Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
An utterly simplistic read. No wonder you like it. He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case.
Cherry picking in the extreme. I suggest you look at some of the more recent peer reviewed archeological information that has come out over the last ten years.
That's the problem with all of you. You read something that just touches the surface and somehow think you're experts all the while ignoring the vast ocean of information that's out there.
Although I can't vouch for his research on Vikings, I have several books and documentaries on the mayans. And his findings coinceed with the current arqueological findings of Mayan decadence.
Also, in Rapa Nui the harsh truth is self-evident if you take a look at the island: it has no trees at all. The explotation of their forests was not sustainable and brought them to a civilizational collapse.
What I find so unsettling about your comments is the fact that you haven't provided a single reference to support your statements.
Are "trees" our problem here? The sustainable folks TODAY want to grow stuff just to burn it for power.. In a failed attempt at logic and math -- they account for that as "zero carbon" and sustainable.. I think maybe the folks on Rapa Nui were just executing their 200 yr sustainability plan..
You were soooo close..
Sustainable = Broke-ass HAPPY subsistence organic HEMP farmers...
Discover the 10 most sustainable countries | SWU Starts with you
Sure , those darn lo-tech swiss farmers ... I am sure they will be the main cause of a near-future contrywide collapse.
Wow... I am so inspired. I'm gonna go ride my bike up and down the Swiss Alps and pat myself on the back when I carry my organic veggies in a reusable cloth bag..
IS THAT what this is about? A high enough standard of living so that you can AFFORD to waste money on massive Solar installations in Switzerland? Count me and my SUSTAINABLE 48 foot sea-going yacht in dude....
Although I can't vouch for his research on Vikings, I have several books and documentaries on the mayans. And his findings coinceed with the current arqueological findings of Mayan decadence.
Also, in Rapa Nui the harsh truth is self-evident if you take a look at the island: it has no trees at all. The explotation of their forests was not sustainable and brought them to a civilizational collapse.
What I find so unsettling about your comments is the fact that you haven't provided a single reference to support your statements.
Are "trees" our problem here? The sustainable folks TODAY want to grow stuff just to burn it for power.. In a failed attempt at logic and math -- they account for that as "zero carbon" and sustainable.. I think maybe the folks on Rapa Nui were just executing their 200 yr sustainability plan..
You might be surprised, but I agree with you on biofuells mostly.
Switchgrass is the only plant that has a good energy ratio ( 5 to 1 by most accounts), of course, the downside is it uses arable land which can be used to produce food so it must be used sparingly.
Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
Y'all are trying waaaay too hard here..
Our Birkenstock brethren define "sustainable" more along the lines of an ant colony than an empire.
My work in 3rd party politics has put me in close proximity to the core of the sustainable cult..
You could try to read the 42 references to sustainability in the Green Party platform, but when you get to "sustainable space travel" --- I think you'd give up.. ((I'm NOT JOKING --- it's IN THERE !!!))
They use that word like a Valley Girl uses "totally"... It has NO SPECIFIC meaning. Only a reference to things THEY approve of and like.. Building a deck -- is NOT sustainable. Little tiny cute COMMUNITY BASED tire factories are sustainable --- 6 giant ones are NOT.. Militaries and defense --- UNSUS.. Social Justice SUS..
Providing african tribes with solar powered radios is sustainable.. Allowing them electricity to run a clinic or an ambulance for 24 hours a day is not..
It's all about control and dictating HOW the environment gets used. If THEY like it --- sustainable. If not --- it's unsustainable.. Doesn't matter if it works well or works at all. Or what the economic impacts are.
Here's a sample of eco-left preaching... From the pages of the Green Party Platform..
4. Sustaining our quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental health, and long-term survival demands that we adopt new ways of doing business. We need to remake commerce to encourage diversity and variety, responding to the enormous complexity of global and local conditions. Big business is not about appropriateness and adaptability, but about power and market control. Greens support small business, responsible stakeholder capitalism, and broad and diverse forms of economic cooperation. We argue that economic diversity is more responsive than big business to the needs of diverse human populations.
It's only about power and control to decide how resources get allocated by them... They have no freaking idea how stuff works.. Just how they want to WILL IT to work with political power.
THey don't give a dump about SURVIVABILTY or freedom or choice...
An utterly simplistic read. No wonder you like it. He ignored vast amounts of information just on the Greenland Vikings in one case, just so he could make his case.
Cherry picking in the extreme. I suggest you look at some of the more recent peer reviewed archeological information that has come out over the last ten years.
That's the problem with all of you. You read something that just touches the surface and somehow think you're experts all the while ignoring the vast ocean of information that's out there.
Although I can't vouch for his research on Vikings, I have several books and documentaries on the mayans. And his findings coinceed with the current arqueological findings of Mayan decadence.
Also, in Rapa Nui the harsh truth is self-evident if you take a look at the island: it has no trees at all. The explotation of their forests was not sustainable and brought them to a civilizational collapse.
What I find so unsettling about your comments is the fact that you haven't provided a single reference to support your statements.
The term is vague on purpose.....Then, to close the loop on the circular reasoning, you'll get a response like "if I have to explain, you wouldn't understand".Oh, I think we all know that. I just want to hear from them what sustainable means...to them. It speaks volumes that they have refused to answer that very simple request.
Sustainable = Broke-ass subsistence dirt farmers.
You were soooo close..
Sustainable = Broke-ass HAPPY subsistence organic HEMP farmers...
Discover the 10 most sustainable countries | SWU Starts with you
Sure , those darn lo-tech swiss farmers ... I am sure they will be the main cause of a near-future contrywide collapse.
We might as well export them to China and use them as a WMD. I am sure that will bring the chinese on their knees:
Please send us a nuke , but don't send us any more swiss farmers
You were soooo close..
Sustainable = Broke-ass HAPPY subsistence organic HEMP farmers...
Discover the 10 most sustainable countries | SWU Starts with you
Sure , those darn lo-tech swiss farmers ... I am sure they will be the main cause of a near-future contrywide collapse.
We might as well export them to China and use them as a WMD. I am sure that will bring the chinese on their knees:
Please send us a nuke , but don't send us any more swiss farmers
"3-Norway
Norway has the ambicious goal of compensation all emissions until 2030 by financing sustainable projects in developing countries. The country also inaugurated the first highway integrated with a network of hydrogen fueling stations in the world."
Isn't that interesting, rocket fuel. Oxygen is everywhere. Wonder what the emmisions are like, aside from the obvious water.
Yeah, at least in general, accordimg to the Great Wiki, hydrogen manufacturing tends to use fossil fuels to manufacture it. PMZ posted, (I think it was PMZ) a current rssearch on catalysts for efficient hydroliyis of water. Hydrolysys is easy enough, with electricity. Two cathodes and two collecting vessils, you can do it at home. So, in theory, solar cells will do it, if you have enough. I suspect that the reason we don't see it is that it is cost prohibitive. To many PV to achieve the power to run the compressors that would compress the hydrogen into a liquid.
Why you don't see more of it --- is that there was a bait and switch on fuel cells goin on for a decade. The marketing yarn was hydrogen fuel leaving only water as a byproduct. But instead, most current fuel cells work off nat gas instead because of the available distribution. When prices of fuel cells come down -- they will be the superior power source for transportation.. And investors will flock to building out the H2 infrastructure.
It'll be another Dakota shale oil deal where IN SPITE of govt restrictions and funding to the competitors --- H2 fuel cells and solar/wind powered H2 refineries will solve MORE issues than batteries and an entire new electrical grid..
Why you don't see more of it --- is that there was a bait and switch on fuel cells goin on for a decade. The marketing yarn was hydrogen fuel leaving only water as a byproduct. But instead, most current fuel cells work off nat gas instead because of the available distribution. When prices of fuel cells come down -- they will be the superior power source for transportation.. And investors will flock to building out the H2 infrastructure.
It'll be another Dakota shale oil deal where IN SPITE of govt restrictions and funding to the competitors --- H2 fuel cells and solar/wind powered H2 refineries will solve MORE issues than batteries and an entire new electrical grid..
That sort of energy will come about when there is a genuine profit motive in creating it. Government subsidies and wishful thinking will never make it happen. The best and brightst...the real "doers" will be coming out of the woodwork with ideas and innovation that we can't even imagine today when there is real money to be made in that sort of energy production. The projects funded by government will look like kids playing with Lincoln Logs compared to the developmen that will happen when there is real money to be made as opposed to government subsidy handouts and tax incentives. All that can generate is play...the work will happen when, as always, there is real money to be made.
Nor have you
Nor have you
Oh , but I have. My point was that societies from the past were not sustainable ( in ecologic terms) and that for the first time we have the oportunity to create a sustainable society.
... I provided two references : A book from time-life and the book collapse.
You seem to have disregarded both references.
By contrast the position you and oddball are defending is that sustainable societies from the past were unstable and their sustainability ( in ecologic terms ) made them unstable.
So far Flacaltenn has provided the best argument : that pre-agricultural societies were unstable. Though I can see other factors which played against them , so their sustainability was not their true weakness from my point of view.
Anyhow , this part of the thread seems to be going nowhere... but feel free to post any links to support your viewpoint .
Because it's purposefully vague, to the point that you can make it mean whatever you want...Which is the point.What do you call folks who use the word "sustainable", here, often, have read the definition here several times, and still have no idea of what it means?
Thanks for providing an example for the class, Miss South Carolina...Good job.Things that not sustainable are.......let's hear it kids..........unsustainable. As in no future.
Broad brush, ad hominem straw man argument....You hit the trifecta.This is the knuckledraggers wish for humanity. No future.
I can't think of a better reason to leave the cult stewing in their own juices and move on to intelligent conversation which, by definition, excludes them.
Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY, multiple times on specifics for me))
I think this IS germane. And WestWall is correct that a definition of the "plan" is owed here.
And here is the problem.. If you take the Green Party EXPANSIVE definitions and misuse of the term "sustainability" literally (same for the UN which is the primary purveyor of AGW lore and fiction) -- then at least the ECONOMIC definitions of sustainability takes us RIGHT BACK to those more primitive societies that were systemically UNSUSTAINABLE..
Why?
Because instead of concentrating the enviro effects of say paint manufacturing to 6 or 8 major producers, their naive agenda would have 15,000 smaller, cuter, cuddly paint shops open up on a COMMUNITY scale.. All barely scraping the efficiencies of scale to eek out a survival.. AND the enviro nightmare of PAYING FOR and instituting enviro remediation and prevention at all those sites..
Please explain how that isn't the exact WRONG prescription to "sustainability".. Or how it DOESN'T lead us back to the tribal mistakes of all those failed ancient subsistence cultures.
Cut an envirowhack and hear a eugenicist scream.
I was waiting to find what your real purpose here is, thanks for finally letting it out...
So you're no scientist as you claimed, you're an activist BS artist... Got it, now I can treat you like one and stop bothering trying to correct your BS pseudo-science..
And what group of people will benefit most from Agenda 21 and what groups will not?
I'll give you a hint, you are screwed... Social parasites living off the system, while they spam web forum and tweak all night such as yourself are doomed under AGnda 21. Poor African countries? Doomed. Third world? Doomed.
Agenda 21 is about ensuring the way of life of the select few, and not the world. Here's an example. They speak of sustainable populations, yet they do not mention how this will be attained? Are they going to pressure nation governments to adopt some form of birth control system? Who will be limited in this? Who decides? They don't say out right, but what they do say is things like "sustainable agriculture" which will mean getting back to an agrarian society where communities farm their own food and resources. Sounds fine but then what about people who cannot do this? What about people who live in an area that makes this impossible? What about people whose jobs prohibit the extra time? Well they can't say this but they are gone..
If they want to really do as they imply, they would man up and tell third world countries that live almost nomadic existences that THEY need to join the 20th century, stop having kids irresponsibly and settle down, or else they won't be able to save them from themselves. But they can't do that, because the very people who helped pen this Agenda 21, are the elite classes of many of those countries.
This about saving the resources for them, not for the world. A real world plan would involve real world discussions and wouldn't use deception...
Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY, multiple times on specifics for me))
I think this IS germane. And WestWall is correct that a definition of the "plan" is owed here.
And here is the problem.. If you take the Green Party EXPANSIVE definitions and misuse of the term "sustainability" literally (same for the UN which is the primary purveyor of AGW lore and fiction) -- then at least the ECONOMIC definitions of sustainability takes us RIGHT BACK to those more primitive societies that were systemically UNSUSTAINABLE..
Why?
Because instead of concentrating the enviro effects of say paint manufacturing to 6 or 8 major producers, their naive agenda would have 15,000 smaller, cuter, cuddly paint shops open up on a COMMUNITY scale.. All barely scraping the efficiencies of scale to eek out a survival.. AND the enviro nightmare of PAYING FOR and instituting enviro remediation and prevention at all those sites..
Please explain how that isn't the exact WRONG prescription to "sustainability".. Or how it DOESN'T lead us back to the tribal mistakes of all those failed ancient subsistence cultures.
The thread is diverting from its original intent. I am wondering if it would be worthwile putting it in a separate thread.
While I ponder such decision I think it would be usefull for the purpose of any further discussion to agree on the definition of sustainable :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Definition
The simple definition "sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems
I'll stick to that for the time being.
Actually, I was gonna unsubscribe UNTIL it got into DEFINING the plans that PMZ has evoked for 50 pages now.. ((I really don't know since he's the only poster I have on ignore, but he's failed MISERABLY, multiple times on specifics for me))
I think this IS germane. And WestWall is correct that a definition of the "plan" is owed here.
And here is the problem.. If you take the Green Party EXPANSIVE definitions and misuse of the term "sustainability" literally (same for the UN which is the primary purveyor of AGW lore and fiction) -- then at least the ECONOMIC definitions of sustainability takes us RIGHT BACK to those more primitive societies that were systemically UNSUSTAINABLE..
Why?
Because instead of concentrating the enviro effects of say paint manufacturing to 6 or 8 major producers, their naive agenda would have 15,000 smaller, cuter, cuddly paint shops open up on a COMMUNITY scale.. All barely scraping the efficiencies of scale to eek out a survival.. AND the enviro nightmare of PAYING FOR and instituting enviro remediation and prevention at all those sites..
Please explain how that isn't the exact WRONG prescription to "sustainability".. Or how it DOESN'T lead us back to the tribal mistakes of all those failed ancient subsistence cultures.
The thread is diverting from its original intent. I am wondering if it would be worthwile putting it in a separate thread.
While I ponder such decision I think it would be usefull for the purpose of any further discussion to agree on the definition of sustainable :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Definition
The simple definition "sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems
I'll stick to that for the time being.
Both the UN and the Green Party then stretch the definition of "ecosystem" to include both macro and micro economics as "ecosystems".. Thereby extending the reach of their "sustainability" judgement to virtually every aspect of life. And a few weird reaches to space travel, women's issues, and social justice..
I'll stick with the more comprehensive progressive plans that lay out a roadmap for sustainability..
Don't know why you waited 50 pages to pull the plug on the discussion.. It's been the underlying mantra of PMZ for all those pages.. I figured we're owed an adequate explanation of the "enlightened plan" that we are supposedly obstructing..
50 pages of accusations and sociopathic projection later, we still don't know who We or They are --- or what it is that the "doers" and "achievers" have in mind..
My guess is --- only his shrink really knows..
If its important to you and you think it is more brilliant than what I'm observing -- please start a thread. It would be presumptuous of ME to do start one -- simply to ridicule the naive and vacuuous excuses that are made to obtain and wield power over society..
