Comments on: The World Pulled Over Your Eyes http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:34:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: perianwyr http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-6054 perianwyr Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:31:15 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-6054 More fans than you know. More fans than you know.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-579 Jason Godesky Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:17:18 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-579 Hiya Dan, welcome aboard! ... we have <em>fans</em>? AWESOME!!! Hiya Dan, welcome aboard!

… we have fans? AWESOME!!!

]]> By: Dan Walker http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-540 Dan Walker Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:20:37 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-540 By the way. This is my first post. Im a huge fan of this forum and the thought provking comments. By the way. This is my first post. Im a huge fan of this forum and the thought provking comments.

]]> By: Dan Walker http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-539 Dan Walker Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:09:16 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-539 While flipping through the channels saturday afternoon I decided to settle on that old classic, the Weather Channel. What a great concept! Well 25 minutes later I was still waiting to find out what the weather would do. What I did learn provides another great example of our general refusal to accept that our resources are finite and that we seem drawn, in some explanation similar to the Baldwin Effect, to consume resources and thrive. The show featured some form of tree beatle that ravaged the entire southern peninsula of Alaska that had been covered in a certain species of tree that doubled as an excellent source of food for the little beatle. The residents described the events with horror. Funny thing is...the beatle population was effectivley limited after their food source died through over consumption until the point of resource exhaustion. What had brought about the change in the first place was a shift in climate in the region that allowed the beatles to move from tree to tree without freezing to death. Basically an extension of their ability to move around in their environment due to global warming or another possible explanation. Are humans any different? Apparently not. What if we can't see past the technological abilities that we have developed? What if we are unit actors defined by our resource dependency? We are living in a world with a finite amount of reources. We also seem to be able to construct explanations for just about anything we observe. (eg. magic, act of god, creationism, etc.) Why can't we see the initial increase and subsequent large amount of death in the little beatle population in Alaska or the potentially acccurate description of resource depletion and population decrease in places like Easter Island. While Dennis Miller is no expert his comments do offer evidence of are refusal to change our current paradigm of reality. The little beatle benefited from miniscule tempature changes. This sparked big changes in a region of our world. We should all recognize that the premise of earth day is great. But, just like Malthus, the messenger who hands out a cold harsh message about our resource usage will be called a enemy of humantiy. If beatles eat trees until they are consumed to extinction what makes us think we won't consume our seaweed or whatever other resources we have at our disposal to exhaustion. While flipping through the channels saturday afternoon I decided to settle on that old classic, the Weather Channel. What a great concept! Well 25 minutes later I was still waiting to find out what the weather would do. What I did learn provides another great example of our general refusal to accept that our resources are finite and that we seem drawn, in some explanation similar to the Baldwin Effect, to consume resources and thrive. The show featured some form of tree beatle that ravaged the entire southern peninsula of Alaska that had been covered in a certain species of tree that doubled as an excellent source of food for the little beatle. The residents described the events with horror. Funny thing is…the beatle population was effectivley limited after their food source died through over consumption until the point of resource exhaustion. What had brought about the change in the first place was a shift in climate in the region that allowed the beatles to move from tree to tree without freezing to death. Basically an extension of their ability to move around in their environment due to global warming or another possible explanation.
Are humans any different? Apparently not. What if we can’t see past the technological abilities that we have developed? What if we are unit actors defined by our resource dependency? We are living in a world with a finite amount of reources. We also seem to be able to construct explanations for just about anything we observe. (eg. magic, act of god, creationism, etc.) Why can’t we see the initial increase and subsequent large amount of death in the little beatle population in Alaska or the potentially acccurate description of resource depletion and population decrease in places like Easter Island. While Dennis Miller is no expert his comments do offer evidence of are refusal to change our current paradigm of reality. The little beatle benefited from miniscule tempature changes. This sparked big changes in a region of our world. We should all recognize that the premise of earth day is great. But, just like Malthus, the messenger who hands out a cold harsh message about our resource usage will be called a enemy of humantiy. If beatles eat trees until they are consumed to extinction what makes us think we won’t consume our seaweed or whatever other resources we have at our disposal to exhaustion.

]]> By: Jon S. http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-528 Jon S. Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:27:56 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-528 Earth day is better than nothing. You could almost argue its existance is inevitable, given the extent to which we effectively ignore the environment the other days of the year. Like any stupid secular holiday. I am not an environmentalist as such, and frankly I have the strong feeling that environmental movements have had tactical successes but few strategic ones. Environmentalists are actors in a tragedy. Significant damage will be done to our world as industry sucks the last crumbs of energy out of the coasts and the mountains - a preface to collapse. THe orgy of damage will increase towards the end, as desperation replaces democracy. Then, something interesting will happen: The amount of energy available to destroy our planet will rapidly decline. Hopefully, this saves our bacon from runaway global warming. Earth day is better than nothing. You could almost argue its existance is inevitable, given the extent to which we effectively ignore the environment the other days of the year. Like any stupid secular holiday.

I am not an environmentalist as such, and frankly I have the strong feeling that environmental movements have had tactical successes but few strategic ones.

Environmentalists are actors in a tragedy.

Significant damage will be done to our world as industry sucks the last crumbs of energy out of the coasts and the mountains - a preface to collapse.

THe orgy of damage will increase towards the end, as desperation replaces democracy.

Then, something interesting will happen: The amount of energy available to destroy our planet will rapidly decline.

Hopefully, this saves our bacon from runaway global warming.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-524 Jason Godesky Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:16:08 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/earth-day/#comment-524 I show most of my articles to Giuli before I post them; for this one, she thought I should point out that these effects are unintentional, and contrary to the intent of Earth Day. I retorted that if there is a common theme uniting everything on this site, it's probably unintended consequences. It also occurs to me that, all the times I have pointed out unintended consequences of our ideological opponents, no such disclaimer is needed. Yet here, it's "our own" undermining our shared priorities--unwittingly, naturally, but all the more effectively for that. Intent is generally not a concern of mine; the effects are the effects, regardless of what we intended. Those affects are what we need to understand; whether they're the opposite of the original intent or not won't change that. I show most of my articles to Giuli before I post them; for this one, she thought I should point out that these effects are unintentional, and contrary to the intent of Earth Day. I retorted that if there is a common theme uniting everything on this site, it’s probably unintended consequences.

It also occurs to me that, all the times I have pointed out unintended consequences of our ideological opponents, no such disclaimer is needed. Yet here, it’s “our own” undermining our shared priorities–unwittingly, naturally, but all the more effectively for that.

Intent is generally not a concern of mine; the effects are the effects, regardless of what we intended. Those affects are what we need to understand; whether they’re the opposite of the original intent or not won’t change that.

]]>