Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Spirituality & Polyamory

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-11-2009, 05:52 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

The best guage of generalized "spiritual" growth on our planet, I think, is how appropriately responsive we are to the global ecological crisis, including global warming. So, at present, we're not earning As or Bs. We're getting a D- at best, but an honest grade would be an F.

If you think the worst part of global warming / climate change will be sea level rise, I'm afraid you're missing the worst of it by far: climate zone shifting ... and positive feedback loops which, together, could extinguish most of the species on the planet, including, of course, our own.

All of this can be addressed -- but we're not doing it. Not by a long shot. And the governments can't lead the way, and won't. It is we, the people of the planet and not our governments, who prefer to pretend that business as usual can go on. Who refuse to transform our lives so that we can live in balance with nature. How "spiritually enlightened" is that?
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-11-2009, 06:32 PM
Fidelia Fidelia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Right here. Right now.
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
The best guage of generalized "spiritual" growth on our planet, I think, is how appropriately responsive we are to the global ecological crisis, including global warming. So, at present, we're not earning As or Bs. We're getting a D- at best, but an honest grade would be an F.

If you think the worst part of global warming / climate change will be sea level rise, I'm afraid you're missing the worst of it by far: climate zone shifting ... and positive feedback loops which, together, could extinguish most of the species on the planet, including, of course, our own.

All of this can be addressed -- but we're not doing it. Not by a long shot. And the governments can't lead the way, and won't. It is we, the people of the planet and not our governments, who prefer to pretend that business as usual can go on. Who refuse to transform our lives so that we can live in balance with nature. How "spiritually enlightened" is that?
Amen to that, River! We must, each one of us, take the steps we can take RIGHT NOW to reduce our negative ecological impacts. And support one another in the effort to do so.

Fidelio and I started years ago, and have made some significant strides. We built and live in an ICF (insulated concrete form) house, which is VERY energy efficient (also very quiet and a highly defensible position). We use rainwater harvesting exclusively to supply our household water needs. As a result, we have the highest quality water and are very aware of how to conserve it. What landscaping we've done is xeriscaping (native and adapted plants that require little or no help from us, once established.).

Granted, not everyone is in a position to build a house with ecology and conservation in mind. But everyone can do something starting right where they are. CFL lightbulbs. Low flow plumbing fixtures. Public transportation. Unplug stuff you aren't using. It's not that hard, and everyone can do something.

One big challenge, maybe the biggest, we faced when we were designing and building the house was resistance and even ridicule from our friends and family, and the community at large. We caught SO MUCH flak from our nearest and dearest, trying to save us from ourselves as we pursued this goal. Of course, now that we've been doing it all this time, and they can see that it all fits together and works, they've quit giving us a hard time. Seeing how little we spend each month on energy and utilities, some have even come around and started making some changes in the ways they do things. Or at least considering the possibilities. But it was so discouraging, to me at least, to be trying to do the right thing for the right reason and be met with such consistent pessimism and resistance. I love Imaginary Illusion's signature line: “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”

It can be done. It must be done. Let's get it done! At the very least, let's stop giving the stink-eye to those who are doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-11-2009, 07:00 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

CFL bulbs are the biggest environmental scam of the new millenium.

They use less electricity per lumen but the toxic waste (Mercury) more than offsets any benefit they purport to offer. If people are too lazy to put their plastic in a recycle bin, how do you expect them to save their CFL's and properly dispose of them?

Even ordinary BATTERIES are nasty; we've been dumping them into landfills for DECADES, showing no signs of letting up on their usage.

I am so "guilty" of buying into this myself; fortunately, where I work, we have a waste stream dedicated to lightbulbs and batteries and I SAVE mine and dispose of them that way. But this is not a mainstream thing. Ya think that folks who are struggling just to keep food on the table are gonna give two shits about mercury in the groundwater? I KNOW that not to be the case. Most people are living paycheck-to-paycheck and have NO CLUE where babies come from or how to prevent them. In fact, the most LIKELY "global transformation" would be one similar to what happened when the dinosaurs died off (except Humans = Dinosaurs).

Having said all that, I'll be one of the first to ride the Captain's Mystery Ship if it ever sails up to my San Francisco Bay.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Fidelia Fidelia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Right here. Right now.
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
CFL bulbs are the biggest environmental scam of the new millenium.

They use less electricity per lumen but the toxic waste (Mercury) more than offsets any benefit they purport to offer. If people are too lazy to put their plastic in a recycle bin, how do you expect them to save their CFL's and properly dispose of them?

Even ordinary BATTERIES are nasty; we've been dumping them into landfills for DECADES, showing no signs of letting up on their usage.

I am so "guilty" of buying into this myself; fortunately, where I work, we have a waste stream dedicated to lightbulbs and batteries and I SAVE mine and dispose of them that way. But this is not a mainstream thing. Ya think that folks who are struggling just to keep food on the table are gonna give two shits about mercury in the groundwater? I KNOW that not to be the case. Most people are living paycheck-to-paycheck and have NO CLUE where babies come from or how to prevent them. In fact, the most LIKELY "global transformation" would be one similar to what happened when the dinosaurs died off (except Humans = Dinosaurs).

Having said all that, I'll be one of the first to ride the Captain's Mystery Ship if it ever sails up to my San Francisco Bay.
Thanks for the stink-eye, YGirl. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-11-2009, 08:02 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidelia View Post
Thanks for the stink-eye, YGirl. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
If there's one thing I'm good for, it's a bit of the ol' stink-eye.

I wish we had a "stink-eye" smiley!

But on topic, are you saying that Mercury in the groundwater and/or atmosphere is a GOOD thing? What exactly is your point?

MY point was that every "solution" has a downside, and we would be wise to recognize that BEFORE the solution becomes worse than the problem.


Getting all huffy because I pointed out A FLAW in part of the plan is more like giving ME the stink-eye, don't you think so? I didn't diss your cement house, low-flow plumbing or public transportation. So why are you so upset about me pointing out a fact about CFL bulbs? They DESERVE the stink-eye. You SHOULD be thanking me, for real, not sarcastically. But you're welcome anyway. Sincerely.

That is all.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 11-11-2009 at 08:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-11-2009, 08:33 PM
Fidelia Fidelia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Right here. Right now.
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
What exactly is your point?
My point, YGirl, is
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidelia View Post
We must, each one of us, take the steps we can take RIGHT NOW to reduce our negative ecological impacts. And support one another in the effort to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
Getting all huffy because I pointed out A FLAW in part of the plan is more like giving ME the stink-eye, don't you think so? I didn't diss your cement house, low-flow plumbing or public transportation. So why are you so upset about me pointing out a fact about CFL bulbs? They DESERVE the stink-eye. You SHOULD be thanking me, for real, not sarcastically. That is all.
I'm not huffy or upset, Ygirl. I do find it interesting that you assume I am.

As for CFL's, you may have information I haven't been exposed to yet. I'll look into that. But let's assume for discussion's sake that you're 100% correct and use of CFL's should be stopped. I have the same opinion for them, in that case, that I have of using corn for ethanol, or any other flawed attempts to move us toward sustainability. At least they demonstrate recognition that there is a problem, and willingness to move toward a solution. It would be wonderful if we could foresee every possible consequence before we embark on any given course of action. Occasionally we can, but many times we have to make the best judgement we can with the information we have available to us at the time. And be willing to adjust and correct as better information becomes available.

But the success or failure of any one aspect of the move toward sustainability does not negate the need for, or the urgency of, the movement as a whole.

Last edited by Fidelia; 11-11-2009 at 08:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-11-2009, 11:03 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidelia View Post
My point, YGirl, is


I'm not huffy or upset, Ygirl. I do find it interesting that you assume I am.

As for CFL's, you may have information I haven't been exposed to yet. I'll look into that. But let's assume for discussion's sake that you're 100% correct and use of CFL's should be stopped. I have the same opinion for them, in that case, that I have of using corn for ethanol, or any other flawed attempts to move us toward sustainability. At least they demonstrate recognition that there is a problem, and willingness to move toward a solution. It would be wonderful if we could foresee every possible consequence before we embark on any given course of action. Occasionally we can, but many times we have to make the best judgement we can with the information we have available to us at the time. And be willing to adjust and correct as better information becomes available.

But the success or failure of any one aspect of the move toward sustainability does not negate the need for, or the urgency of, the movement as a whole.
You sounded huffy the way you quoted my whole message and said I was giving you the "stink-eye".

Anyway, as far as taking steps "right now" is concerned. If you go back and re-read my post, I didn't say that we should STOP using them. I said that they should be DISPOSED OF IN THE APPROPRIATE WASTE STREAM, WHICH FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, THERE IS NO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. The way it is now, people are chucking them in the regular garbage, which does not equate to doing the best thing, even in the short term.

Now that you have been exposed to "new information" (which is not that new), will you stick your head in the sand, or will you USE the "new information" to make more intelligent choices and act more responsibly? Once you "look into it", let us all know.

Finally, I have never denied that there is a need for a "movement as a whole". This thread has evolved from a debate about "global transformation" to a debate about the need for environmental remediation, and I never had an argument with your position regarding that. I am, however, skeptical about the vast majority of people being willing to cooperate unless some sort of incentive and/or deterrent system is put in place by government and beaurocracy. Recently my city has done this by requiring trash to be confined to special containers issued by the city, and charging money for certain items to be picked up curbside (for example, it costs $60 to have a couch taken away - they sent out brochures that have prices listed menu-style what it costs for different things to be removed). I personally think this is GREAT, but there are those who moan about not being allowed to throw away as much as they please whenever they want. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I can also GUARANTEE that I am more of a recycling fanatic than EVERYONE on this forum PUT TOGETHER, so I'm not even going to GO there.

But I wish you wouldn't argue with me when I was actually AGREEING with you. That shit blows chunks.

ETA: you're going to find a lot of links that say the mercury content is not dangerous if the bulb is broken. They're talking about what if you break a bulb now and then in your own home. I'm talking about environmental hazards that are caused by a cumulative buildup resulting from the disposal of these bulbs in large quanities. These articles may not come to the surface readily in a google search.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 11-11-2009 at 11:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-12-2009, 06:34 AM
Quath Quath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 504
Default

I saw a good TED talk on how third world countries are currently matching industrial countries in lifespan and number of children. We still have a ways to go to get all countries on an equal footing, but in some ways we are doing better than we would think.

I do share some of Ygirl's concern on the solution of some of the problems. Sometimes we make things worse when we try to make them better. Like organic farming is an example of that. It uses a lot more land for the same food yield and it is no healthier than what was produced in the first place. It just makes food more expensive and it causes more land to be developed.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:07 AM
Fidelia Fidelia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Right here. Right now.
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
. . . I wish you wouldn't argue with me when I was actually AGREEING with you. That shit blows chunks.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-12-2009, 01:10 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quath View Post
I do share some of Ygirl's concern on the solution of some of the problems. Sometimes we make things worse when we try to make them better. Like organic farming is an example of that. It uses a lot more land for the same food yield and it is no healthier than what was produced in the first place. It just makes food more expensive and it causes more land to be developed.
Of course you do realize that "sustainable" farming is not synonymous with "organic" farming?

(This discussion will inevitably progress toward the topic of overpopulation so I might as well put that out there right now.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM.