http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-43-2161-WOE-Ponzi.aspx
the above is just something that i found interesting, and while it could apply to the topic at hand, i seek to promote a different point here.
this has to do with decentralization, of food, society, and economy. i think (unfortunately this is only an idea) that communication technology may be at the point where we are able to do this in a large scale society and still keep some measure of cohesion. decentralization will be necessary, it seems, as energy input declines in society. the current trend towards globalization historically has been powered by increased energy input through technology or resource.
society in europe has been dissected and examined historically for centuries. if one looks at the very beginning of human existence, it must first and foremost be concerned with the collection of food, just as every other animal, or living thing for that matter. society was able to concentrate on other things with dawn of preservation techniques along with the technology of of abstraction, in other words money. later, society was able to expand more with the coupling of sailing tech with greater ability to store food.
the advent of oil is different. not only did it enable greater transportation and storage, but also completely revolutionized the way food was made. food production has exploded with world population. the things we have been able to do with all this excess energy (converted into luxury time and then society advancement, meaning art and science) are incredible. however, we are aware now that oil is not an inexhaustable resource, and the problem lies not in the way that we get around the world, but in the other limiting factor of society, food production.
because food production is so intwined with oil, and oil is exhaustable and in all probability soon to be expensive and scarce, food production will be limited and also become scarce. if the tech and society that we have currently are dirivitaves of the excess energy inserted into the system by oil via ease of food production, then it would follow with the decline of oil goes the decline of society.
i do not believe all is lost. the technology we have created in this time of excess is incredible. the society we enjoy created and has been changed in order to deal with its effects. democracy is function of a intellegent, communicative populace. using the technology we have, and the tech we will make, we can weather the coming storm. and it IS coming. i believe food is important, and as such, should be locally produced in order to protect it from the coming fall.
08 April 2009
25 March 2009
Sustainability
Sustainability is becoming more and more of an interest with me. Permaculture, housing, energy... all of these could be combined to make an incredibly efficient, cost effective, and satisfying life. Sophrosyne and Responsibility. Need nothing, Live with a mind towards the Ancient, and take ownership of yourself... this is a lifestyle I can see myself in.
25 January 2009
yikes
My feelings on religion we're almost exactly the same as Emerson... and I didn't even know it!
"We become immortal, for we learn that time and space are relations of matter; that with a perception of truth or virtuous will they have no affinity."-R.W.E.
"We become immortal, for we learn that time and space are relations of matter; that with a perception of truth or virtuous will they have no affinity."-R.W.E.
24 January 2009
Yes, we. should!
probably the most compelling argument i've heard to get up off your ass. go do it people. its not only good for the environment, but is fundamentally what this country is about.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/do_we_still_tol.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/do_we_still_tol.php
31 December 2008
Why not to eat meat
The refusal to eat animals due to treatment is reason that does not hold sway in my mind. This does not stem from some "faith based" reason, if such a thing even exists. Animals were not put here on Earth to be subservient to humans. We are not the protectors nor the guardians of the worlds animal population. We have evolved to a point where we control the evolutionary paths of the creatures around us to serve our survival and now, in this day and age, to increase our comfort and contribute to time spent at leisure.
Any reasoning speaking of humans as 'cruel' to 'cute' animals is equally asinine. Yes, animals feel pain. Yes, they feel discomfort in poor conditions. In the end however, animals will die. Everything that is alive will die. In most cases these creatures would not be alive in the first place without careful tending by humans and because we are the keepers of life and death for these creatures I find it hard to rationalize some sort of "right" to exist in the open, free range that should dissuade us from treating them a certain way.
The one reason I have found to be persuasive is the environmental one. Methane is much worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon gas, and as we may all know methane is a natural by-product of digestion for most animals. That being said, one has a pretty good reason to at least cut back on meat consumption.
So there we go. Try to eat less meat. Save the world. Simple math.
Any reasoning speaking of humans as 'cruel' to 'cute' animals is equally asinine. Yes, animals feel pain. Yes, they feel discomfort in poor conditions. In the end however, animals will die. Everything that is alive will die. In most cases these creatures would not be alive in the first place without careful tending by humans and because we are the keepers of life and death for these creatures I find it hard to rationalize some sort of "right" to exist in the open, free range that should dissuade us from treating them a certain way.
The one reason I have found to be persuasive is the environmental one. Methane is much worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon gas, and as we may all know methane is a natural by-product of digestion for most animals. That being said, one has a pretty good reason to at least cut back on meat consumption.
So there we go. Try to eat less meat. Save the world. Simple math.
09 December 2008
We did it!
Personal responsibility is now dead. thanks soccer moms of the world. you've finally done it. bailouts, shift blame, and talk about how unfair the situation is. either way you've successfully rid the world of any personal stake in the matter. congrats. you will rot in hell.
17 November 2008
Too Big to Fail?
I cannot believe that the phrase was even uttered. What in the heck is going on in this country? What for did we fight those 'evil' socialists around the world for in the first place? I can't believe this rationalization is being used to steal from hardworking Americans. my reasons for saying this:
1. taxes are collected in order to provide services for the country.
2. in no place in the constitution does it specify that the 'american way of life' is gaurenteed.
3. when we tie ourselves to the market, as is the only way to preserve the RIGHT to property we knowingly accept the risk that the market may fail. however, in doing so we preserve the RIGHT to things that are our own.
when the government demands your taxes, they are stealing things from you that do not belong to them. when the government takes your taxes and uses it to float a company that can't compete in the market, the are using stolen goods for an immoral reason. ask yourself, to whom is this money being sent? whose good is it for? the public good? that doesn't make sense, because it is coming at the expense of some more than others... if it was for the public good, the public would have an equal share of it... but wait, why this company? what makes them different from any mom and pop shop? the number of people it effects? but it doesn't effect every single person in the US, so its not truly for the whole public good... just the good of some. but wait, why am i paying for lousy business practices? practices that made suv's for years and then wonders why they are ill equipped to deal with a changing market? doesn't this seem like the basic premise of capitalism? adapt or fail? so then, why is the good of some being justified to take money from all in different amounts to bail out an industry that has just plain failed at doing what they are supposed to do? the government is infringing on your right to ownership in order to help people who pay for their positions. they are not providing a public good, like roads, sewers, or national defense, that can potentially benefit all. they are choosing a select industry, one that has no right to exist in a capitalist world (they make a product they can't sell!!!!!!!!!!), and giving them your property so as to preserve temporarily the american STANDARD of life. not the american WAY of life. they wish to jeopardize our WAY in order to preserve our current STANDARD. our STANDARD of living is driving to work, buying ipods for our kids, throwing everything and anything into the trash. our WAY is to work, get what you work for, keep what you work for, and use this in exchange for something someone else works for and is willing to part with. want to help the auto industry????? MAKE THEM WOO INVESTORS!!!!1!!! like any other company in this goddamn country! to say these companies are too important to fail is just plain UN-AMERICAN.
1. taxes are collected in order to provide services for the country.
2. in no place in the constitution does it specify that the 'american way of life' is gaurenteed.
3. when we tie ourselves to the market, as is the only way to preserve the RIGHT to property we knowingly accept the risk that the market may fail. however, in doing so we preserve the RIGHT to things that are our own.
when the government demands your taxes, they are stealing things from you that do not belong to them. when the government takes your taxes and uses it to float a company that can't compete in the market, the are using stolen goods for an immoral reason. ask yourself, to whom is this money being sent? whose good is it for? the public good? that doesn't make sense, because it is coming at the expense of some more than others... if it was for the public good, the public would have an equal share of it... but wait, why this company? what makes them different from any mom and pop shop? the number of people it effects? but it doesn't effect every single person in the US, so its not truly for the whole public good... just the good of some. but wait, why am i paying for lousy business practices? practices that made suv's for years and then wonders why they are ill equipped to deal with a changing market? doesn't this seem like the basic premise of capitalism? adapt or fail? so then, why is the good of some being justified to take money from all in different amounts to bail out an industry that has just plain failed at doing what they are supposed to do? the government is infringing on your right to ownership in order to help people who pay for their positions. they are not providing a public good, like roads, sewers, or national defense, that can potentially benefit all. they are choosing a select industry, one that has no right to exist in a capitalist world (they make a product they can't sell!!!!!!!!!!), and giving them your property so as to preserve temporarily the american STANDARD of life. not the american WAY of life. they wish to jeopardize our WAY in order to preserve our current STANDARD. our STANDARD of living is driving to work, buying ipods for our kids, throwing everything and anything into the trash. our WAY is to work, get what you work for, keep what you work for, and use this in exchange for something someone else works for and is willing to part with. want to help the auto industry????? MAKE THEM WOO INVESTORS!!!!1!!! like any other company in this goddamn country! to say these companies are too important to fail is just plain UN-AMERICAN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)