Terrorist awakened by Al Gore's book.

[Guest guest]

He's in there saying basically that humans need to be wiped out to save the bunnies and lions and such. Funny how these people never start with themselves, nor are they willing to live the stone age life, at least not for very long. The Unabomber did, but he was a rarity.

Quote:

Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening†when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.â€

iel Harrington, a former Discovery employee, told msnbc TV’s that he saw Lee outside the building during the 2008 protest.

“He was seen as something of a joke,†Harrington said. “I hate to say it, but at the time we kind of half-joked about it because he could come back shooting. Nobody took it very seriously.

“As soon as I heard†the news Wednesday, “I knew it’s got to be Lee,†he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[Guest guest]

The solution to the world's problems is for everyone to live within their means.

That means knowing what your earning capacity is and having a lifestyle and

family size that fits within that capacity, always keeping in mind the planning

necessary for retirement and declining health.

But this is too much for some people to contemplate, since they cannot see past

today, and since they cannot control their need to covet what they cannot have

and cannot afford to buy or maintain.

Administrator

He's in there saying basically that humans need to be wiped out to save the

bunnies and lions and such. Funny how these people never start with themselves,

nor are they willing to live the stone age life, at least not for very long. The

Unabomber did, but he was a rarity.

[Guest guest]

Re:

> The solution to the world's problems is for everyone to live within their

means.

Then you would not approve of people increasing their means (e.g., by

increasing the world's means)?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I said: The solution to the world's problems is for everyone to live within

their means.

You asked: Then you would not approve of people increasing their means (e.g., by

increasing the world's means)?

1) We live in a finite system until such time as we are able to mine resources

offworld and return them to earth for usage.

2) Our population is growing and expanding and replacing itself as the old die

off.

3) It would seem, therefore, that we will continue to consume resources as long

as humanity exists while the resources themselves are getting used up.

4) While we continue to develop new power sources (electricity, nuclear fission,

etc.) we have yet to develop anything that allow all of us to live comfortably

without polluting our world and wrecking our environment.

5) The solution I have proposed is one not just for now, but for future

generations.

The alternative seems to be what we have seen in the past: Wars, as dictators

drive their people to conquer other nations and plunder their wealth and

resources, or mass genocides, so that the wealth of existing peoples can be

consolidated within their borders. Or else just keep on consuming without regard

for other people, without regard for future generations, or without regard for

the environment we live in.

What good is it to live, if we find ourselves living in a cesspool?

Given human history, we cannot safely trust that there will be no more dictators

or murderous governments. We cannot trust that people will not commit genocide.

We cannot trust that most people will live within their means for the sake of

others.

So all seems hopeless. But those of us who wish to see a good outcome for others

can buy time for them by living conservatively.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Re:

> 1) We live in a finite system until such time as we are able to mine resources

offworld and return them to earth for usage.

Well, we should be doing that. Otherwise, sooner or later we'll face

the same problems as a family that never leaves the house, not even to

obtain essentials such as food -- but instead focuses its efforts on

equally sharing the ever-more-limited (and never-replenished)

supplies.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Many materials are running out very rapidly. I recently read about a mineral called Indium, which is up near platinum. It is used in things like flat screen TVs. At current usage, the total world supply is about 18 years. Other minerals, even common ones, are also running short in part because of increased demand world wide.

This is one reason why I think recycling of metal and tech gear should be done. We can grow more trees for paper and plastics can be recycled or made into fuel, but we can't grow more metal. Sadly, tech recycling centers are few and far between. I think the nearest one to here is some 40 miles away. So, I keep most of the old tech stuff rather than throw it away so that if I even do head up that way I can recycle it or if a center opens closer by I can take it there. Maybe part of the new stimulus bill would be to get laborers to dig into old landfills and pull out the metal and such for recycling. It will come to that one day I'm sure.

Well, we should be doing that. Otherwise, sooner or later we'll facethe same problems as a family that never leaves the house, not even toobtain essentials such as food -- but instead focuses its efforts onequally sharing the ever-more-limited (and never-replenished)supplies.Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I try to live in my means. I don't really buy a lot of stuff aside from food and books, preferring to use electronics until they break or completely wear out and have to be replaced.

Now, I really think that humanity has to get over this focusing on needs and emergencies of the moment and think further ahead. By that I mean we should:

1: Find alternative energy sources. For now that means latest generation fission plants that are safer and more effective than the older ones and we need to find some place to put the waste. This doesn't have to be a 10,000 year safe zone, but more like 100 years because disposal technology is steadily advancing. Even in another 20 years most of the waste could be processed away and the rest more safely stored. Fusion research should be increased, including a huge bounty for whoever develops sustainable fusion. Solar and wind are cute, but only partial solutions. Mega-scale plants should be abandoned though going instead with putting solar panels on flat roofs of businesses and the like. Small residential units could also be used where practical, starting in rural areas so as to lessen the need for power to travel on long transmission lines and the attendant loss of power.

2. Increase recycling of metal and tech goods.

3. Find effective replacements for oil based vehicle fuels. Garbage to oil is one, but so could growing hemp for ethanol, that is if that proves to be efficient.

4. Ramping up the space programs and study of asteroids. At the same time unmanned mining robots and methods could be designed in computer and field tests. Lots of people whine about the tiny amount of money we spend now on space preferring to spend it on immediate need social programs and such. Well, that money isn't going to help solve the long-range problems though. We are going to have to go into space eventually if mainly unmanned to mine asteroids for minerals we need.

5. We should also look into mining deep under the ocean for minerals until the space program matures. Certainly there would be resistance to this as well, but we will need a new mineral supply even if recycling is commonplace.

There are so many things that could be done but most people are so short-sighted, especially our leaders.

In a message dated 9/3/2010 12:01:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Given human history, we cannot safely trust that there will be no more dictators or murderous governments. We cannot trust that people will not commit genocide. We cannot trust that most people will live within their means for the sake of others. So all seems hopeless. But those of us who wish to see a good outcome for others can buy time for them by living conservatively.Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Maybe part of the new stimulus bill would be to get laborers to dig into old

landfills and pull out the metal and such for recycling. It will come to that

one day I'm sure. "

I don't know why they don't mine landfills right now. Most metal that could be

recovered could simply be melted down. You'd have to sift through far less

material to get what you were mining than if you had to dig it/blast it out of

the earth.

Administrator