Environment Vs Industry
Windelkron
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">:D</div> Which is more important? Environmental stability, or economic progress? Progress cannot come about without a loss in another field, so which one should take precedence? Are the claims of environmental groups sound, and are their complaints valid? How about corporations? Where should the government draw the line? Do you support oil drilling in Alaska? How about logging in South America?
Discuss! Jammer get in here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Discuss! Jammer get in here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
(Forgive spelling errors, I wrote this whole thing while reading the book <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->?The laws of aerodynamics don?t provide us with a way of defying the law of gravity. I?m sure you understand that. They simply provide us with a way of using the air as a support. A man sitting in an airplane is subject to the law of gravity in exactly the way we?re subject to it sitting here. Nevertheless the man sitting in the plane obviously enjoys a freedom we lack: the freedom of the air.?
?Yes.?
?The law we?re looking for is like the law of gravity: There is no escaping it, but there is a way of achieving the equivalent of flight?the equivalent of freedom of the air. In other words, it is possible to build a civilization that flies.?
I stared at him for a while, then I said, ?Okay.?
?You remember how the Takers went about trying to achieve powered flight. They didn?t begin with an understanding of the laws of aerodynamics. They didn?t begin with a theory based on research and carefully planned experimentation. They just built contraptions, pushed them off the sides of cliffs, and hoped for the best.?
?True.?
?All right. I want to follow one of those early trials in detail. Let?s suppose that this trial is being made in one of those wonderful pedal-driven contraptions with flapping wings, based on a mistaken understanding of avian flight.?
?Okay.?
?As the flight begins, all is well. Our would-be airman has been pushed off the edge of the cliff and is pedaling away, and the wings of his aircraft are flapping like crazy. He?s feeling wonderful, ecstatic. He?s experiencing the freedom of the air. What he doesn?t realize, however, is that this craft is aerodynamically incapable of flight. It simply isn?t in compliance with the laws that make flight possible?but he would laugh if you told him this. He?s never heard of such laws, knows nothing about them. He would point at those flapping wings and say, ?See? Just like a bird!? Nevertheless, whatever he thinks, he?s not in flight. He?s an unsupported object falling toward the center of the earth. He?s not in flight, he?s in free fall. Are you with me so far??
?Yes.?
?Fortunately?or, rather, unfortunately for our airman?he chose a very high cliff to launch his craft from. His disillusionment is a long way off in time and space. There he is in free fall, feeling wonderful and congratulating himself on his triumph. He?s like the man in the joke who jumps out of a ninetieth-floor window on a bet. As he passes the tenth floor, he says to himself, ?Well, so far so good!?
?There he is in free fall, experiencing the exhilaration of what he takes to be flight. From his great height he can see for miles around, and one thing he sees puzzles him: The floor of the valley is dotted with craft just like his?not crashed, simply abandoned. ?Why,? he wonders, ?aren?t these craft in the air instead of sitting on the ground? What sort of fools would abandon their aircraft when they could be enjoying the freedom of the air?? Ah well, the behavioral quirks of the less talented, earthbound mortals are none of his concern. However, looking down into the valley has brought something else to his attention. He doesn?t seem to be maintaining his altitude. In fact, the earth seems to be rising up toward him. Well, he?s not very worried about that. After all, his flight has been a complete success up to now, and there?s no reason why it shouldn?t go on being a success. He just has to pedal a little harder, that?s all.
?So far so good. He thinks with amusement of those who predicted that his flight would end in disaster, broken bones, and death. Here he is, he?s come all this way, and he hasn?t even gotten a bruise, much less a broken bone. But then he looks down again, and what he sees really disturbs him. The law of gravity is catching up to him at the rate of thirty-two feet per second per second?at an accelerating rate. The ground is now rushing up toward him in an alarming way. He?s disturbed but far from desperate. ?My craft has brought me <i>this</i> far in safety,? he tells himself. ?I just have to keep going.? And so he starts pedaling with all his might. Which does him no good at all, because his craft simply isn?t in accord with the laws of aerodynamics. Even if he had the power of a thousand men in his legs?the thousand, a million?that craft is not going to achieve flight. That craft is doomed?and so is he unless he abandons it.?
?Right. I see what you?re saying, but I don?t see the connection with what we?re talking about here.?
Ishmael nodded. ?Here is the connection. Ten thousand years ago, the people of your culture embarked on a similar flight:? a civilizational flight. Their craft wasn't designed according to any theory at all. Like our imaginary airman, they were totally unaware that there is a law that must be complied with in order to achieve civilizational flight. They didn't even wonder about it. They wanted the freedom of the air, and so they pushed off in the first contraption that came to hand: the Taker Thunderbolt.
?At first, all was well. In fact, all was terrific. The Takers were pedaling away and the wings of their craft were flapping beautifully. They felt wonderful, exhilarated. They were experiencing the freedom of the air: freedom from the restraints that bind and limit the rest of the biological community. And with that freedom came marvels?all the things you mentioned the other day: urbanization, technology, literacy, mathematics, science.
?Their flight could never end, it could only go on becoming more and more exciting. They couldn?t know, couldn?t even have guessed that, like our hapless airman, they were in the air but not in flight. They were in free fall, because their craft was simply not in compliance with the law that makes flight possible. But their disillusionment is far away in the future, and so they?re pedaling away and having a wonderful time. Like our airman, they see strange sights in the course of their fall. They see the remains of craft very like their own?not destroyed, merely abandoned?by the Maya, by the Hohokam, by the Anasazi, by the peoples of the Hopewill cult, to mention only a few of those found here in the New World. ?Why,? they wonder, ?are these craft on the ground instead of in the air? Why would any people prefer to be earthbound when they could have the freedom of the air, as we do?? It?s beyond comprehension, an unfathomable mystery.
?Ah well, the vagaries of such foolish people are nothing to the Takers. They?re pedaling away and having a wonderful time. They?re not going to abandon <i>their</i> craft. They?re going to enjoy the freedom of the air forever. But alas, a law is catching up to them. They don?t know such a law even exists, but this ignorance affords them no protection from its effects. This is a law as unforgiving as the law of gravity, and it?s catching up to them in exactly the same way the law of gravity caught up to our airman: <i>at an accelerating rate</i>.
?Some gloomy nineteenth-century thinkers, like Robert Wallace and Thomas Robert Malthus, look down. A thousand years before, even five hundred years before, they would probably have noticed nothing. But now what they see alarms them. It?s as though the ground is rushing up to meet them?as though they are going to crash. They do some figuring and say, ?If we go on this way, we?re going to be in big trouble in the not-too-distant future.? The other Takers shrug their predictions off. ?We?ve come all this enormous way, and haven?t even received so much as a scratch. It?s true the ground seems to be rising up to meet us, but that just means we?ll have to pedal a little harder. Not to worry.? Nevertheless, just as was predicted, famine soon becomes a routine condition of life in many parts of the Taker Thunderbolt?and the Takers have to pedal even harder and more efficiently than before. But oddly enough, the harder and more efficiently they pedal, the worse conditions become. Very strange. Peter Farb calls it a paradox: ?Intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.? ?Never mind,? the Takers said. ?We?ll just have to put some people pealing away on a reliable method of birth control. Then the Taker Thunderbolt will fly forever.?
?But such simple answers aren?t enough to reassure the people of your culture nowadays. Everyone is looking down, and it?s obvious that the ground is rushing up toward you?and rushing up faster every year. Basic ecological and planetary systems are being impacted by the Taker Thunderbolt, and that impact increases in intensity every year. Basic, irreplaceable resources are being devoured every year?and they?re being devoured more greedily every year. Whole species are disappearing as a result of yuour encroachment?and they?re disappearing in greater numbers every year. Pessimists?or it may be that they?re realists?look down and say, ?Well, the crash may be twenty years off or maybe as much as fifty years off. Actaully it could happen anytime. There?s no way to be sure.? But of course there are optimists as well, who say, ?We must have faith in our craft. After all, it has brought us <i>this</i> far in safety. What?s ahead isn?t doom, it?s just a little hump that we can clear if we all just pedal a little harder. Then we?ll soar into a glorious, endless future, and the Taker Thunderbolt will take us to the stars and we?ll conquer the universe itself.? But your craft isn?t going to save you. Quite the contrary, it?s your craft that?s carrying you toward catastrophe. Five billion of you pedaling away?or ten billion or twenty billion?can?t make it fly. It?s been in free fall from the beginning, and that fall is about to end.?
At last I had something of my own to add to this. ?The worst part of it is this,? I said, ?that the survivors, if there are any, will immediately set about doing it all over again, exactly the same way.?
?Yes, I?m afraid you?re right. Trial and error isn?t a bad way to learn how to build an aircraft, but it can be a disastrous way to learn how to build a civilization.?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have faith in mankind. Whatever we screw up on Earth, we'll invent the technology to fix it.
Unfortunately it's not mankind that makes the decisions, but whatever blundering idiot we elected into office. Alaska only has enough oil to last us at MOST 15-odd years. (I calculated this a little while ago, using the lowest barrels of oil use a day esimate I could find, and the highest estimate for the contents of alaska's fields).
We have more then enough technology to completely remove our dependence on the middle east. But Bush, being a rupublican, would rather make him and his buddies rich then to actually HELP our nation.
Did you know the Hydrogen Fuel Cells were invented almost 80+ years ago? Yeah...
Unfortunately it's not mankind that makes the decisions, but whatever blundering idiot we elected into office. Alaska only has enough oil to last us at MOST 15-odd years. (I calculated this a little while ago, using the lowest barrels of oil use a day esimate I could find, and the highest estimate for the contents of alaska's fields).
We have more then enough technology to completely remove our dependence on the middle east. But Bush, being a rupublican, would rather make him and his buddies rich then to actually HELP our nation.
Did you know the Hydrogen Fuel Cells were invented almost 80+ years ago? Yeah... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Just because he's a republican dosen't make him an idiot, theres alot of idiots anyway regardless of political platform. That is mind boggling though how we would rather smite the thirdworlders than spend those billions on cold fusion power reactors and hydrogen fuel cells. These are the only things I don't hate about corporations, they're at least smart enough to find research for these items that the government hasn't.
Unfortunately it's not mankind that makes the decisions, but whatever blundering idiot we elected into office. Alaska only has enough oil to last us at MOST 15-odd years. (I calculated this a little while ago, using the lowest barrels of oil use a day esimate I could find, and the highest estimate for the contents of alaska's fields).
We have more then enough technology to completely remove our dependence on the middle east. But Bush, being a rupublican, would rather make him and his buddies rich then to actually HELP our nation.
Did you know the Hydrogen Fuel Cells were invented almost 80+ years ago? Yeah... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Just because he's a republican dosen't make him an idiot, theres alot of idiots anyway regardless of political platform. That is mind boggling though how we would rather smite the thirdworlders than spend those billions on cold fusion power reactors and hydrogen fuel cells. These are the only things I don't hate about corporations, they're at least smart enough to find research for these items that the government hasn't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said it made him an idiot, I said his priorities are **** up.
Guess who got the contract to control Iraq's oil supply?
One of Cheney's companies... hmm....
economy is personal greed, everyone wants more, its human nature. environment is public health, we say we would like it but no one can individually put forth the resources to save it. humanity is doomed by its basic greed, so live as happy as you can because it wont be horrible till our children's lifetimes.
A very disheartening facet of capitalism in my opinion.
Alternate energy sources would serve us better in the power supply arena, which is where we burn much of our fuel. Sadly people are not keen on the only short run method to cut out burning coal, nuclear power. Everyone wants more and more energy, but no one wants it to be produced anywhere.
There really isn't a conspiracy to keep these technologies down. Conspiracy theories are ploys used by researchers who think they have more than they do in order to get grants. The military has been after an efficient fuel cell for a long time. And we don't have one yet. Haven't even come close.
The real thing that makes me laugh is the debate over electric cars. They save gasoline by using electricity! So what if we get that electricity by a less efficient burning of coal....... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
In the end, I think the environmental safeguards we have are adequate. There are blocks in place to the verifiable threats, and enough hand waving at the unverified ones to keep the greens semi-content. Now, we were at kind of a bad area with the whole river catching fire thing.... but that hardly happens anymore. Promise. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
the environment is a resource that must be saved, but no one individually will put forth their resources to do so. saving the environment must be done by the population as a whole, despite personal urges to abuse it. this is where an overarching government comes in. governmental regulations must strike the balance between proper industry and proper earth.
vote green!
Thankfully, there are people in this world that can separate the two. Teddy Roosevelt was a forward-thinker in this area. He loved the outdoors and purposefully set aside a tremendous amount of land for national parks and reserves, knowing that at some point in the future we would have destroyed them otherwise. Surprisingly, Bill Clinton set aside more land for reserves during his presidency than even Teddy. Bush of course is <a href='http://ramsey.dca.net/envirodisaster.htm' target='_blank'>undoing a lot of what Clinton did</a> and is purposefully trying to destroy even more in the name of capitalism. Specifically, capitalism that helps the businesses he's been a part of and continues to receive tremendous influence from. This is a horrific negative trend that cannot continue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>States, cities sue EPA over new air rule </b>
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John Heilprin
Oct. 27, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twelve states and several Northeast cities sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to try to block the Bush administration's changes to the Clean Air Act.
EPA's new rule makes it easier to upgrade utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities without installing additional pollution controls.
The rule, which was proposed last December and signed by EPA's administrator in August, was made final on Monday. It will take effect in two months, and states have up to three years to comply.
EPA said in a statement it does not believe this rule will result in significant changes in emissions and that it "preserves the public health protections" under law.
However, attorney generals for the 12 states -- New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, D.C., New Haven and several other cities in Connecticut said the new regulations will weaken protections for the environment and public health.
They argued only Congress can make sweeping changes to such a bedrock law.
"We are not going to sit by quietly and allow the energy interests in this country to receive special treatment while so many of our children and elderly are needlessly suffering from respiratory problems that are, in essence, brought on by bad environmental policy," Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly said.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A similar group of states also filed suit in that court to challenge a previous batch of the administration's related changes to the Clean Air Act.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying that I agree with him on all points; I still hope that there might be a way to sustain all the people which were born due to our flawed way of thinking, a civilization built on greed. But there is no doubt that our overconsumption of resources must end soon. Quinn cannot be taken lightly.
Did anyone by chance do a study on whether upgrading those old facilities would reduce the current pollution level even without added controls? Depending on their relative age and condition, it very well could work out that way. Those two utilities are key to feeding our power and gasoline consumption. Any hike would impact the consumer cost in both areas. The slack may be an incentive to those industries to upgrade in the first place.
I do agree that if we are wasteful in terms of resources it is going to bite us. Landfills are good candidates for a mass recycling program when we start to hit a waning point. But a lot of our consumption does indeed come from renewable resources, or resources that can be produced chemically should the need arise. The real hurdle in that respect is getting all the lazy slobs out there to recycle goods. I have to drive almost 20 miles to get to a collection point and I live very near a major city. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Even then, most recycled material is compacted into blocks and warehoused rather than used in manufacturing. More costly to use them in most cases.
/aside
A lot of the environmental nips at the current administration are backlash from the Kyoto treaty, and from the administrations rightful criticism of the data that simply does not even prove that anything is happening. But that has nothing to do with the original intent of this post as far as I can judge.
I'm not saying that I agree with him on all points; I still hope that there might be a way to sustain all the people which were born due to our flawed way of thinking, a civilization built on greed. But there is no doubt that our overconsumption of resources must end soon. Quinn cannot be taken lightly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo. Unfortunately I couldn't quite convey that entire point in one excerpt <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->