Waste and Dishonour

[Toddy]

You're probably right, the toxic waste western Europe ships over to India & West Africa to be 'processed' enables hundreds of people to earn a living, not for long mnd but there's plenty more to take their place.

Recycling waste is big buisness now .

It certainly is, and most waste is processed or dumped nearby the end users..........transport costs are becoming a huge factor.

I suspect that the Toxic Waste exports actually employ many thousands.........that it damages lives, shortens lives and despoils land elsewhere, might make financial sense to someone, but the reality is that it is repugnant to most of us.

I like the adage, "Live a little more simply, that other's might simply live."

cheers,
M

 

[Hoodoo]

I think the concept of a "harmonious nature" is a romantic ideal. I would argue that there is little that is harmonious about life on earth. All organisms compete, one way or the other. Even the concept of a "prudent parasite" has been shown generally to be false. Parasites will exploit their hosts to the max until there is a negative feedback that knocks them back and limits their aggression simply because of a lack of host population, not because selection favored prudence. Selection though, often favors switching hosts. If you can't make a living off a declining resource, switch to another. Herbivores will overgraze grassland, carnivores will kill prey until their numbers dwindle, plants will release chemicals in the soil to kill other plants, plants will grow to great heights to choke the sun off from other plants. Harmony in nature is a nifty notion but imo, it's a short term concept of humans. We have insulated ourselves from the vicissitudes of nature through cultural innovation. But I also think that it is an idealized view, an ethical ideal of humans, worth working towards in our own lives. Something humans can make a conscious effort towards even though it may be beyond our grasp.

In general, I tend to see nature as dynamic, not harmonious. I think there is some kind of harmony that can exist through group selection but that is a "reborn" concept in biology that is difficult to test and the definition of harmony itself would need to be fleshed out. It's not a concept in my dictionary of biological terms.

When an ecosystem appears to be "in balance" I suspect it is more like détente than Disneyland, more of a cold war filled with sneaky skirmishes that create shifting borders.

 

[santaman2000]

Ah, but then, that waste.....that in itself is, and will, become a resource to be exploited.
It's all just energy in one form or another, and it can't be lost, just transformed

cheers,
M

Sort of. At least that's the way it was taught in Newtonian physics. Einstein took it astep further with the Energy/matter Continuum. Basically stating that both energy and matter could be interconverted. Here's an excerpt from an article that states it basically the way it was taught in University Physics when Iwas still stuying:


*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

"Relating matter and energy

The conservation of both energy and matter led to the idea that maybe energy and matter are related.

Einstein was the first person to quantify the relationship between energy and matter; he was able to show that all matter and energy are interconvertible though the equation E=MC[SUP]2[/SUP]. In this equation, E is energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light (which is considered to be a universal constant of 3.00 x 10[SUP]8[/SUP] meters per second).

Through an understanding of this equation, it is possible to view matter and energy as part of one and the same thing.

All matter in the universe and all energy in the universe are just in different parts of the same continuum. This relationship is called the matter-energy continuum.

 

[santaman2000]

Applying human emotions to animal behaviour isn't really appropriate............surplus killing is well known in predators but it's probably the circumstances that trigger this behaviour rather than a pulsion to satisfy their 'blood lust'

Yes, sometimes it's circumstances. Such as when a pack of dogs or similar predators chase something down because their prey drive is triggered by the other animal (or sometimes human) flees. However there's no circumstance that would cause an animal such as a cat to deliberately wait in ambush for hours for a squirrel or rabbit to cross its path. And no "circumstance' that would cause the same cat to play with that rabbit or squirrel for another hour before killing it. The fact is simple enough, they enjoy it.

It's not a matter of ascribing "human" emotions to animals. it's fairly obvious that animals experience the simplist emotions (fear, hate, and joy) And yes I've witnessed dogs exibit hatred.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

However there's no circumstance that would cause an animal such as a cat to deliberately wait in ambush for hours for a squirrel or rabbit to cross its path. And no "circumstance' that would cause the same cat to play with that rabbit or squirrel for another hour before killing it. The fact is simple enough, they enjoy it.

Not quite sure what that has to do with surplus killing but the example you bring up about some predators 'toying ' with their prey because they enjoy it is a tricky one. I don't deny that the hunter recieves pleasure playing with it's prey but is pleasure the motivation of the act ?....As nature often mixes pleasure with utility are they not just perfecting their hunting skills ?.... & most importantly of all, are they concious of the fact that they are inflicting pain & if so do they do it deliberately ?

It's not a matter of ascribing "human" emotions to animals. it's fairly obvious that animals experience the simplist emotions (fear, hate, and joy) And yes I've witnessed dogs exibit hatred.

Indeed they do, but to state that some predators kill just for the pleasure of it is applying human motivations to animal behaviour simply because we can see no other reason & base the assumption on what our motivations would be in a similar situation.
The question is not do predators enjoy killing, they clearly do, but is the search of pleasure the declenching factor for surplus killing........................I doubt it.

 

[Toddy]

I think the concept of a "harmonious nature" is a romantic ideal. I would argue that there is little that is harmonious about life on earth. All organisms compete, one way or the other......................

.......When an ecosystem appears to be "in balance" I suspect it is more like détente than Disneyland, more of a cold war filled with sneaky skirmishes that create shifting borders.

Brilliant summation
I really like that last bit Hoodoo. I'm going to keep that

cheers,
M

 

[British Red]

The thing that always amuses me with the whole "chest beating" global guilt thing - is that it seems to be the sole reserve of those whose needs are taken care of by others. The reality of almost any animal is, it will do whatever it can to secure the survival and wellbeing of its offspring. This may be at the expense of other lifeforms or even other examples of the same life form.The funny thing is of course that this holds true of even those who bemoan the world and its lack of social conscience.

The truth of those who hate "tribalism", "globalism" and those who lack "social consicence" is that they generally do so from a position of relying on social security and social healthcare that are denied to 90% of mankind. In order to truly empathise with the majority of humankind they should try death from lack of a cheap antibiotic, malnutrition, or lack of law enforcement. But of course that would mean facing up to the truth - that "fairness" means everyone in the Western world would face hunger, health care deprivation etc.

Its really lovely to sit, whilst living in the efforts of others, being in the most privileged 5% of the worlds population, to complain about the 4% above you. Its harder to recognise that you are actually the oppressor of the other 95% of the world. It requires honesty and self awareness. Every cheap food item, every cheap t shirt, every i-phone, every foreign holiday, every mile of motoring is part of it.

So to those who chant the sulky teenage mantra of "you are so unfair", please bear in mind that you are the problem, not the solution - this is true even if you are part of the sub class that sponges off a healthcare system that you don't pay into, a road infrastructure that your taxes do not pay for and rely on police to protect you that you you do not fund. Unless you give up, voluntarily, 90% of even the most basic entitlements in this country, you are a member of the worlds elite - not the oppressed.

 

[Tengu]

I thought the `really truly` Elite had digital watches...

 

[Toddy]

Oh no, the really expensive ones are analogue

M

 

[milegajo]

A really interesting dialogue going on here. Very little there I can dispute or disagree with, even some of what is contradictory to what I may have intially written, so thanks for that chaps.

So....

milegajo,

Do you see partcipiating in an internet forum a useful use of electricity and a computer? I say this as in some countries that computer would be a massively important resource in education - and billions of people still live without electricity - or in cultures where even a tiny amount of bandwidth would be used to research a medical condition or to summon aid in a life threatening situation. Given that this is undeniably true, do you find using those resources to post on an internet forum a priority?

On the subject of pigeons, if they are not controlled, the UK population will import more food ( denying that same food to local populations) and consume finite fossil fuels into the bargain. Whilst it may be prefable to turn those birds bones into needles (that are far inferior to metal needles), do you believe that not turning those bones into needles is a reason to allow pigeons to flourish and hence remove food from the mouths of local populations when the British outbid them for their farmers produce? For that will surely be the result.

The world is imperfect. We must make the best of it - even when that is an imperfect solution

Red

Participating in internet forums is just about my only use of electricity. All of it captured from the Sun via my solar array. I acknowledge however that the ISP uses mains electricity of course.
I could address every point raised, but I see very limited potential return in that effort, possibly even a waste of my time. To believe and entertain the notion that I advocate allowing pigeons to flourish with the possiblility of increasing crop damage because hunters no longer utilise their bones is rather abstract and a giant judgemental leap to say the least in my view. If not possibly antagonistic with the intention of being dismissive and belittling? (Forgive the speculation there).
I do agree wth your final remark however. The world is indeed imperfect and we should make the best of it.

The thing that always amuses me with the whole "chest beating" global guilt thing - is that it seems to be the sole reserve of those whose needs are taken care of by others. The reality of almost any animal is, it will do whatever it can to secure the survival and wellbeing of its offspring. This may be at the expense of other lifeforms or even other examples of the same life form.The funny thing is of course that this holds true of even those who bemoan the world and its lack of social conscience.

The truth of those who hate "tribalism", "globalism" and those who lack "social consicence" is that they generally do so from a position of relying on social security and social healthcare that are denied to 90% of mankind. In order to truly empathise with the majority of humankind they should try death from lack of a cheap antibiotic, malnutrition, or lack of law enforcement. But of course that would mean facing up to the truth - that "fairness" means everyone in the Western world would face hunger, health care deprivation etc.

Its really lovely to sit, whilst living in the efforts of others, being in the most privileged 5% of the worlds population, to complain about the 4% above you. Its harder to recognise that you are actually the oppressor of the other 95% of the world. It requires honesty and self awareness. Every cheap food item, every cheap t shirt, every i-phone, every foreign holiday, every mile of motoring is part of it.

So to those who chant the sulky teenage mantra of "you are so unfair", please bear in mind that you are the problem, not the solution - this is true even if you are part of the sub class that sponges off a healthcare system that you don't pay into, a road infrastructure that your taxes do not pay for and rely on police to protect you that you you do not fund. Unless you give up, voluntarily, 90% of even the most basic entitlements in this country, you are a member of the worlds elite - not the oppressed.

Little in there to dispute, and I wholely agree with the "you are the problem"! (Collectively and currently) in so far as being the solution, I don't know what that is and therefore cannot judge.

The original post was not a "'chest beating' global guilt thing", rather an observation. Whilst the observation may not be percieved as a positive one, it was by no means a blanket condemnation. I say this only to clarify what appears to be one of numerous jumps to a conclusion and judgement. If I am mistaken on that point, do please forgive me.

Regarding the whole "you don't pay into" etc, you may have evidence that says otherwise, but I do not believe anyone pays for the items listed. It is my understanding that 'taxes' go only to pay off the interest on our ever increasing 'debt' to the Bank of 'England'. If reality were as you express it, why are we borrowing at all if we truly are as wealthy as we would have all nations of the world and our creditors believe? (huge amounts of bonus points to be awarded with a verifiably true answer to that!)

Is it possible that we are actually as poor as every other country but the difference is we survive in luxury owing to our past reputation for prosperity, our allegiances and allies and the shared willingness to inflict deadly force on those who would deny us?

Apologies for the massive tangent. Consider the above questions partly rhetorical but also partly genuine in my desire for them to be addressed by a qualified spokesperson.

In short British Red, there is little in your words I disagree with, though if interpreted correctly, there is alot in your sentiment I cannot sympathise with.
Be that as it may, do not think your contribution unvalued. For that I thank you.


Cheers all!

 

[santaman2000]

Not quite sure what that has to do with surplus killing but the example you bring up about some predators 'toying ' with their prey because they enjoy it is a tricky one. I don't deny that the hunter recieves pleasure playing with it's prey but is pleasure the motivation of the act ?....As nature often mixes pleasure with utility are they not just perfecting their hunting skills ?.... & most importantly of all, are they concious of the fact that they are inflicting pain & if so do they do it deliberately ?



Indeed they do, but to state that some predators kill just for the pleasure of it is applying human motivations to animal behaviour simply because we can see no other reason & base the assumption on what our motivations would be in a similar situation.
The question is not do predators enjoy killing, they clearly do, but is the search of pleasure the declenching factor for surplus killing........................I doubt it.

I don't dispute what you're saying. Rather i think you're interpreting my views a bit inverted. I'm not saying that animals behaviour is similar to ours; I'm saying out behavior is just amplified animal behavior.

 

[British Red]

There is a great deal of debt financing- however nowhere near "all taxation". Our debt is currently about 66% of GDP - nowhere near the worst in the world. A great deal of taxation pays for hospitals, doctors and nurses salaries, the police force, care for the elderly, schools, teachers salaries. To use these things with no effort or intention to contribute shifts the burden of these things onto others. My sentiment, as a man who who tries to live a self sufficient, low impact, ethical life is that - to be self sufficient and ethical - I need to pay for the services I use and value. I do value the work done by, for example, nurses. To pay nothing in to the communal pot that remunerates them, does not sit well with me - not only is it counter to my self sufficiency ideals, meaning I am living from other peoples toil, but it also undervalues the nurse themselves.

 

[boatman]

I am the lucky winner of life's jackpot but then my ancestors back to zero have done the same, ipso facto. I expect they even learned Latin when it was expedient to do so. No feelings of guilt at this luck nor of obligation.

Just as an exercise name a purely altruistic country, can't? Then name one that tries, hatful in the West aren't there? Anywhere else?

 

[blacktimberwolf]

I am the lucky winner of life's jackpot but then my ancestors back to zero have done the same, ipso facto. I expect they even learned Latin when it was expedient to do so. No feelings of guilt at this luck nor of obligation.

Just as an exercise name a purely altruistic country, can't? Then name one that tries, hatful in the West aren't there? Anywhere else?

Is there a translater in the house ?

 

[santaman2000]

Is there a translater in the house ?

Oddly enough, I think I got that one. If I get him correctly, he's saying:

1. "I am the winner of life's jackpo...t" means he was fortunate enough to be born in the developed world (the top 10% economicly)
2. "...but then my ancesters back to zero have done the same thing..." means his ancesters were just as wasteful and/or exploitive of nature and the system as we are.
3. "No feelings of guilt at this luck nor of obligation" Pretty much self explanatory.

And if that's what he's saying, again oddly, I find myself agreeing with him.

 

[British Red]

I can't disagree with that as a translation santaman. It does raise an interesting moral point though. When the relative poor in the UK or US say "its morally right for the few people better off to support me" and at the same time "I have no moral obligation to give some of what I have to support the majority of the worlds population who are worse off than me", there is a breathtaking level of hypocrisy going on.

 

[santaman2000]

Agreed BR.

 

[milegajo]

I can't disagree with that as a translation santaman. It does raise an interesting moral point though. When the relative poor in the UK or US say "its morally right for the few people better off to support me" and at the same time "I have no moral obligation to give some of what I have to support the majority of the worlds population who are worse off than me", there is a breathtaking level of hypocrisy going on.

The above is easily agreed with, but I ask, is what you say absolutely true?

Do the relative poor in the 'prosperous' countries actually think and feel as you describe? It may be what is implied, it may be an outsiders interpretation of an individuals actions that is in turn used to describe the attitude of a collective.

From what I have witnessed, I can only suppose that what you say is an illustrative/rhetorical scenario. By that I mean it will only be true when as you say, the relative poor in the UK or US say xyz...

Reality is far simpler I feel and the following is what I believe is true from my experience of 'civilised' life thus far;
Many exist in disconnected 'goldfish' bowls. The source of any woes, angst, fears and worries forever projected outwardly for they tell themselves, and are often told by society in the form of the mainstream media that, it is this group or that groups fault for this or that problem. An endless and repetitive cycle of Problem (often contrived for the benefit of a political/financial agenda)- Reaction - Solution.
The truth lies closer to home and that is what is so painful and dissuades the afflicted from the insight. The perception and feeling of woe, angst, fear and worry lies only within the perciever. It is for this reason that I concur with what was said previously, "you are the problem".
First, you must see that there is any problem...

Do the poor see poverty around them? Or do they see normality?
It is relative to your reality is my belief.

The South African, wearing a scarf and long coat may exclaim to the English Tourist "Isn't it cold today!", the tourist in his t-shirt and shorts may very well tell him "No. It is not". The more appropriate response required from the tourist to ascertain the South Africans real meaning is "relative to what? England?!".

This analogy, flawed as it may be, is intended to underline the difference between absolute and relative truth. The perception of 'normality' and ones own individual reailty that is based in and shaped by ones past experience and their chosen present.

How can one demand to be supported from a certain source if he does not know that that source supports him?
How can one condemn with certainty a person, or persons, for their assumptions if he does not know said person/persons are accountable and truly the perpetrators?
These are things we are merely told. We do not know them without witnessing for ourselves.

Thanks all.

 

[boatman]

How is it hypocrisy to state an honest opinion? But, I do need to amend the translation, everybody alive today has won the lottery of their sperm winning out in the race to the egg and so on back to non-sexual reproduction times. And, it's nice to live in England as well.
I have no idea how careful or wasteful my ancestors were so that is a non sequitur. The reference to learning Latin was a joking reference to the Roman occupation of part of Britain.


Because I owe no obligation does not of course mean that I do not support some overseas aid, fair trade and contribute personally to charity. Just no crocodile tears.

 

[Tengu]

I think what we should be trying to achive is perhaps an extension of the Bushcraft Ideal; to be comfy on as little as possible.

Anything else is a nusiance.