6 Jan
2010
6 Jan
'10
8:48 p.m.
dear #lad'ies,
just wanted to say sorry for becoming infected by the (IMO) rogue like behaviour of some
person(s) on IRC. hope you don't mind. i think there is nothing wrong with wanting
to live in an intact world. and i don't think that i am crazy (or sociopathic)
because i have hope that we are in fact living in an intact world right now. if I accept
that the world isn't perfect and that "they" *lie* when they say that we are
killing the *oh so sensitive* ecosystem BY JUST LIVING OUR LIVES, then I can say that this
world is indeed intact and there is no polar bear or planet to worry about! - you see, in
the end, all I want is my peace of mind and not being fooled by some *possibly* outdated,
interest powered science which just makes me feel ashamed of what we, mankind, have
managed!
how do you manage to live your life knowing that you are killing the ecosystem? how can
you take all that bullshit without becoming cynical?
down to -20°C tonight in germany - thats reeaaaally hot!
3:51 a.m.
Le 7 janv. 2010 à 01:48, Jane a écrit :
dear #lad'ies,
just wanted to say sorry for becoming infected by the (IMO) rogue like behaviour of some
person(s) on IRC. hope you don't mind. i think there is nothing wrong with wanting
to live in an intact world. and i don't think that i am crazy (or sociopathic)
because i have hope that we are in fact living in an intact world right now. if I accept
that the world isn't perfect and that "they" *lie* when they say that we are
killing the *oh so sensitive* ecosystem BY JUST LIVING OUR LIVES, then I can say that this
world is indeed intact and there is no polar bear or planet to worry about! - you see, in
the end, all I want is my peace of mind and not being fooled by some *possibly* outdated,
interest powered science which just makes me feel ashamed of what we, mankind, have
managed!
how do you manage to live your life knowing that you are killing the ecosystem? how can
you take all that bullshit without becoming cynical?
down to -20°C tonight in germany - thats reeaaaally hot!
1) If science educated people cannot distinguish between day to day weather and long term
climate trends, then we are in trouble...
2) If science educated people trust this stupid climate hacked email hoax, then we are are
in trouble... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=youtube_gdata)
3) Climate story is probably not the more important short term threat (although on long
term it may be the one...), I would say "peak oil" is *the* short term threat
but very few people understand that correctly.
4) There is always *something* to do, to not make the situation worse. I personally
consider this as a "moral" choice.
Stéphane
4:20 a.m.
Well said, especially this one.
On 7 Jan 2010, at 07:51, Stéphane Letz wrote:
3) Climate story is probably not the more important
short term
threat (although on long term it may be the one...), I would say
"peak oil" is *the* short term threat but very few people understand
that correctly.
10:52 a.m.
torsdag 07 januari 2010 09:20:21 skrev Victor Lazzarini:
Well said, especially this one.
Not that well though. Have a look into the scientific debates regarding the
generation of oil from other sources than fossils of animals and plants. In
Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, August 2009 [1]
On 7 Jan 2010, at 07:51, Stéphane Letz wrote:
> 3) Climate story is probably not the more important short term
> threat (although on long term it may be the one...), I would say
> "peak oil" is *the* short term threat but very few people understand
> that correctly.
[1] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo591.html
/bengan
5:11 a.m.
What is typically forgotten or somehow ignored in public discussion are:
1) Impact of methane due to rice/livestock etc. production, methane is
much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
2) Impact of earth overpopulation, just take a look at world's
population growth trends over past couple of hundred years.
3) Impact of sun's activity cycles...
Limiting birthrate/reproduction to maximum of one per couple would
naturally fix most of the problems in long term.
Of course the current trend is just to collect more taxes and money in
sake of climate, but this doesn't have anything to do with the real
problem and doesn't fix it.
Collecting money for "good purpose" is always fashionable.
6:56 a.m.
Yes peak oil is the real short term problem. that may make global warming
worse!! as people try to keep living as they want, they will just burn Coal
and such. This could accelerate global warming, so really the two are tied.
Bob
2010/1/7 Stéphane Letz <letz(a)grame.fr>
Le 7 janv. 2010 à 01:48, Jane a écrit :
dear #lad'ies,
just wanted to say sorry for becoming infected by the (IMO) rogue like
behaviour
of some person(s) on IRC. hope you don't mind. i think there is
nothing wrong with wanting to live in an intact world. and i don't think
that i am crazy (or sociopathic) because i have hope that we are in fact
living in an intact world right now. if I accept that the world isn't
perfect and that "they" *lie* when they say that we are killing the *oh so
sensitive* ecosystem BY JUST LIVING OUR LIVES, then I can say that this
world is indeed intact and there is no polar bear or planet to worry about!
- you see, in the end, all I want is my peace of mind and not being fooled
by some *possibly* outdated, interest powered science which just makes me
feel ashamed of what we, mankind, have managed!
how do you manage to live your life knowing that you are killing the
ecosystem?
how can you take all that bullshit without becoming cynical?
down to -20°C tonight in germany - thats reeaaaally hot!
1) If science educated people cannot distinguish between day to day weather
and long term climate trends, then we are in trouble...
2) If science educated people trust this stupid climate hacked email hoax,
then we are are in trouble... (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=youtube_gdata)
3) Climate story is probably not the more important short term threat
(although on long term it may be the one...), I would say "peak oil" is
*the* short term threat but very few people understand that correctly.
4) There is always *something* to do, to not make the situation worse. I
personally consider this as a "moral" choice.
Stéphane
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
1:53 p.m.
On Jan 7, 2010, at 08:51, Stéphane Letz wrote:
1) If science educated people cannot distinguish
between day to day weather and long term climate trends, then we are in trouble...
my point was (not pointed out clearly) that we may be better off with just using our
senses than believing some *hypothesis* about greenhouse effects in the atmosphere.
2) If science educated people trust this stupid climate hacked email hoax, then we are
are in trouble... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=youtube_gdata)
hmm, those hacked emails is something i personally never payed much attention.
3) Climate story is probably not the more important short term threat (although on long
term it may be the one...), I would say "peak oil" is *the* short term threat
but very few people understand that correctly.
i have no idea of peak oil or petroleum in general, where it comes from and how much is
currently left...it seems like nobody really does for sure.
4) There is always *something* to do, to not make the situation worse. I personally
consider this as a "moral" choice.
why do you think that we make things worse in the first place? sorry but i'm so tired
of it. because they told ya and you believe them? why do you believe them?
HAL in 2001 was programed to control the crew. he verified its own status as being the one
under control by lying to the crew. when the crew started to develop their own view HAL
went mad to save the mission.
don't you see that there is some method in what they tell us? their mission is to make
money and they don't care about what comes after them. don't let them succeed/kill
in the name of saving the planet or wahtever.
btw, who is really accountable for eventually polluting our ecosystem? not us
"normal" people! its their industry. and they have the money to switch
industries as they wish, to make even more money (like from oil to nuclear fusion
"green tech"). the switch does not make powerful persons poor and poor people
rich. on a global scale it adds power to the richest countries (think taxes for air
pollution).
power and money - that is my belief, is their mission. saving the planet is just a story
inside a story. like the whole extra-terrestrial story in 2001.
ye, ths is not something i read up on some website or trash science book or something.
this is my own, regained brain! websites gave me ideas sure. and kubrick... me loves you!
:o
Jan
Stéphane
2:41 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 18:53 +0100, Jane wrote:
btw, who is really accountable for eventually
polluting our ecosystem? not us "normal" people! its their industry. and they
have the money to switch industries as they wish, to make even more money (like from oil
to nuclear fusion "green tech"). the switch does not make powerful persons poor
and poor people rich. on a global scale it adds power to the richest countries (think
taxes for air pollution).
power and money - that is my belief, is their mission. saving the planet is just a story
inside a story. like the whole extra-terrestrial story in 2001.
Of course the rich and powerful get high on the power and get excited
about making money but if we refuse to do what is good for the planet
and therefore what is good for our children and grandchildren because we
suspect the motives of those with the power to make a difference we are
throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Much of the western world is capitalist to one degree or another and it
works because those with the money and motivation to make more money can
do so by providing things the rest of us either need or enjoy and we are
therefore prepared to pay for.
The big challenge for green initiatives is how to frame them in such a
away that the rich and powerful can get richer from them than from
things that are less green; that way the green choice will be taken by
those with the power to make a big difference. In turn, the way we as
individuals do that is to buy greener products and services and avoid
those that are less green so the greener ones become more profitable.
Steve.
3:53 p.m.
On Jan 7, 2010, at 19:41, Steve Fosdick wrote:
Of course the rich and powerful get high on the power
and get excited
about making money but if we refuse to do what is good for the planet
and therefore what is good for our children and grandchildren because we
suspect the motives of those with the power to make a difference we are
throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Much of the western world is capitalist to one degree or another and it
works because those with the money and motivation to make more money can
do so by providing things the rest of us either need or enjoy and we are
therefore prepared to pay for.
The big challenge for green initiatives is how to frame them in such a
away that the rich and powerful can get richer from them than from
things that are less green; that way the green choice will be taken by
those with the power to make a big difference. In turn, the way we as
individuals do that is to buy greener products and services and avoid
those that are less green so the greener ones become more profitable.
Steve.
you got a point there: assuming that the ecosystem is in danger (not knowing) is still
better than ignoring the possibility and *oops* kill all mankind in the process.
the problem that i see persists though: when the believers, fools and fundamentalists
support a war against air-polluting countries in the name of saving the planet they
actually supported death and not life. if you think that this is just some crazy
imagination of mine: remember 9/11. many americans realizing it's real suppose now,
when it's too late (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry0U7cbPXys). let's not let
something like that happen again.
if i have the choice, i'll go green. but it's not something i believe in and it is
not something to fight for.
Jan
6:07 a.m.
and i don't think that i am crazy (or sociopathic)
because i
have hope that we are in fact living in an intact world right now.
if I accept that the world isn't perfect and that "they" *lie* when
they say that we are killing the *oh so sensitive* ecosystem BY JUST
LIVING OUR LIVES,
with cell phones, for example. In Africa there are *wars* for
tantalium mines (uh, don't expect to see it on the news), which is
needed for small capacitors used in cell phones.
going to the toilet, for example. Every time you flush the toilet you
waste 5 liters of water (there are dry toilets, you know) while
increasingly many are dying of thirst (not hunger, thirst).
These are just two examples off the top of my head. It's just to point
out that it's such a complex topic (how our lives DO influence [heavily]
our ecosystem) that it's just plain silly to make fun of the whole thing
like you're doing.
As was pointed out, petrol shortage *is* the most important problem
right now, and the only aspect discussed of this is when will it end,
5,10,30 years? What does it matter? The fact is it will end, and it
will have immense consequences. Petrol is in our lives in such a degree
that most of us can't comprehend.
And petrol shortage is not a separate problem from climate. What other
deep-impact way of exploiting nature's resources (and exploiting us)
will multinationals find? They can make little money out of sun wind and
tides, you know. Certainly they have a [detailed] agenda.
BTW if you are ready to accept the horrible state of things, there are
many many things you can do. At best you'll be cynic and do nothing of
it, allright, OTOH I accept this and try to change something - in my
life first.
Renato
2:27 p.m.
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:10, Renato wrote:
with cell phones, for example. In Africa there are
*wars* for
tantalium mines (uh, don't expect to see it on the news), which is
needed for small capacitors used in cell phones.
going to the toilet, for example. Every time you flush the toilet you
waste 5 liters of water (there are dry toilets, you know) while
increasingly many are dying of thirst (not hunger, thirst).
These are just two examples off the top of my head. It's just to point
out that it's such a complex topic (how our lives DO influence [heavily]
our ecosystem) that it's just plain silly to make fun of the whole thing
like you're doing.
you realize that water, once used, can be reused? the water is never lost. and yeah, sadly
there are wars out there. AFAIK those are mostly run by selfish people that wanna make
profit in their little life and thats all.
but how does that proof any long term influence on the ecosystem (something that, if true,
should *really* concern us all - i dont care about wars as long as i dont have to
participate, i accept those as part of the world of today)? you have been told that only
one small change can destory everything because its all connected. sure, it is all
connected, obviously, but that doesn't mean that it can easily be brought to collapse
by changing a couple of things!
if anything we should know by now that the world is more complex than we might have
thought, and that we cannot conclude such things. for example, i could tell you that this
system is so big and we are so small that its plain arrogant to believe that we could have
any impact on it! my brain tells me that this is also a volid scenario.
Jan
7:04 a.m.
Hi all,
I am pleased to see that the state of Linux audio is kind of finished to
perfection.
At least it has to be, since the developers have time to talk about the
(admittedly global) weather.
One thing I missed so far in this very off-topic thread was science (despite
its title). But that is a problem with the topic itself...
I am all for low consumption electronics and switching your gear off when you
don't need it. But if you really want to discuss these things, please join an
appropriate mailing-list or forum. This list is about development of linux
audio, not about the weather and what politicians make of it.
Have fun,
Arnold
5493
days inactive
5494
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Arnold Krille -
Bengt Gördén -
Frank Smith -
Jane -
Jens M Andreasen -
Jussi Laako -
Renato -
Steve Fosdick -
Stéphane Letz -
Victor Lazzarini