 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
    |
| Past Guest: Bruce Sterling, The Future of the Outdoors | |
Post new message in this thread
Date:
August 08, 1999 04:15 PM
Author: Mark Leger
(markl@gorp.com)
Subject: Introduction
Bruce Sterling, techno-guru and futurist, was GORP's guest from August 9 to 29, discussing global warming and the future of the outdoors.
You don't need to be a futurist to figure out that when the planet heats up, your favorite outdoor places might be an early casualty. What will it be like for us, outdoors, in a decade or two? How will technology and planetary change affect travel and outdoor recreation? Will planetary and technological changes open up new realms of exploration and activities?
Bruce Sterling is one of the founders of cyberpunk, the 1980's science fiction movement that put virtual reality and cyberspace on the map. He's at it again with Viridianism, a design movement that's intent on doing "green" with glamor. Bye-bye crunch. Read Viridianism's kick-off manifesto, and look over the lively discussion that took place on GORP.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24509)
Date:
August 09, 1999 09:15 AM
Author: John Buckley
(Buckaroo@concentric.net)
Subject: Malthus and the Ehrlichs
Malthus predicted a population debacle. The Ehrlichs forecast a meltdown if we failed to limit our growth. One 19th century pundit asserted that New York City would be buried in horse manure in the coming decades. We did not face these potential problems any more head on than today’s concerns, yet disaster never struck. Solutions evolved. What’s different today that requires a frontal attack?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24519)
Date:
August 10, 1999 02:42 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: frontal attack on Greenhouse effect
What do you mean by 'frontal attack?" Personally, I would take "frontal attack" to be something like the bombing attack on Serbia, which took out practically everything in the country that could burn fuel or transport electricity. After a couple of weeks, Serbia was the "greenest" country on earth.
It's an interesting precedent, too: undeclared, low-casualty wars against people's centralized power plants. The technique see to work and shows a lot of promise for the future.
One would think that big, carbon-gobbling countries would be especially vulnerable to this kind of frontal energy-infrastructure attack. After all, a cruise missile is just a rich guy's truck bomb.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24594)
Date:
August 09, 1999 05:11 PM
Author: Viridiana O'Toole
Subject: Greywater Kayaking
So, Mr. Sterling. With the right kind of gear, maybe some kind of air-filter and personal fan or two, hiking at 50 degrees C should be quite doable, but there might not be much to admire on the trail. Do you think that global warming can be avoided? Or should we just figure we'd better learn to live with it? If the latter, what kind of outdoor sports do you think the next couple of decades will bring? Will people just move their tents higher up the mountain (if they can climb up there through the smog)? Or will we see some creative play, like mudslide rafting and storm surfing?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24550)
Date:
August 09, 1999 07:59 PM
Author: jennifer
(jwild250)
Subject: nature
I honestly do not think nature died. I do not think we could kill it.
Have you ever seen an obandon lot? the plant life is the first thing that moves in. The grass grows high, then a few trees seek in and the animals small animals return.
We have not killed nature. Pushed it to it limits maybe. Reconfigured it to fit our need definately.
And why is not dead ? because something alway survives. That thing may one day come back and distory us and then nature will be free to regain what we have taken. that will no doubt take a while. And 50 million years from now we will be living on the plant of the apes.
Nature is not dead. it is just waiting for a good moment to come back and bit us on our behind.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24555)
Date:
August 10, 1999 10:28 AM
Author: Mike Tarone
(Mtarone@niscom.com)
Subject: What can individuals do?
Like most outdoor people, I'm concerned for the Environment. What I'm concerned about is-what can I do to improve the Environment? On the small scale-when I camp-I pick up litter that is already there; I pack out what I pack in; I only use established fire rings for camp fires or I have no fire at all; I buy recycled products and buy in bulk whenever possible; I walk more and ride less. Still, that seems like so little. So, I'm curious on the large scale. What organizations are best to get involved with that are actually doing something-like lobbying Congress for more Environmentally sound policies. I've read about Green Peace and other organizations, but which ones don't spend most of their contributions on salaries and actually do something?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24581)
Date:
August 10, 1999 02:48 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: what the individual can do
Well, first of all, I don't believe in giving up stuff, unless you're giving up stuff that you never wanted to do in the first place. I think you should make it you business to spend lots of money on fancy, extravagant Green stuff. We need abundances of clean goods and clean energy, not attention-gobbling, bean-counting efforts to get as close as possible to the highly conservative lifestyle of a dead person.
If it's around, I would strongly advise buying gtreen electricity from some outfit like greenmountain.com. There is no way that giving a hundred bucks to Greenpeace makes any sense when you are giving two or three hundred bucks a month to guys who burn oil and coal to power your home and your business.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24595)
Date:
August 13, 1999 10:56 AM
Author: Mike Tarone
(Mtarone@niscom.com)
Subject: I don't understand where you're coming from???
Bruce-Don't you believe in "Think Globally-Act Locally"?? I realize that my efforts to recycle, pick up other's trash, buy in bulk and drive less are small things. But are you suggesting that I'm "bean counting" and my efforts are irrelevant? If we want to rationalize-should we just continue to waste everything with no concern for individual conservation and buy energy from a "green" supplier and everthing else is OK? I think not. So far Mr. K has a good approach, you may want to read his posts. You won't win any supporters by being sarcastic. Lighten up
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24725)
Date:
August 13, 1999 01:00 PM
Author: DJ Trash
(djtrash@yahoo.com)
Subject: A finer point
Mike - I think you should check out Bruce's Viridian Manifesto before you jump to conclusions. I think the crux of Bruce's point is when he says he doesn't believe in giving up stuff he wouldn't have given up in the first place. What he's getting at, imho, is that the effort to create a greener society won't succeed if you base your strategy for achieving that goal on everyone in that society practicing enlightened self-denial. To me, that seems like that's what a lot of environmental activists these days are still trying to promote, and it just doesn't seem very creative or effective.
The fact that there are to this day countless politicians, heads of industry, and other people in positions of power who insist on calling global warming a "theory" and shirking any notion that they might be culpable in the wholesale destruction of the planet shows that there are some people, and very powerful people, who will never get it. Maybe you have more faith in the American political system than I do, but I have my doubts that we'll be able to vote the bums out and pass much stricter environmental legislation before it's too late. The Viridian point as I see it is that every intelligent, aware person has an obligation to aid in the effort to seduce these otherwise intractable power brokers through the glamorous commodification of the green lifestyle. Build an SUV that's bigger, cooler, and much, much greener than ones on the road right now, and rich, greedy people who feed off the power trip that accompanies such a status symbol will buy it. The byproduct will be less air pollution.
I don't think Bruce is saying "don't bother recycling" or "don't pick up trash if you don't feel like it." Those things are easy and beneficial. But I think even the increase in recycling on a personal and municipal level over the past fifteen years reflects Bruce's point about the mechanisms by which cultural change occurs. These days, as far as I can tell, it's gauche not to recycle; businesses or individuals that don't recycle look a little crass and stupid. It's not the desire for a cleaner planet that motivates most businesses to recycle, however. It costs more and takes more time. It is, rather, that it's "uncool" not to recycle, and who wants to do business with a company that "doesn't get it." The problem with the "bean counting" side of personal environmental responsibility is that, taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have to spend every minute of the day tracking every action and purchase according to its environmental impact, while someone else is driving his Lincoln Navigator through an endangered wetland while throwing polystyrene fast food containers out the window. Why not let the environmentally conscientious smart person free up some head space by asking them to spend less time thinking about, and less time feeling guilty about, what kind of toilet paper to buy ("omigod, I'm a bad person if this doesn't come from 100% post-consumer recycled paper") and more time coming up with creative solutions to complex design problems like how do we build a better, greener car and, as importantly, how do we sell it to people?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24727)
Date:
August 16, 1999 03:47 PM
Author: Mike Tarone
(mtarone@niscom.com)
Subject: Some great points DJ.
It's true that the world's industrial base has to change it's ways every bit as much as we have to replace the combustion engine for transportation. I have NO FAITH in the government effectively executing change. I think we do have to conserve too because, frankly, the planet cannot support this many people at the levels of consumption we gorge ourselves on. There's only so many resources and TOO MANY people. Recently, my power company conducted an extensive survey concerning rates, levels of service, and environmental policies. We now have a choice as to whom we buy electricity from. I made it clear in no uncertain terms that I would not buy power from an electric company that continues to use fossil fuels as their means of generating power. I also stated that I was willing to pay more for Solar or Wind generated power. I want clean (Green) power and I'm will to pay for it. I certainly appreciate your insights into what Bruce is preaching. Thanks for your kind words.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24820)
Date:
August 13, 1999 01:54 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Well Mike, I don't think I *need* any supporters who can't handle sarcasm. My approach to the problem is conspicuously low on pious, well-meaning self-righteousness; I'm into elitism, avant-gardism and loud bursts of ridicule.
The problem with enlightened self-denial is that it creates a culture that's no damn fun. It's also an attention-hog of the first order. I don't want to spend a lot of my highly valuable time and attention meticulously tracking and tagging the trash of careless capitalists. That's like a co-dependency relationship; they never change, I never change, the situation never changes and I've appointed myself the enabler of their bad behavior. That's the last forty years of environmental activism in a nutshell.
I want to spend lots of money. I want to own many attractive goods made by companies that don't make trash. I don't like voluntary simplicity; that's not my flavor of Green. I like voluntary *complexity,* I want my environment to saturated with well-designed cybernetic smarts that help me manage and defeat environmental problems. I'm not in the market for hand-made butter churns and Amish-plain shirts without buttons.
And I'm not asking everybody to be with the Viridian approach. Because I don't need everybody. I wouldn't know what to do with everybody if I had everybody. I'm looking for smart, inventive people with good taste who aren't afraid of the occasional oxymoron. I don't require a big tent for a mass political movement. Because I don't need your vote.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24729)
Date:
August 10, 1999 12:12 PM
Author: Mr. "K"
(mrk33@excite.com)
Subject: Way to go, Sterling
As a concerned science educator and avid hiker/backpacker/weather observer/nature-lover, I applaud your effort to make people wake up. Unfortunately, only those really concerned with the environment will agree with you.
While American vehicle manufacturers continue to offer larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles (see Ford Excursion, the largest SUV soon to be on highways near you), the levels of greenhouse-enhancing gases will continue to rise. Until Americans stop being such greedy folks (hey, I'm an American, too), the face of the Earth will forever change for the worse. We're talking GLOBAL here, not some microclimate system of an urban heat island that's noticing a slight temp. increase over the last 100 years. EVERYONE will be affected by this rise in the Greenhouse Effect. The worst possible case is that there is a cyclical warming of the Earth, and we as humans are enhancing it!
We are, hopefully, the most intelligent beings on this planet. We have the opportunity to change our habits (i.e. drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, walk more places, etc) to correct for our nature-destroying, fossil-fuel addiction! I just hope that for our generation, and others to come, that acting now is not too late. What a dire situation our future will have.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24584)
Date:
August 10, 1999 02:53 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Fords and the vile people who dare to drive them
Actually the new Ford scion who is running the Ford company now seems to be the most Green-minded Ford ever. The guy seems to spend oodles of time backpacking in Brazilian rain forests.
I distrust the class-minded notion that certain people shouldn't have big cars. I don't like sumptuary laws, and the SUV phenomenon looks to me like its primary motivation was to escape federal smog regulation by packing people into vehicles that are not legally described as "cars." Ban SUVs, and you'll find probably find people lining up to buy gigantic three-wheeled behemoths and calling them "tricycles."
We need clean transportation vehicles, and it would probably be a good idea if they were really fancy, extremely luxurious and tremendously expensive.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24596)
Date:
August 21, 1999 08:13 PM
Author: Scott Fleming
(fleming@moment.net)
Subject: FORD LOVER DISPUTES GLOBAL WARMING
Recent Arctic ice drilling proves that the more natural state of this planet is an ice age. There is no global warming and most of you tree huggers know it. It's just a scam to foist global control on the planet and eradicate as many human beings as possible. You people sound as though humanity was a virus that needed a cure. What a sick mind set. Polution can be controlled and we have come a long way in the last twenty years. If all of you are successful in bringing about a global command and control system it will look more like old Russia than any utopian dreams you now have. Those that sieze control will arrange everything for their own benefit just as in Russia and polution will mean nothing to them only proffits for THEIR pockets. Freedom, private property, and good education are the only hope of keeping our planet clean and healthy. Not the totalitarianism you all are trying to foster. Scott
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25011)
Date:
August 22, 1999 12:06 AM
Author: Mr. "K"
Subject: I'm not surprised you like Fords!
Scott:
Enough of this whining about people actually wanting to maintain a green planet. I'm sure if you had your way you'd drive your Excursion all over the planet and never get a spot of dirt on it, just like 99% of the people who will buy it later this year or early next.
What you and others like you with the same mindset have to realize is that while one person being an idiot will not change the entire ecosystem of the earth, a whole BUNCH of idiots thinking that being "greener" doesn't apply to them will change the planet.
As a scientist and science educator with many years spent educating about the Greenhouse Effect, I can tell you with absolute certain that there is a warming of the earth currently going on. There MAY be a warming of the Earth because the Earth has undergone many warmings and coolings throughout it's history. However, as I've stated before, we are in trouble if we're ENHANCING it!!! Why can' t you people understand this? Sure, gas prices should be higher over here in the US, because then more people would buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles as they do in almost ALL of Europe. Unfortunately, the American mindset is one of excess, and that's the problem. You can sit behind your flag and say that we'll become like communist Russia, or that it will become a socialist system of "greenage", but the truth is, and I'm sure you know it, that that will NOT occur!! The public needs to acknowledge that we all have an effect on the environment. What nature does to itself is not a threat. What WE do to it is!
Only YOUR kind of humanity needs to be eradicated, not those who feel that the Earth should be given a chance. What do we have to lose if we try? NOTHING!! What do we have to gain? EVERYTHING!! Now go back and hide in the bunker you made to survive Y2K!
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25018)
Date:
August 22, 1999 02:29 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Rattling the bars of the tree-huggers' cage
Hey, nice troll. Wimp.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25037)
Date:
August 11, 1999 04:46 PM
Author: John D. Berry
(jberry@itcfonts.com)
Subject: nature morph
So, Bruce, what if all of nanotechnology's wildest dreams are true, and in a little while we can morph our bodies and everything in our environment (including each other)? What, then, is "nature"?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24647)
Date:
August 13, 1999 02:09 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Well, I'm not a big fan of nanotech because it's such a sci-fi God-in-a-box notion. It's like taking Artificial Intelligence seriously; if it works, yeah, we enter a Vernor Vinge Singularity and everything we know about life and reality is transformed utterly. Might as well ask what happens after Jesus returns and Armageddon ends history. If He comes, He comes, okay? He's Jesus. It's no use second-guessing him.
I'm not real impressed by "nanotech" because I think the term is kind of badly formulated. Nanotech is not one big fat overwhelming thing, it's probably better thought of as a whole front of highly various industries inching along in different areas year by year. There's some pretty interesting progress being made in micro-machining; not supersmart diamond robots whipping atoms around like in the posthuman dreams of the Foresight Institute, but actual working engineered gizmos.
http://mems.isi.edu/archives/otherWWWsites_tutorial.html
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24732)
Date:
August 11, 1999 07:09 PM
Author: Brian Harris
(bharris@nm.net)
Subject: Humans v. nature
Why the distinction? Are not humans part of nature? Various species in the past have had the ability to adversly change their environment, just not to the degree that we do. I raise this seemingly hair-splitting point, because as long as people see themselves as essentially seperate from nature they will become more and more estranged from it. This estrangement will make it difficult to convince people that we do have a stake in making choices that result in our long term health.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24655)
Date:
August 13, 1999 10:02 AM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: The Human Aspect of Nature
It is interesting that many of the human species do separate themselves from "nature". What we live in is a biotic community, and we (human species) are part of that community. Are we the best neighbors in the communtiy? Most importantly what does that mean? Are we just doing what is our natural path of innovation/destruction--as nature dictates? For those of us that make a distinction between humans and the" rest" of nature, is it our science & technlogy the has "elevated" us out of nature? With that type of thinking, I think that we create a self-serving, self-importance to our existence versus other species that share this planet. Is the human species the most intelligent or all species? Sharpest eyesight? Best hearing? Strongest? Fastest? Get my point? We are none of those things. But for the most part we think we are--as nature dictates. Why do we even think that it is our responsibility, or within our ability to "control" or "correct" what is happening in the natural world? Perhaps another species, more wise, more sophisticated, more intelligent should be stearing spaceship earth. Should the human species be a quiet passenger in the back seat? Is it within our abilty to even think this? Can we fathom that other species are so in tune, that they refuse to implement their technological capabilites, because they understand the adverse impact that it would have on the rest of the biotic community (the beneift of the whole)? In the end nature will not win or lose. It is not a game. Nature is and will be nature. The human species has purpose and a role within the biotic community--because we are part of nature. To learn to live as part of nature, and not attempting do the impossible of excluding ourselves from it, is a major step in addressing many of the global concerns we see today. Nature has been acting like nature since the origin of the earth. We call it a "natural disaster" because we humans are in the path of a natural event. Do not build on the side of a steep slope and your home will not slide down the side of the mountain. Not so difficult. To all of us, spend some time watching the interaction of other species. We will see cooperation, competition, innovation, and violence. Most off all you will witness a framework of co-existence, and it appears that most species understand their roles within the framework, do we?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24722)
Date:
August 11, 1999 09:50 PM
Author: Lewis Brazil
(brazil2@looksmart.com)
Subject: So called Global warming?
I reject the belief that we the people of mother Earth are changing the temp in any direction. If the is global warming then all we would have to do is calculate the the sun temp and how it heats our planet. But here is the problem, the sun does not have a themostat. If there was a constant temperature radiating from the sun you could prove your theory in a short amount of time. Is it irrational to think the sun just started putting out more energy over the last 20 years or so. You may shun me but that theory is no more hogwash then global warming. Now I cannot drive my car when it 95 degrees any more because the air conditioner cannot keep up thanks to global warming.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24667)
Date:
August 18, 1999 12:58 AM
Author: Eric Leif
(ericleif@mindspring.com)
You are absolutely correct that the sun is not getting hotter or "putting out" more energy. Other than that you are completely clueless.
In a nutshell CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And if you have ever been in a real live greenhouse you may understand the effect of this. You can see this by going into a greenhouse on a cold day when the sun is out. It will be much warmer than the outside, why is that? The reason this is, is likely beyond your capacity, but energy that goes thru the windows of the greenhouse are then unable to go back out, they are therefore trapped and the inside is warmer because of it.
This is what CO2 does on a global scale, the more C02 the warmer it will get. This is not a theory this is verifiable fact (Step inside the greenhouse). The thing scientists ARE unsure about is how bad it will get and how long (the current cycle of) life on earth will last if this trend continues.
For a drastic view of the effect of greenhouse gases just look at our neighboring planets venus and mars. Venus (the planet as a whole) was unable to absorb any of its CO2 atmosphere and boiled away all its oceans, mars absorbed too much CO2 and is a frozen wasteland.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24890)
Date:
August 12, 1999 10:38 AM
Author: Dan
(tamasad@rockvax.rockefeller.edu)
Subject: humans are natural
We are as natural as the plants. We do change our environment. All living things must increase the disorder in the system, if these things are to maintain the order that they have.
I would argue that any long term changes that we as humans make to this system is insignificant when compared to the devastating effect that photosynthesis has had on the atmosphere of the earth. But we don't interpret it as devastating, because we somehow believe that the increasing partial pressure of a deadly gas called oxygen was a part of some natural order...because it eventually led to where we are now, and we are here, and we think we are great. Think about it, from almost zero% to 20% oxygen in the atmosphere. A gas that wiped out not only a few species, but a huge fraction of all the life that existed. But look around you at what resulted! The fact that we are able to look around and think about what is going on, and that we seem to be able to make immediate changes and to control the temperature in our apartments has led us to believe that there is something that we can do about all this. But when we look around, it is with a bias, we see the earth as a place of our own, our home, that we don't want to change.
Life will persist long after humans are gone, and our existence on this planet will be limited by our capacity to deal with each other. THERE IS A FUTURE WHERE HUMANS WILL EXIST AS MERELY PART OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. Our days are numbered, just as were the dinosaur's. IF there is any climatological event of significance that is going to happen in our time on this planet, it is not going to be something that we can do anything about. Humans have evolved and learned to live in complex civilizations with division of labor. All of the ranting and raving of super-greens is their job! It's how they make money or how they entertain themselves, since as we do live in such a comfortable civilization, they have the luxury to do so.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24679)
Date:
August 12, 1999 09:02 PM
Author: Lewis Brazil
(brazil2@looksmart.com)
All living things must increase the disorder in the system if these things are to maintain the order they have? What the hell do this mean. Are you saying we should all take out the trash and recycle. I am all for that, I agree that we need to respectful of how we treat our planet. I do disagree with the notion that humans are greatest risk to damaging the enviroment. Mount Pinatoto (what ever spelling you know what I am talking about) put more polutents into the atmosphere in 2 hours than all of the United States will do in a century. As far as you say O2 being a deadly gas that killed off life. I am not a scientist but is not all life as we know it based on oxygen. We can argue this forever and you will not change my mind and vise versa. I believe that all life was created by God. Not some kind of big explosion that all the chemicals need to sustain life just happened to come together and create any species much less humans. Think of it this way, it would be no different than placing tnt next to a tree and lite a match and the next thing you know there is a table and chairs made out of wood. I know what you say about super-greens and how they make money. That is part of the problem if there is no global warming how many of them would lose grants to keep researching. It is in there intrest to keep the hysteria going and while we keep on losing more of our freedoms. Like 1 1/2 gallon toilets that you have to flush 3 time instead of 3 gallon because they are going to waste all of our water. I will say it again Global Warming cannot be proven.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24707)
Date:
August 12, 1999 10:13 PM
Author: paul smith
(buffalo@geo.net.au)
Subject: plot
i agree with you on the global warming and the hysteria that is beat up on the unproven greenhouse effect,but you lost it [and nature],when you brought god into it.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24713)
Date:
August 13, 1999 09:42 AM
Author: Mr."K"
(mrk33@excite.com)
Subject: Brazil, what's wrong with you?
I'm not going to get into the techno-babble with some idiot that doesn't believe in all the credible scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang. That was for your high school science teacher to explain to you. But if you're going to describe geologic occurances, it makes a difference when you spell things correctly, etc.
First off, it was Mt. Pinatubo, in the Phillippines, that ejected all those gases. Yes, those are so-called Greenhouse gases. And you know what? Those have been around for eons! Yes, nature did produce those gases, and those gases have made life, as we know it, possible on this Earth. If those gases weren't sent up into the atmosphere billions of years ago, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. The problem lies where we, as intelligent beings, are INCREASING the amount of these gases by being stupid with fossil fuels, not using renewable resources, etc. If WE are having a direct, consequential effect on the environment, that's certainly a problem!
Humans are a direct result of accidents that at any time could have wiped us out! Fortunately, we have a rather large cranium (when compared to species like Australopithicus Afarensis, Bosei, etc (look them up in a DICTIONARY, Lewis)), so this allowed us to use tools, etc., and this helped us to survive. As far as your argument about the tree, try again. Humans EVOLVED from simpler life forms. There is TONS of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting it!! Read it, but I have a feeling that you're not well-versed in the sciences. Pity.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24720)
Date:
August 13, 1999 07:08 PM
Author: the Man in Black
(rmharman@earthling.net)
Subject: scientific accuracy
The origin of the claim that Mt Pinatubo put out "more CO2 than X" -- where X has become more and more extravagant and exaggerated over time -- lies with poor research on the part of Rush Limbaugh. He misquoted a misquote of an article on the event. (We all know how devoted to facts that man is...)
As to all life being based on oxygen... The first and foremost components are carbon and hydrogen, with a little oxygen and nitrogen mixed in. In free form, oxygen is highly reactive -- it causes your nice stable anaerobic lifeform to break down into little pieces. Kinda like rusting to death. When the blue-green algae came along and started pumping out O2, the chemosynths never knew what hit 'em.
Re: global warming and proof thereof. The average world temp is up. The average CO2 measurements are up. The ozone hole (unrelated to global warming, but another example of environmental change) is very real, very easy to measure -- all you need is a photosensor (from any decent electronics catalog, or possibly even Radio Shack) and a plane ticket to Argentina -- and it's getting bigger. No, this doesn't "prove" the theory, in the sense that we could find counter-evidence tomorrow. But we haven't found any yet, and in the absence thereof, it seems a pretty safe bet. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the only logical position is agnosticism -- just as agnosticism is the only logical position on whether or not there is, in fact, a teapot in orbit of Neptune.
Somebody also mentioned the idea that humanity will pass like the dinosaurs, etc etc... Frankly, I'm more optimistic than that -- I'd like to think we'll pack our bags, leave the planet to its own devices, and go find other places to live. I'd prefer it if this could happen before we're *forced* out by environmental problems. Bear in mind that just because "life will survive", life doesn't have to include US, or any of the other species around today. We could, in theory, heat up the planet enough to fry all the photosynthesizers, returning the planet to the Archean era -- if chemosynthetic monocellular critters are your idea of good conversation partners, raise your hand now...
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24738)
Date:
August 13, 1999 07:18 PM
Author: the Man in Black
(rmharman@earthling.net)
Subject: I almost forgot!
"All living things must increase the disorder in the system if these things are to maintain the order they have? What the hell do this mean."
First off, your grammar sucks. "What the hell does this mean?" would be proper; including the question mark, despite the fact that it's a rhetorical question.
What it means is that in order for me to stay alive, I have to get the energy used in maintaining my structure from SOMEWHERE, and that some of the energy I take in for this process is lost. There was more potential energy in my breakfast this morning than I will actually manage to use. There's a HECK of a lot more energy in the sun than plants ever manage to absorb. Etc. This is one of the laws of thermodynamics, and is also referred to as entropy. I can only assume, since you've never heard of it, that you're a complete moron with respect to science who didn't pay attention to (or didn't take) even high school physics. But then, you also told me that when you confessed to being a creationist. Get out of the scientific ocean until you learn to handle yourself in the wading pool.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24741)
Date:
August 16, 1999 02:08 PM
Author: Steve K.
Subject: Entropy vs. Evolution
Interesting that an evolutionist would bring up entropy. Perhaps you do not understand its implications. According to my college physics textbook, "The second law of thermodynamics can be stated: The entropy of the universe always increases (or in reversible processes remains the same). This can be related to the fact that molecular motion always tends toward disordered rather than ordered motion." This law contradicts the theory of evolution, which claims that order was created from disorder by a series of random events.
Normally when a theory is found to be contradicted by a law, that is the end of it. So why has evolution persisted? It is because the alternative is to acknowledge a God and with him a moral code of conduct. This relates to the discussion below about taking advantage of people's natural behavior vs. changing their decision making process. If we all believed in God, and God said, "Take care of the earth" then we would need no other solution.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24818)
Date:
August 16, 1999 05:09 PM
Author: Dan
(tamasad@rockvax.rockefeller.edu)
Subject: nonsense
Thank you for bringing to light the strict wording of the second law of thermodynamics. That is exactly what I was alluding to, in a non-scientific manner that minimized jargon, in my original post. But I believe that it is you that misunderstand the implications. One problem is that you do not realize that living things too obey all laws of thermodynamics, and that evolution would not be possible without such processes. Our planet appears to be ordered when compared to someplace like them moon. Notice in the textbook, the second law states "The entropy of the UNIVERSE always increases...". Stars are dying and being born in millions of nuclear reactions all throughout our universe. As living things, we eat things that are ordered, like an apple, and we extract the energy that we can. The chemistry and structure of the pile of dung and puff of air that we leave behind is way more disordered than the apple it once was. The point being that you have to open your eyes to the rest of the system (big (planets and stars) and small (bacteria, proteins and gasses)).
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24823)
Date:
August 18, 1999 01:19 AM
Author: Eric Leif
(ericleif@mindspring.com)
As far as you say O2 being a deadly gas that killed off life. I am not a scientist but is not all life as we know it based on oxygen. We can argue this forever and you will not change my mind and vise versa. I believe that all life was created by God
Then if you are not a scientist why are you spouting things as if you have proven them? I can name one specific type of life that is not based on oxygen, plants. By a process others have mentioned called photosynthesis. This is 5th or 6th grade material, material I (have in error) expected every thinking human being to have knowledge of, and maybe even believe. And even if all life was created by god, some life still needs oxygen, and some other life is able to produce it. Think of it a balanced system, one which your god would likely be able to produce right? Believe it, its true.
Think of it this way, it would be no different than placing tnt next to a tree and lite a match and the next thing you know there is a table and chairs made out of wood.
Thats not a very good analogy, mainly because iron nails or screws or wood glue can not be made from TNT and a tree. But if you tried it enough, chances are you may produce some kind of 3 legged table thing and perhaps a 3 legged chair. As a matter of fact you don't really need the TNT, this could just happen because of quantum effects, however you may be standing beside that tree for a long, long, long time waiting for this to happen.
I will say it again Global Warming cannot be proven.
And you are nobody. You will likely see more evidence as you live. Although if its a catastrophic event, its not likely to matter as you'll be dead.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24891)
Date:
August 13, 1999 12:57 AM
Author: SEC
(secaldwell@home.com)
Subject: what do we REALLY know about our climate?
Humanity's accurate measurement of our climate is a few hundred years old (at best a few thousand is you want to take the word of the "ancients"). A mere speck in time on a global climate scale. Geological evidence indicates that the globe has a fairly regular macro global cooling/warming (ice ages & thaws) cycle that has existed without the influence of mankind. What makes us think we have the ability to significantly influence that natural engine? The geological evidence of how our climate functions on mini and micro cycles (100, 500, 1,000 years) is much less clear. How can we say with any certainty that the weather patterns we’re seeing are not natural phenomena that human activity may only be swaying in insignificant ways?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24715)
Date:
August 13, 1999 09:56 AM
Author: Mr."K"
(mrk33@excite.com)
Subject: Have you heard of ice cores?
Here's something for you to think about: geologists and meteorologists in Antarctica drilling ice cores to study the climate of the Earth for the past several 100,000 years. Sound improbable? Well, it's been done! We have a very good idea of the climate of the Earth. You seem to agree when you state that "evidence indicates that the globe has a fairly regular macro global cooling/warming". That's true.
Has the Earth cooled down before? Yes, the last time ending roughly 10,000 years ago. Has the Earth warmed up before? Yes. Is it now? Yes. Why? Well there's the million-dollar question. Can our dependance on fossil fuels drive the thermostat of the Earth higher? Yes. Can humans using more and more less-efficient vehicles, and the mere fact that there's more of us, drive the temp. higher? Yes. The biggest problem we face is that there IS a natural rise in the temp. of the Earth, and that we're contributing to it, thus multiplying the effect of this natural warming! What are we going to do about it? Well, it appears that some people in this thread will do nothing, convinced that there actually is no warming going on at all, despite overwheming evidence to the contrary.
I, for one, am concerned. What are all the gas-guzzling vehicles and their owners going to do when the Earth runs out of gas? Sure, most of them will probably say: Hey, I won't be around, so why does it matter to me? This is an extremely selfish thing to say. We MUST think GLOBAL and of the FUTURE! It's the same idea of putting someone in your will. You're thinking of their well-being after you're 6 feet under. I just hope that I'm not 6 feet under when the rest of the nation, heck, the world wakes up to the scientific evidence staring them in the face!
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24721)
Date:
August 13, 1999 09:50 PM
Author: SEC
(secaldwell@home.com)
Subject: re: Have you heard of ice cores?
Yep, was reviewing a site on them last night before I posted. Here's the URL: http://www.hartwick.edu/geology/work/VFT-so-far/glaciers/glacier4.html . Interesting data, as the author states... "This is an area of very active research, and while all of the answers are not yet known, the evidence from Vostok certainly motivates us to think hard about the human contribution to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere!"
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24747)
Date:
August 17, 1999 08:59 AM
Author: Mike Tarone
(mtarone@niscom.com)
Subject: Ice Core measurements
I saw a program on A&E last night about Global Warming. In a word, "Scary". Scientists have been conducting studies from Ice Core samples taken from Glaciers around the planet. Research teams have climbed to the Worlds highest mountains and drilled down to bed rock and then taken Ice Core samples. They can measure the average temperature as far back as 6000 years. Scientists have been taking measurements of the isytobes in the oxygen molecules of the samples they take and compare the results from one end of the spectrum to the other. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere was 300 parts per million in 1900. That amount is now 330 parts per million. Carbon Dioxide apparently accumulates in the atmosphere and deposits human kind put up through burning 100 years ago are still up there. No question about it, the earth is getting warmer. The Glaciers are melting, This is a global phenomenon. Although the actual average temperature is only one degree higher, the changes in the climate have been dramatic. Scientists are deeply concerned and we should be too. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are now or all living things will pay the price. What we do about in the short term is every bit as important as what we do about it in the long term.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24847)
Date:
August 17, 1999 02:29 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Clean Power in the Short Term
I think this transition could happen with incredible speed, actually. The electrical networks are like the phone networks before the Internet hit them: boring, dull, centralized, protected by government, using fifty-year-old analog technologies.
Building the "Information Superhighway" looks impossibly ambitious -- if you start by imagining government contractors stringing fiber optic to every home in America. And golly, how are we gonna get all those *other* governments in the world to follow America's federal leadership in mandating socially just public access to high technology? It looks impossible. The "Global Information Infrastructure" probably is impossible. It's a top-down, bureaucratic, globally mandated approach to a network problem.. Just like the Kyoto Accords.
But the Internet spreads with exponential speed, as soon as people realize it's about them and what they want. I feel quite clear about what I want -- I want to be able to flick on a light switch and boot up my computer without filling the sky with soot. I'm tired of coal and oil companies -- and their many allies in government -- requiring me to live in filth. It's an aesthetic issue -- the sky over my home town looks dirt ugly. I'm sick of this, I'm fed up. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Clean power is not that big an expense for me; power bills are not that big a part of my budget. If you're so broke that you have to count every kilowarr-hour, fine -- you can't be polluting very much, because you're too poor. But if you're a rich guy, what the hell are you doing burning dirt to run your house and your business? You should have more taste and more sense.
So buy green power and stop paying for smut. Not one more dime. If power companies see their profit margins shrinking, they're not gonna require any banging over the head by UN blue berets from Kyoto -- they'll jump out of their skins to become more green than thou. Once everybody's doing it, it'll be accepted as what everybody does. And we won't lose money doing it -- we'll *make* money doing it.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24866)
Date:
August 17, 1999 05:04 PM
Author: Mike Tarone
(mtarone@niscom.com)
Subject: Apparently-some power companies are getting the message.
Bruce-Thanks for your reply. I agree. Please read my post dated 8/16/99-- "Some Great Points DJ". As luck would have it, my power company called me last week conducting a survey (no BS survey) about services, power generation, etc.etc, and I made it clear that if they continued to burn coal to generate electricity-I would buy my power elsewhere-now that we have a CHOICE in PA. I'm going to pursue this. If they don't clean up their act, I'll drop them like a bad habit. Wind and Solar are now viable options.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24875)
Date:
August 17, 1999 10:42 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: I heartily concur
You are doing the right and proper thing and I will shout that from the rooftops. You know, where I keep my solar cells *8-)
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24888)
Date:
August 13, 1999 03:52 PM
Author: Garden Terror
(tgumula@earthlink.net)
Subject: European insurance co's support global warming
In Europe, some of the largest supporters of global warming research funding are the ... insurance companies, which stand to lose billions of $$ when hundred year floods happen every 4 years.
What kind of effort has been put into lobbying the US insurance industry that global warming is real? The reason I ask, is the insurance companies have pockets deep enough to pay for the "anti-oil/gas/transportation/utility" campaign & political lobbying to convince a duped American public & gov't that global warming is a real phenomenon.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24734)
Date:
August 13, 1999 11:48 PM
Author: Ojo de Aguila
Subject: Global Warming
I am a senior scientist at a U.S. government agency (I won't say which one or where). I work all day, every day with digital satellite imagery, studying, among other things, global climate change. I state these things as absolute fact: The world is warming. Forests are disappearing. Cities are exploding. Sediment load in lakes, rivers, and the oceans is increasing. The ozone hole is real. All of these things are very probably human-caused.
U.S. government agency scientists don't need to be convinced about global warming; we already know. The conservative politicians in congress are the ones who need convincing.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24750)
Date:
August 17, 1999 02:41 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Greenhouse deniers
There are plenty of pressure groups working hard full time to convince people that global warming isn't real, can't be measured or doesn't matter. It's a promising line of propaganda work, especially when you consider that there are plenty of people working successfully against the teaching of "the Theory of Evolution," and that debate was scientifically over 140 years ago.
My favorite Greenhouse deniers are: Greening Earth Society (sponsored by coal miners, their pitch is that global warming is real;ly good for us and increased CO2 will surely create a golden age) Global Climate Coalition (global warming doesn't exist, and even if it did, it costs too much to regulate their many clients in the carbon industries, while any conceivable reform would cause massive job loss and worldwide economic collapse) Cato Institute (government activism of any kind is inherently evil, especially if liberals are involved) William Casey Foundation (Concern agbout global warming is a Communist plot and will bring UN black helicopters swarming upon us).
They're all on the net and beavering away every day.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24868)
Date:
August 18, 1999 01:49 AM
Author: Eric Leif
(ericleif@mindspring.com)
Here's the thing Bruce, I agree that global warming is real. But what is the real danger in it? Obviously you think its bad, and I suppose if you think extinction of a large percentage of life on earth is bad, then yes it is.
So looking at the use of fossil fuels, which do in fact release CO2, remember that this CO2 was in the atmosphere, that is the plant life that centuries ago died to create the fuels we use today took with them a small amount of CO2. Using all the CO2 in our current atmosphere as 1 unit, all the carbon locked up in fossil fuels is 5.5 units, and all the carbon locked up in rocks is 100,000 units. But this process continues, if we were to stop all fossil fuel use, we could expect to come back to the point 200 years ago at some future date. Weither we are here or not really doesn't matter. In other words I don't believe that releasing all this fossil carbon will destroy the earth or it ability to sustain life, however we will destroy our current enviornment in short order. The most disturbing thing (that I see even now) is how less rich my children will be than I.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24893)
Date:
August 18, 1999 01:18 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Dangers of Global Warming
I'm not arguing that global warming is particularly dangerous. Global warming is a lot less dangerous than, say, a nuclear exchange. If carbon dioxide were some deadly substance like cyanide, we'd be dead every time we exhaled. So I don't counsel panic.
My argument is that it's *ugly.* It's an ugly, crude, outdated technology, and furthermore, it's *stupid* to destabilize the entire world's climate, for centuries henceforth, for the sake of a carbon-burning energy technology which is worth, lock stock and barrel, worldwide, about one trillion dollars. Now a trillion dollars is a lot of money, and oil and coal is a big enterprise, but it's not like we're married to smoke, grit, smut and grease. We have a choice.
I don't want to pay these guys any more money to turn my sky gray, and make American summers so hot that my children can't play in the lawn. Not to mention rising seas, weird droughts and giant jungle and forest fires. Why am I financing that? I'm not in favor of it.
So it's not like global warming is gonna kill us outright. You shouldn't need to be told this in order to be willing to take some practical action. We shouldn't have to be threatened with imminent death to make a simple technical decision like changing our outdated sources of energy. Giving up our blue sky and ruining the environment is simply too high a price to pay for cheap coal.
Flushing your toilet onto your lawn won't kill you either, but why the heck would you want to do that? It's cheap and it's convenient, right? But it's ugly, it smells bad, it's uncivilized, it's just not done. So install some proper plumbing. Okay? Don't have a philosophical breakdown or a political revolution, just pay up and do it. You shouldn't have to wait until people are dying in the streets and some fanatic shows up with a bayonet to make you do this. It's the sensible thing.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24911)
Date:
August 19, 1999 12:18 AM
Author: Eric Leif
(ericleif@mindspring.com)
Yes you should not have to see dead people before you realise you need to act, and I completely agree with you on that point.
But how do you illustrate to people who do not see this themselves? The global warming scare has had little effect, (perhaps because of the groups that want to play it down). I doubt many people even consider the impact of driving to work in their SUV alone, along with their 10 neighbors also driving alone. This whole process is damaging, and was sold as the american dream, ie living in the nice house in the suburbs which absolutely *requires* a motor vehicle. Perhaps your idea that selling the greener way because its more pleasing in of it self rather than because its the right thing to do is cool and will work. But how will that address the drastic culturally model that is already in place, where no green methods are available or even approiate.
I once saw a commerical on the TV that said the electricity used in the home creates more pollution etc than the family car. Regardless if this is really true, its would seem a likely cause is that cars get much more attention than the electric company. But the whole point of this commercial was not that your electric company sucks, it is that cars are okay. I forget who sponsored this public information commercial, it was probably not the people for the support of the other white meat or the the people that want you to "Drink Milk."
The people that are interested in you being a slave to the car are the still remaining steel industries, car makers, oil companies, insurance companies. The untold millions of car inspection and mechanics. Who is there to oppose that money and power?
I did check out that list of where the power is at, but I am not convinced. (And you also seem to miss some connections, how much do you pay for car insurance and home insurance, then compare how many people pay car insurance versus home insurance, where is their money coming from?) A far better and more beliveable method to me would be not to ask them who has the most effect on them, but to see who is giving them the money to run for office and support their political careers.
Now a trillion dollars is a lot of money, and oil and coal is a big enterprise, but it's not like we're married to smoke, grit, smut and grease. We have a choice.
My point is in the things that really matter you do not. From the day you enter school, to the day you eventually settle down in the suburban house where you have to commute to work, perhaps you use green electricity or solar cells at your home, but you still drive. Its a whole mentality, and even locally solving those problems you are still faced with a society that glorifies excess, and you yourself and this idealogical stand you are taking welcomes thats mentality as if it were a solution. Perhaps its a great idea in the short term. Will my kids be able to play outside in the sun, will they have grass to stand on or barren dirt fields? I once thought of renting some billboards and putting on them a picture of a baby sucking on a muffler. Thats what most bothers me.
Americas farm land was barren desert in the last previous warm cycle, when we rush to the next there will be many new problems. The reason I mention this is because I recently read a paper that down plays the global warming, the simplistic model they used was that plants like more CO2, and we would enter a farming golden age. Of course the obvious point missed is that the current farm land would be barren and the plants that would grow in this golden age are things like the sea algaes.
Your methods seem to me the easy way out, that is not to say it won't do some good, I and likely others have real problems seeing a clear defined route to salvation in this, so maybe one doesn't exist and piecemeal could help.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24929)
Date:
August 19, 1999 12:41 PM
Author: the Man in Black
(rmharman@earthling.net)
Subject: algae
"Of course the obvious point missed is that the current farm land would be barren and the plants that would grow in this golden age are things like the sea algaes."
Actually, we're not even that lucky. If the warming happens fast enough, it's likely to kill off the algae beds. Water has a high specific heat, which means that convection currents, carry a lot of tropical heat all the way to the poles. So when the air temperature is rising, the ocean temperature is rising too, but it's rising *faster* at the poles, and slower at the equator. (Note: this might sound like an argument for living on the coast, but remember that when the ice caps melt, your coastal home will be under water.) Anyways. Most kinds of algae like very cold water -- whales go to polar waters during the summer, because the massive amounts of algae there feed the plankton and krill that they eat. Heat up the polar waters, and there's no place further north for the algae to move, and the warm-water algae *can't* replace them (without several thousand years of evolution, or maybe some genetic engineering), because they're not built to deal with the whole six months of darkness thing. Estimates on how much CO2 the algae process vary hugely, but the lowest I've ever heard is 10%, and the highest is %50. Imagine we cut that conservative 10% by even one percentage point. We get an (admittedly fairly shallow) exponential increase, as the cold-water algae die off. It's not a pretty picutre... (Oh, and it'd also be the end of *every* migratory ocean animal, including a number of food fish. Bad economics.)
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24944)
Date:
August 25, 1999 06:57 PM
Author: Brent Capps
(bcapps@hevanet.com)
> There are plenty of pressure groups working hard
> full time to convince people that global warming
> isn't real, can't be measured or doesn't matter.
During the 1930s, Congress didn't want to believe that the Dust Bowl was a matter of national concern -- until May 1934, when a timely dust storm hit Washington DC while a congressional subcommittee was taking testimony on the value of soil conservation.
What would it take in 1999 for Congress to pay attention to global warming? To find out,locate a physical map of the world. Locate the Sahara Desert. Keeping your finger between 20 and 30 degrees north latitude (these are the "Horse Latitudes"), trace your finger eastward and notice how many deserts you encounter: the Arabian Desert, the Dasht-e-Lut, the Great Indian Desert, and crossing the Pacific, the Sierra Madre in Mexico. Now move your finger to between 20 and 30 degrees south latitude and notice: the Atacama Desert in South America, the Namib and the Kalahari in Africa, and the Great Victoria Desert in Australia. These deserts are where they are because they lie in a band called the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), a belt of high pressure separating the equatorial and temperate regions of the atmosphere. In fact, virtually all major areas of land lying within these latitudes is desert. The exception is southeast Asia, which benefits from the influence of the Himalayas.
About 5000 before present, when the mean temperature was about 4.5 degrees warmer than it is today, the ITCZ in the Northern Hemisphere was forced north of its present position in the Horse Latitudes. That was good news for the Sahara, which was covered with a lush and fertile grassland. It would be very bad news for the United States, whose climate would change from temperate to desert conditions. The central United States could be depopulated in a matter of just a few years.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25180)
Date:
August 14, 1999 08:15 AM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: The Green Thneed? Is Bruce Sterling the verdant Onceler?
I have enjoyed most of the postings to this Forum. Regardless if they are from scientists, creationists, outdoor enthusiasts, those that are well read, or whom just want to contribute to the thread, each contribution is a worthwhile perspective. I want to thank you for introducing stimulating subject matter for the participants to consume and digest.
I must confess, that do find merit it the intent of the Viridian Approach. However, as we all as recognize, intent has little to do with the eventual impact. Mr. Sterling, I laud your efforts to make a change intended at improving our environment-my outdoor recreation planet.
I can't help but reaching out to my bookshelf to pull down the venerable reference source that first brought my young mind to a level of awareness that there are consequences to our actions. Way up on my dusty shelf, I find the Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel) classic The Lorax.
As I flip through the pages, a question comes to my mind. Is the Viridian Approach the knitting the Green Thneed? Is Bruce Sterling the verdant Onceler?
I will spare you my metaphorical comparisons. We should all have the luxury of creating our own. My concern is that the Viridian Approach is based on using consumptive behavior to mold the consumers' impact on the environment. I am in totally agreement with you that if Onceler Incorporated is producing the Green Thneed, and the market is convinced that it is vogue to consume the Green Thneed, that many Green Thneeds will be consumed.
This pattern of consumptive behavior can be very dangerous. I am convinced that most of people in the US are currently consuming goods with little thought to their impact. Does the Viridian Approach intentionally exploit the behavior to gain the desired impact? Is this good for the environment? A definite maybe, as along as the consuming public is convinced that the Green Thneed is cool. We still are advocating the consumption of resources (those beautiful metaphorical Truffulas). It has little to do with changing the patterns of consumption. More specifically, is has little to do with making the consumer aware of the impacts of his/her product choice.
Should we assume that it is easier or wiser to exploit our consuming behavior, rather than attempting to modify the behavior based on a deliberate awareness of the eventual impact? Is the Viridian Approach only concerned with physically "thneeds" or is it positioned to reach the realm of intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs? You express your desire to harvest intellectual innovators to assist you in establishing the Viridian Infrastructure. Do you also want intellectual consumers purchasing the innovative industrial green thneeds? I do not desire to leave my outdoor recreation planet when all the resources are gone (as the Lorax did). I wish to stay and attempt to make this the best planet possible, filled with intelligent and deliberate inhabitants. Will the Viridian Approach help me, because I am hesitant to leave this place? I have a desperate need to recreate!
Again, I appreciate your creative genius. Will it get us to where we need to be? I hope so. BBell...the Outdoor Recreation Planet
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24757)
Date:
August 14, 1999 04:42 PM
Author: Viridiana O'Toole
Subject: Seize control of the means of promotion
Seems to me that what Bruce Sterling is advocating is a movement that does not rely on the masses following a charismatic leader or agreeing with (subjugating themselves to) a philosophical position. Rather, he has taken the religious aspects out of the equation by suggesting that a large group of people, following their own creative interests, can influence what happens to our environment. These people need no Verdant Onceler to lead them -- they get the attention of the people who are harming the environment most, i.e., themselves and their trendy peers, by designing and marketing products that are trendily desireable.
As a recovering advertising writer, I think this could work. I'd say the key to this, however, is undestanding that Viridianism requires self-instantiazation -- Just Do It, if I may quote. Invent that cool stuff. Promote the hell out of it. Get it up and running in the corridors of consumerism.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24766)
Date:
August 15, 1999 10:30 AM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: consuming behavior consuming consumers
"Invent that cool stuff. Promote the hell out of it. Get it up and running in the corridors of consumerism."
100% agreement that the cool stuff would be consumed by an eager market. But... are we still promoting/exploiting behavior that is potentially dangerous? Once the trend is no longer cool, or a not-so-green company knocks off the cool green product (which happens to be cheaper) the public is still consuming without regard to impact. If (the big if) we can modify consumptive behavior to make deliberate consumptive choices based on understanding the impact to the environment, don't we have a better potential of making long-term positive impact? Or, do you think that it is impossible to modify consumer behavior and we need to rely on an approach that does, in fact, exploit the current consuming behavior?
I personally find it a bit disheartening to accept the latter, but acknowledge that any positive change is a change in the right direction. It appears that Viridianism is about changing "product" choices to make a change, rather than changing people's perspective to make a change. Does Viridianism acknowledge the need to evolve into something more that just flooding the market with green products? Do we really have to rely on marketing trends and consumption to make a positive impact on the environement, instead of having consumption based on informed choice. It is kind of like a mouse in a maze... reward me with cheese when I make the "right" choice. It that where we are at?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24783)
Date:
August 15, 1999 10:57 AM
Author: Viridiana O'Toole
Subject: Make mine brie
Why not use both tactics?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24784)
Date:
August 15, 1999 03:05 PM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: band-aid to a festering wound
Green brie! My point exactly.
Viridiansim may provide only a band-aid to the festering wound when the real problem is much deeper. If innovation is a priceless commodity (I don't see much of it), should we invest it in treating the "symptom" or the "disease"? Enticing people to buy green addresses the symptom (e.g. global warming). Educating people to be a better steward and to be aware of impacts address the disease (deteriorating earth systems).
Mr. Sterling is obviously an intelligent, creative, well-connected, well-meaning individual. But, when someone wants to hand me a Lion King band-aid, when I really need CPR, well...
Innovation is hard to come by. Let's invest is wisely.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24789)
Date:
August 15, 1999 10:45 PM
Author: Viridiana O'Toole
Subject: Would you like oatmeal with that brie?
Actually, creativity is cheap, and there'd be a lot more innovation around if people didn't insist that _their_ solution should be the only one in town. Why not try a number of different approaches?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24808)
Date:
August 16, 1999 09:42 AM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: Creatvity is never cheap, just consumed cheaply.
I agree that no one should advocate his or her solution as an exclusive solution. That is simply ludicrous. Please do not be mistaken that it was my intent to do so. I certainly am not presumptuous enough to think I could author a manifesto as the means for addressing global warming, acid precipitation, etc. I will leave that task to people like Mr. Sterling. Wasn't it Mr. Sterling whom published his manifesto and asked us to review and comment? My comments are simply that-just comments. Free to be consumed, digeseted and regurgitated (or not). That is what I enjoy this medium.
I am not a writer, not a participant in a think tank, not a sought after authority on the subject matter, not even a person with aspirations of coining cool phrases, or creating a social movement. I am just a simple county boy who enjoys using this planet as a means of outdoor recreation, and loves to see others enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks, Viridiana O'Toole for taking the interest. You have brought to the table many good points. Good tooling in the outdoors.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24814)
Date:
August 16, 1999 05:29 PM
Author: Brian Harris
(bharris@nm.net)
Subject: Example of Viridianism?
This month's Atlantic magazine (paper based --heaven forfend!) has an article on shade grown coffee and the growing market for such. Many people consider shade-grown coffee to be much less damaging to the environment that plantation grown coffee. It is not a cure all, but it is a good start.
Brian
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24826)
Date:
August 16, 1999 05:35 PM
Author: Mark Leger
(markl@gorp.com)
Subject: Practical Suggestions
It's great to read all of the impassioned discussion. But I'm wondering if we're not straying a little far afield. Seems to me that this forum assumes that global warming is real, and that it's an immediate problem. The whole point of Viridianism is coming up with creative, pleasurable design solutions *soon.* IMO, Brian Harris above is on the right track. I'd like to come back to thinking about good ideas along the lines Bruce suggests: complex, glamourous, new materials, inter-relating the cybernetic with the material, ground-breaking aesthetics. Bruce, do you have any concrete examples? Anybody else have any ideas?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24827)
Date:
August 17, 1999 02:50 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Green Designer Gizmos and Techniques
No problem, dude. Have a look, knock yrself out:
Links: http://www.idsa.org http://www.luna.nl/turtlebay http://www.pre.nl/simapro.html http://www.epa.gov/dfe http://www.epa.gov/energystar.html http://www.setac.org/fndt.html http://www.isogroup.iserv.net/14001.html http://www.greenseal.org http://www.design-inst.nl http://www.worldstudio.org http://www.yale.edu/jie/dissert1.htm http://www.aeanet.org http://www.eren.doe.gov http://www.sustainablebusiness.com http://www.solstice.crest.org http://www.O2.org http://www.io.tudelft.nl/research/mpo.intcours.htm http://unep.frw.uva.nl http://www.zeri.org http://www.geonetwork.org http://www.rmi.org http://www.greenmap.org.home/ecolink.html http://www.pprc.pnl.gov/pprc/rpd/fedfund/epa/epaeed/environ3.html http://www.greenbiz.com http://www.greenmarketing.com http://www.worldinc.com/idra http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/industry.htm http://www.cfsd.org.uk
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24870)
Date:
August 21, 1999 01:05 PM
Author: Laurie Kindersley
(lauriebob333@hotmail.com)
Subject: Carbon footprints on the ceiling
What a great list of resources! I haven't had time to look at all of them, but here's an example of what's there:
Stoneyfield Farm's Enviromental Cookbook, which can be downloaded at http://www.greenbiz.com/yogurt.cfm . This has nothing to do with yoghurt recipes, and everything to do companies with off-setting their CO2 usage, so they don't hurt the environment in the course of doing business. It tells how to figure out your company's "carbon footprint," that is, how much CO2 you're putting into the air (from burning gas, for instance, in the trucks that bring in your raw materials and distribute your products)), and how to work with other companies to offset it, by funding some ecological effort somewhere else.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25003)
Date:
August 17, 1999 02:46 PM
Author: Laurie Kindersley
(lauriebob333@hotmail.com)
Subject: Green goods
Bruce, I'd like to hear what kind of green consumer goods I'd want. I mean, try me.
So far all I've seen are Viridian slogans and bumperstickers, and they aren't consumer goods. Maybe it takes a little time to generate these things, but do you have some ideas?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24869)
Date:
August 17, 1999 03:55 PM
Author: Stefan Jones
(sej@aol.com)
Subject: Green goods: Examples
I'll pitch in here.
* Low-voltage (12v) and low usage light fixtures and appliances that _don't look cheap_. There are lots of energy saving and/or low-voltage appliances out there. Light fixtures, refrigerators, VCRs, etc. Unfortunately, they often look rotten: shabby, bland, utilitarian. They're made for niche markets like recreational vehicles, back-woods cabins, and the Amish. Craftsmanship and style aren't a high priority.
Viridian light fixtures would look like real light fixtures. The switches wouldn't be cheap slide switches. If they had florescent bulbs, they wouldn't flicker or require ten tries to start. Viridian refridgerators and dryers would run on gas (much more efficient than electric) -- your choice of gas, just change a venturi setting -- and have all the features of a really good 'fridge. Maybe they'd even be like Japanese fridges, and have neat little drawers instead of a big door.
* A home fuel cell plant, with a water-purifying still that runs on the plant's waste heat. (Fuel cells run really hot!) (You'd also get a greenhouse tent to stick over the plant, where you could grow bananas and orchids.)
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24872)
Date:
August 17, 1999 10:38 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Hot and Sexy Green
Well Laurie, that's a very cogent and interesting question. We Viridians decided quite some time back that we're not in the manufacturing business. We're not gonna create and retail consumer items ourselves, because running a business is an attention vampire of the first order.
The only thing we Viridians "retail" is books on green design and other postindustrial topics. We do have an Amazon link, and a library of highly recommended stuff at: http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades/
If you had a lot of spare space on a credit card, you could build up a first-class design library there in pretty short order.
We do tend to spend quite a lot of time *imagining* products that don't exist yet. Science-fictional speculation on future consumer products is an area of intense Viridian interest.
Of course there are a lot of very green "consumer products" available nowadays from dull and worthy places like Seventh Generation and Real Goods Trading Company, but most twentieth-century Green design has been created by and for people who dislike and distrust consumerism. So it tends to have an ugly, undyed, unfinished, whole-grain-goodness look that we Viridians really can't stomach aesthetically.
Take Birkenstocks for instance. They're one of the few forms of footgear manufactured entirely with clean green wind power. I applaud this action of theirs, and it's almost enough to make me try on a pair of Birkenstocks, but really, *Birkenstocks*? Come on!
What I really want is something like these unspeakably out-there ultradesigner shoes from: http://www.flexiblefootwear.com only, you know, greener.
Some other stuff that more or less exists that has somehow met our stringent Viridian coolness tests:
Alexander Calder mobiles Hoberman sphere toys Zoobs Wind-up Freeplay radios the Festo Stingray inflatable aircraft Miuccia Prada's Fall 1999 "Eco-Warrior" haute couture line Michael McDonough lounge chairs made out of reconstituted bamboo
And we're always looking for more, so if you're hip to something along this line, do let us know and we'll be forever grateful.
One of these days we might sell a Viridian T-shirt, but don't hold your breath.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24887)
Date:
August 18, 1999 10:02 PM
Author: Laurie Kindersley
(lauriebob333@hotmail.com)
Subject: Hot green feet
Thanks, Bruce. I just spent 45 minutes wandering around the Viridian site. I do want all those books.
Shoes are problematic. I want shoes that look like John Flugvoeg and feel like bare feet. I want shoes that I don't have to carry to work in a bag and that won't mortify me in front of people who despise Birkenstocks. Green doesn't really enter into it. Are you suggesting that Viridan shoes would satisfy my needs? No shoes satisfy my needs: I've stopped looking to shoes for satisfaction.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24925)
Date:
August 18, 1999 10:09 PM
Author: Laurie Kindersley
(lauriebob333@hotmail.com)
Subject: Cold green goods
Okay, Stefan. You got me where I live. I'll take one of those refrigerators with the drawers, please.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24927)
Date:
August 19, 1999 12:55 PM
Author: the Man in Black
(rmharman@earthling.net)
Subject: heating/cooling
Don't forget that, given that people already frequently make the poor design decision to put their heating and cooling equipment (oven and fridge) in close proximity, with a decent heat-differential power generator, we could reclaim a lot of wasted energy. Just let the heat being put out by the fridge be used to make electricity, store it in a rechargable battery, and use that as an auxiliary power source for the oven...
Oh, and a random thought for engineers out there. Has anyone noticed that the mandated small-flush toilets just don't work very well? What we need is a toilet that has valves at two levels. The smaller flush would probably be even smaller than the current toilets -- say, on the order of a men's room urinal -- while the larger one would be more like the larger toilets that are now illegal. I suspect overall you'd use the same amount of water; you'd just get a working toilet into the bargain...
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24946)
Date:
August 20, 1999 05:32 AM
Author: Maggie
(steinicke-streifeneder@t-online.de)
Subject: climate change and travelling
Although i agree with Mr. Sterling that travelling to other parts of the world and exploring different countries, people & cultures is very important for us, i disagree with the way of travelling. Why do we have to get so fast from A to B? There are other means that don't damage the atmosphere as much as jets do, like boats, trains & bikes. Always remember that the journey itself is more important than arriving at the destination. Let's slow down our whole lifestyle - this gives us also the time to discover the universe in ourself.
Maggie
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24970)
Date:
August 20, 1999 11:39 AM
Author: Eileen Gunn
(gunn@radarangels.com)
Subject: Viridian Prognostication
Hi, Bruce. Nice forum you got here: hot and cold running eco-pacifists, footwear fetishists of all persuasions, Viridian refrigerators, metaphors from the Dr-Seuss-paradigm-generator....
What I'd like to hear, as a science fiction writer myself, is more about the future of the outdoors long-term. As the climate heats up, what are your working-rich overachievers going to do for recreation?
Reduced glaciation should really open up mountain biking opportunities, as the equipment and safety gear gets better and better. Look for new trails straight down peaks like Whitney and Rainier, and all over the Whites in NH.
Calving icebergs might make it possible to host some great slalom-kayaking races in Glacier Bay, and you'll see a boom in tourism from people who just want to watch, possibly in some trendy Viridian-influenced pedal-operated personal watercraft, instead of the ugly little boxes you see now.
Skiing: as the climate warms, weather will get wilder and less reliable, making it necessary to dome over some of the most popular ski areas, or at least set up some baffles to keep the winds down. Wind-control (and harnessing) in general might be a real growth industry. Artificial snow, light, fluffy, biodegradable, and not dependant on temperature variation, might be a strong new product area, too, leading to skis optimized for certain brands of snow, then to standardized snow that works with all makes of ski.
Then there's hikers. What about hikers, anyway? They go where they want, and they're less gear-dependant than some of the other outdoorsians. What does the future hold for them, as the trails heat up and tornados become quotidian?
Just for starters. I need to get back to work before my boss discovers I'm on the GORP site again....
Eileen
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24978)
Date:
August 20, 1999 01:24 PM
Author: Laurie Kindersley
(lauriebob333@hotmail.com)
Subject: Hotfooting it
Eileen, hikers are _necessarily_ footwear fetishists!
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24981)
Date:
August 20, 1999 04:40 PM
Author: Outdoor Recreation Planet
(bbell@gst.com)
Subject: Virtual Viridian Ventures
As the climate heats up, what are your working-rich over-achievers going to do for recreation?
I love this question... and, your well-visualized Gibsonistic response is imaginative. You don't need a boss, you need a good agent.
There has been some interesting research done to measure "satisfaction" of a quality of recreational experience and the human motivation behind the desire/need to recreate in the outdoors. The attempt of finding a satisfaction meter is to (theorectically) substitute one recreation activity for another when (for whatever reason) that primary activity can not enjoyed.
The debate is just beginning as to how virtual reality can play a role in outdoor recreation. Can a virtual experience be equal in satisfaction to the real thing--outdoor recreation? Are Viridian's prime candidates for this type of technology. It's cyber, it's sexy, and it is real expensive. Best of all the virtues of the Virtual Viridian Venture (the green value propositions) can be identified. No auto emissions. No trashing environmentally sensitive areas. It reduces demand for recreation facilities. The list goes on. But, best of all you do not have to go out into the environment at all to witness the destruction of our fragile earth systems.
Virtual Viridian Ventures - re-create the world the way you want it!
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24987)
Date:
August 22, 1999 02:42 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: oh dear
Well, my suspicion would be that as the most pristine natural areas get further and further degraded, hearty outdoor types will suffer some kind of polarity switch, and they'll start seeking out spectacular ruined areas. A big boom in tornado chasers and hurricane freaks would be a safe bet. The abandoned "involuntary wilderness" downwind of Chernobyl, for instance, could be a great outdoor destination. It's getting weirder and weirder and more and more overgrown there, and there's lots of interesting (slightly mutated) wildlife in it. It's pretty safe as long as you keep moving and don't eat or drink anything.
As for across the board predictions for future hikers and bikers, I cam pretty well promise you this: no matter where you go to escape the smoke, the damp and the heat, it's *dirty* there too, and it'll be getting dirtier.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25038)
Date:
August 20, 1999 05:56 PM
Author: Plugger
Subject: The Rich get Richer...
There is nothing new about this so called "Man made enviornmental problem" except that certain people are going to "cash in" on the latest so called human mess-up(you)...and some are going to suffer(me). A good example ---allready gasolene prices tarting to go up. My business depends on transporting myself and equipment to a jobsite---when gasolene prices go over two dollars a gallon--I will be out of business{which is only $5,000 a year as it is}.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=24990)
Date:
August 21, 1999 08:01 PM
Author: Scott Fleming
(fleming@moment.net)
Subject: Out of Business ???
If gas prices go up for you they go up for everyone. You just have to pass along the increase to your customers. What is this rich get richer whine? There is no country on earth where an entrepreneur can go from zip to megabucks like this one. There are now hundreds of thousands of millionaires in this country who started with nothing. This class envy you sputter about is socialist tripe. And to complain about gass prices....???? The stuff is almost free in the US. It's $5.00 a gallon in those wonderful planned economy places where the rich don't get richer you dream about. The smart and the dilligent get richer. Yes it IS easier to be rich and there ARE inequities but what is the alternative??? You sound like the kind of guy who could win 3 million in a lottery and waste it just as fast. If you don't like the American way there are lots of other countries you could try. Scott
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25010)
Date:
August 23, 1999 12:19 PM
Author: Mark Leger
(markl@gorp.com)
Subject: Back on Track
I feel called upon to point out GORP's rules of engagement. The first provision says "In other words, though we don't condone censorship, we're not above using it when confronted with obscene, abusive, defamatory or otherwise unacceptable language." In my opinion, some recent postings have been needlessly disrespectful as well as off-topic. This forum is about global warming, the future of the outdoors, and intelligent, creative response to the issues raised by Bruce Sterling.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25071)
Date:
August 23, 1999 08:52 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: rules?
Gosh, I had no idea we had "rules of engagement." How very civilized of us.
Speaking of outdoor trips, I've been pondering a road trip down to the wreckage of Hurricane Bret. That hurricane hit what was probably the single least populated area in the entire American Gulf Coast. Talk about dodging a bullet.
I once saw the wreckage of Hurricane Andrew, and it was truly one of the most otherworldly sights the outdoor adventurer could image.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25093)
Date:
August 24, 1999 02:12 AM
Author: Stefan Jones
(SeJ@aol.com)
Subject: Disaster tourism?
I remember enjoying a walk through a lightly mussed up Stony Brook, NY after Hurricane Gloria expended itself over Long Island. There was no power or phone; slack cables were strewn everywhere. A dozen or so very large downed trees blocked the road between my apartment and campus. Despite the crunched vehicles and bashed houses, the people I ran into along the way were in a rather giddy and social mood.
This suggests a new form of spot-market opportunistic tourism: Disaster area visits. This could border on the unspeakably crass and unhelpful; anyone going to Turkey for kicks any time soon probably deserves to be shunned for life.
But it would be genuinely interesting and educational to visit, say, an wilderness area bashed by a hurricane, or tonado, or (especially) a volcano.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25099)
Date:
August 24, 1999 10:05 AM
Author: DJ Trash
(djtrash@yahoo.com)
Subject: imagine that
You know, Red Cross volunteers get their trips to disaster areas comped -- the food's even included! I know it might undermine the air of cool detachment that cosmopolitan disaster tourists might be trying to cultivate (see Antonioni's _Red_Desert_ to see how much prettier ecological breakdown is than the collective ennui of the haute urban bourgeoisie), but what if you added a public service component to the tour package? Trail maintenance is actually a fairly standard feature on hikes with outfitters out west. How hard would it be to make digging Turkish children out of the rubble part of the Turkey earthquake disaster tour itinerary? You might save someone's life, and in exchange you get to check out the scene (guilt-free, no less). Pretty hip, yes?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25109)
Date:
August 26, 1999 07:35 PM
Author: Anya
Subject: Adventure and natural disaster
Bruce, you raise an interesting question in my mind. Is a need for adventure, which is usually satisfied by being someplace new and different and maybe doing something technically difficult as well, such as walking a mountain trail or negotiating a bamboo bridge over a chasm, also satisfied by to the shock and awe that one feels when seeing a natural disaster? Do each of these things generate a sense of not being entirely in control anymore, of being dependant on luck a well as skill?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25222)
Date:
August 24, 1999 02:55 AM
Author: Reid Harward
(reid@well.com)
Subject: adventure travel
Interesting that the adventure traveler was mentioned, as I've been devouring Antarctica by Kim Stanley Robinson. Robinson's descriptions of the Antarctic landscape speak to some place within. Along with these sublime passages where he describes the landscape, he depicts a growth industry sprouting up around historical treks. One such tour is named Footsteps Unlimited, which traces the path of Admiral Admundsen, his men and his dogs, as they attempt to make history by being the first expedition to the south pole. The first Footsteps tours attempted to duplicate history as close as possible, which meant using the same equipment -- seal fur parkas, pants and sleeping bags, old fashioned compasses, wooden skis -- a short lived phenomena, maybe too real for the early 21st century, eh? The contemporary tours have cool stuff, GPS, sat phones, sleds that look like they were spit out of some computer wind tunnel, blimps. He's imagined some photovoltaic smart pants that are to die for, and an edible power bar belt that I must have.
In another one of his books (Blue Mars,) set a little further in the future, he depicts a global crisis as displaced water from the breakup of the Antarctic polar cap raises sea level 7 meters across the globe. Ouch! So now, instead of thinking about getting clobbered by some monumental chunk of space ice, I lie awake thinking about melting polar caps.
Does anyone have any hard data on how fast these caps are melting? If we're feeling the effects of 1970's emissions now, does that mean the full impact of our consumption of fossil fuels won't be felt until 2020?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25100)
Date:
August 25, 1999 03:27 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: ice melts
I couldn't help but notice they've dug yet another zillion-year-old dead guy out of some ancient and now-melting glacier.
Sounds like a commercial business to me: "Worldwide Frozen Mummy Hunts" *8-/
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25164)
Date:
August 25, 1999 05:34 PM
Author: Stefan Jones
(sej@aol.com)
Subject: Glacier gleaning
>>Sounds like a commercial business to me: "Worldwide Frozen Mummy Hunts" *8-/
Yeah, sounds like great fun. Until you dig up an Old One and wind up spending your last hours running through non-euclidian cities from before the dawn of man.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25175)
Date:
August 26, 1999 04:55 PM
Author: Avi Yazul
(clarity@onlinecol.com)
Subject: Context
Mr. Sterling, adventure travel by any name is valuable for it can dramatically drive home something rather lacking when you don't get out much....Context. I realized at a young age the reason I desperately needed to climb to the top of peaks was an almost manic, driving desire to get my arms around some sort of context, a more complete understanding. Maybe if I could see enough all at once I could feel the world and me were compatible. Later I learned I could produce something of the same feelings through education and insight. It's my hope that as more and more people travel, they learn to tread lightly, respectful of culture, taking heed of good manners and offering good will as they pass through another family's backyard. Maybe they don't mind you being there, which was once their domain. Maybe they do mind. Context. The need to undretand all the pieces on the table. Avi Yazul.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25217)
Date:
August 26, 1999 11:59 PM
Author: Mr. "K"
Subject: Interesting show on tonight (8/26)
In light of the recent posts here I would like to draw your attention to an interesting show that aired tonight on, I believe, ABC. It was one episode of a series entitled "Brave New World", hosted by Ted Koppel. This series examines new and interesting topics that we as humans must address in the future.
This episode in particular is about extinctions, particularly mass extinctions (there have been 5 so far) and how there is possibly the start of a new one just over the horizon, if we're not in the middle of it already.
What I found interesting is that in the northern and southern latitudes, families are having fewer and fewer offspring, which collectively is good for the environment (the show said that, too). However, the middle latitude families are still having more and more children, thus taxing the ecosystem more and more with each successive generation. More and more people mean an increased housing need which also increases the need for farmland, etc.; it just goes on and on.
In just one tree in the rainforests of Brazil, for example, 80% of the beetles examined were NEW SPECIES, never before seen by humankind! This is a truly amazing number. But what is happening in Brazil? Huge tracks of this precious rainforest are being chopped, burned and cleared to make way for new farmland with its unefficient livestock to help sustain ever-increasing numbers of humans. Of course, we all know that burning this stored-up carbon increases the Greenhouse Effect, and that leads to other more interesting, long-term effects on the environment.
The show also illustrated one biologist in Bermuda trying to resuscitate a little island bird called the Cahow, once thought to be extinct 350 years ago, but then found on a slightly remote island. Where did all the previously huge numbers of birds go? Into islanders pots and pans, consumed into extinction. This fate has happened numerous times in just the last several hundred years. For proof, read Farley Mowat's book Sea of Slaughter, which is just about Northern Atlantic species.
We humans, every one of us, stand at the edge of a great cliff. There are several choices confronting us. We can turn back and start using other 'greener' forms of energy. We can take a cold, hard look at what we use, own, and consume to see if there are other less intruding ways to live. We can look at Sterling's new philosophy as a possible 'middle ground' between a booming economy and eco-pacifism. Or we can step blindly forward with little forethought as to what our actions and deeds will do to ourselves and other organisms. I know what will happen once we step off the edge of that cliff; you do to, if you're not blind. All the opportunity of the world is at out feet. Where do you want to go?
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25231)
Date:
August 27, 1999 03:24 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: populations
There are populations booming galore around the world, but I don't think many people would have predicted that the world's advanced and powerful nations would be having population crashes. The USA is expanding at a modest clip thanks to inmigration, but Japan and most of Europe are at below replacement, and Russia is having a no-kidding demographic catastrophe.
Apparently there's never yet been an industrialized country with cheap birth control where the population produced enough children to keep up with the death rates.
No question that the Brazilian rain forest has a lot of uncatalogued species, but there's something a tad peculiar in Americans moaning about Brazilian irresponsibility. America has a tiny proportion of the planet's population cheerfully consuming a vast proportion of the resources. And when it came to international agreements on the environment, it's the USA that's the dog in the manger on the Kyoto Climate Accords.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25243)
Date:
August 27, 1999 06:59 PM
Author: Leland Dathan Davis
(ldavis@mxa.usuhs.mil)
Subject: Industry defined and explained
To whom it may concern: One tendency which I repeatedly see in environmental debates is to refer to industry as some monolithic, evil group "out there". Naturally, the author never considers his/herself to be part of industry. What then, is this "industry" everyone constantly rails against? The definition of industry that I am familiar with is that an industry is a collection of individuals or institutions which make and sell a product. The product need not be tangible, as in the case of the "legal industry", which sells legal services. Who then is part of this "evil" industry? Those who work except for those who 1) do not produce any product, no matter how intangible, and 2) those who do not sell their product or have anyone sell their product for them. The people not part of inductry are: 1. Children (Except where there is child labor) 2. Retirees 3. Government workers and officials, with a few exceptions like the postal service. 4. Academics at non-profit educational institutions. 5. People who work for charities. 6. Certain very wealthy people who do not have to work. 7. Severly disabled people who cannot work. 8. Unemployed people who would like to work. Are you not on the list? Then perhaps our guest, the missionary of veridianism, would consider you to be "morally brain dead". Otherwise, we can consider industry in a more intelligent light: Industry has many segemnts, many individuals, and many institutions, some bad ("morally brain dead"), some needing improvement, and some noble. Certain industries such as lumber or the exotic pet trade, have a history of run-ins with environmental groups. Others, such as art or home security, have yet to get into major front-page tussles. Whenever anyone says industry, you should ask, what do you mean?
Sincerely, Leland D. Davis
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25251)
Date:
August 28, 1999 01:38 AM
Author: Arminius
(INGVI@prodigy.net)
Subject: No Evidence of Global Warming
Sorry kids,
But I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE of global warming.
Who can prove to me that the sun or any other star burns at a constant temperature?
Who can prove to me that the rotatation of the Mother Earth is constant?
Who can prove to me that the cycle of warming and cooling that has been going on for thousands of years ( before our evil, industrial society) is over with. In other words how do we know we are not still coming out of the last Ice Age. How do we know we are not going to into another one. How would Global Warming explain all the previous major changes in climate?
Your feedback and comments are welcome. If your arguement is so intellectually vacant that you can only call me names and qoute the Green Peace travel angency, Al Gore or The Uni-Bomber please don't bother.
-Arminius-
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25258)
Date:
August 28, 1999 08:29 PM
Author: Bruce Sterling
(bruces@well.com)
Subject: Ironclad skeptic
Arminius, how are you on the burning "evolution" issue? (I mean, I hear that there are some cranks around who have the weird idea that mankind descended from the lower animals.)
I'm not sure we can get into a debate on the so-called "climate evidence" until I'm clear that you're sound on this man-from-the-monkeys thing.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25280)
Date:
August 30, 1999 12:05 AM
Author: Aguila
Subject: Global Warming
You say that you have yet to see any evidence of global warming, yet in the next few sentences, you ask questions that imply that you believe that global warming is real, but you have several explanations for it. If you believe that global warming is not real, as your first sentence implies, why include possible explanations for why it could be?
As for evidence, it is not hard to find if you are really looking for it. Timberline is creeping higher up in alpine mountain environments (this is verifiable by comparing airplane and satellite photos from twenty years ago and from today, or from direct experience if you are old enough). Migrating animals, such as ducks and geese, fly north earlier in the year now than they ever used to (this is verifiable by checking hunting seasons and success rates in states that migratory waterfowl migrate through). Giant chunks of the Antarctic ice cap are breaking off, and smaller chunks of these ice islands are breaking off and melting (verifiable by freely available satellite photography). Closer to home, ponds and lakes that I used to skate on and ice-fish in 20 years ago haven't frozen since the early 1980's.
The only possible way to not notice global warming is to keep your eyes closed and your ears shut to the evidence that is all around you.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25311)
Date:
September 03, 1999 03:25 PM
Author: Brent Capps
(bcapps@hevanet.com)
> Who can prove to me that the cycle
> of warming and cooling that has been going on
> for thousands of years ( before our evil,
> industrial society) is over with. In other words
> how do we know we are not still coming out of
> the last Ice Age. How do we know we are not going
> to into another one. How would Global Warming
> explain all the previous major changes in
> climate?
The Earth's cycle of temperature changes certainly isn't "over" and likely won't be as long as Earth continues to possess an atmosphere, liquid oceans, a molten core, and (possibly) life, because it appears that all of these things are necessary to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium.
If you measure time in billions of years, Earth's temperature is remarkably stable. Change the time scale to millions or thousands of years and our temperature becomes unstable. Measure in hundreds of years and it returns to stability. Measure from one year to the next and you again see lots of variation.
Ten thousand years ago the Earth was much colder than today. Five thousand years ago the Earth was about 4.5 degrees warmer than today. In about 3000 BCE the temperature stabilized and has remained so until the present. There have been variations, such as the Medieval Warm Period which lasted from about 800 until about 1350, and the Little Ice Age which lasted from about 1400 until about 1850. The Earth's mean temperature has been steadily rising since the mid 19th century; the reason why is still unclear, but it's definitely happening.
The evidence for these long-term changes comes from a variety of sources; ice cores, pollen samples, historical accounts. During the Little Ice Age, sea ice extended out from Britain as much as 5 kilometers into the English Channel. During the Medieval Warm Period, we know the English were growing grapes in Hereford and the Norwegians were raising wheat north of Trondheim. We can infer a lot about the prevailing climate from the conditions needed to grow these crops.
Temperature records going as far back as the 1840s leave no doubt that the Earth's mean temperature is going up. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether or not the warming was triggered by human beings. It's enough to know that it's real, that it's going to cause widespread famine if it continues, and that we ought to immediately start doing everything in our power to slow it down. That means cutting our emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses down to a bare minimum so we can buy ourselves as much time as possible.
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25503)
Date:
August 29, 1999 06:55 PM
Author: Arminius
(INGVI@prodigy.net)
Subject: On a lighter note.
Well I cannot agree with Mr.Sterling on the alleged global warming issue, but I certainally enjoyed his most excellent article on the Burning Man experience that appeared in the coveted November 1996 issue of WIRED. And that is how I will exist on this issue, by saying something "nice". -Arminius-
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25301)
Date:
August 29, 1999 11:47 PM
Author: dangerousdave
(davepell@together.net)
Subject: Global warming is here (It's obvious!)
No matter how defenders of the status quo deny it, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that this huge explosion of human expenditure of energy is affecting weather, temperature et al. Some think it is for the better, but it is only for the betteroff's pocketbooks.
I'll give an example: Here in Vermont there is a large Ski Resort developer, named Les Otten, a nice enough man, who is heavily in debt while expanding his Ski empire including Killington resort (some Maine resorts and Utah too...) Because of global warming his empire at least in Vermont is threatened. Desperately, the profits are not seen in the actual skiing, which loses money even in the best snow years but in selling the associated condos, town houses, etc to the well-to-do skier. It's in real estate that's where the money is.
Knowing the loss of Vt's snow due to global warming is dooming the ski industry, there is now a big push to build a huge Development of a housing resort to sell lots and houses and condos before the Snow totally dries up. Time is of the essence before the world knows snow isn't where it used to be here in the state that started the ski business in the States. And before Wall Street comes a knockin' to get their money for all those other ski resorts Les bought up. Finances and privilege are driving these carbon wasteful projects. Instead Vermont will be stuck with these useless developments that uglify the state, bring pollution in, 6 lane highways, and NO SNOW....just to please the short term financial woes of one developer.
Look around, Indonesia, Mexico, wherever, "nice enough" developers get in a credit crunch and they have to build, build, build, in order to keep their creditors happy. That's where "global warming" comes from, the drive to satisfy expectations of creditors for profits. The money may be green in color, but not in spirit.
Some sort of taxation and benefits for those developers who do building, or manufacturing the 'right way', or the "green" way, needs to be implemented....
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25310)
Date:
September 08, 1999 05:04 PM
Author: Caitlan1
(excite.com)
Subject: A new thought on Global Warming
OK, I think it is quite clear to all of us that over the years, there has been an increase in the overall world temperature. Am I right? Well, how about this, I live in a very small town in the mountains of western North Carolina. The Smoky Mountains to be exact. Over the past, oh, say ten years, I have seen an average of 10 miles of pavement coated on the earth's surface. Now if my math is correct, that is approximately 100 or so miles of new pavement over the last ten years. This is not only on public roads but in parking lots, private roads, driveways, etc. I know that driving on pavement is much less dusty, supposedly more safe, you know the whole nine yards that make up the reasons we use to justify making our lives 'easier'. Has anyone stopped to think that all of this pavement might just be a contributing factor to the average temperature? I mean, if I have seen this much up here in the cool mountains, how much pavement have you all seen where you live? Is the lack of dust and increased time of travel worth the problems it may be causing in the long run?
Mankind, as much as I hate to admit it, is fighting a losing battle here. We have started something that only mother nature will eventually see fit to counteract and replace the natural balance. And with that natural balance, I feel that mankind will cease to exist, at least in the terms that we are familliar with.
Just a thought about Global warming that I though might bear discussion. Post or e-mail your comments, I'd love to hear them!
(http://www2.gorp.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=32&Message_ID=25736)
