk Road came running.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> And paid with the curious perforated Kuchan coin, like washers, known as "cash".
> You wanna know what is sound?
Nope, I know what is sound thanks.
> go look at the people who been there and done that.
No thanks, the real world has moved on just a tad since then.
> In every case I know of, they were ruled by women.
Then you need to get out more.