2002 - International Year of the Mountains

[pope]

What the hell is this? I though this thread was about bastard off-spring!

[Fairweather]

The Crystal Mountain expansion proposal will dramatically improve the sewage disposal aspect of that operation. Anyone who claims that the proposal is bad for the environment is full of sour grapes.

I will agree with the suggestion that poor populations tend to ravage their mountains at a faster pace than developed. Makes me wonder why so many enviros want to move backward instead of forward economically. It is also poor nations that are "overpopulating" the planet. USA population growth is primarily immigration and the offspring thereof. The Sierra Club had a very contentious debate a couple years ago on whether to support an anti-immigration agenda.

Anytime a report is released by the UN it seems to be light on science and heavy on left wing agenda, if one takes the time to read the fine print.

By the way...The Kyoto Treaty WAS NOT about cutting CO2 emissions; it was about the re-distribution of wealth.

[Winter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:[QB]The Crystal Mountain expansion proposal will dramatically improve the sewage disposal aspect of that operation. Anyone who claims that the proposal is bad for the environment is full of sour grapes.[QB]

---

HAH! Stinkin' republicans. Off-spring of George W.

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Winter ]

[Dru]

Fairweather sez: "Anytime a report is released by the UN it seems to be light on science and heavy on left wing agenda, if one takes the time to read the fine print.

By the way...The Kyoto Treaty WAS NOT about cutting CO2 emissions; it was about the re-distribution of wealth."

Jump back with the rhetoric for a moment and show us your degree in climate science that makes your opinion relevant????

-Geography M.Sc 1997

[W]

Fairweather-

When you say "enviro" in the derisive sense of the word, are you referring to the EARTH FIRST! camp of eco-terrorists, and similar kind? Or is it, as I increasingly notice seems to be the case, a term that is used to describe anyone who does not agree 100% with the Cheney...I mean Bush...Administration's "environmental" policy?

The way I see it, both sides are equally self-serving. I agree that many of the outspoken environmental organizations are tainted by political propaganda and personal self-serving control trips by liberal do-gooders, who are convinced that their way is the way for all, and will stop at nothing to impose their values upon others through regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

On the other hand, since your view seems to mimic that of the current government's, the question I have for you is: Is it any improvement to put the future of our natural recreation places, and the health and cleanliness of our watersheds and our natural resources, in the hands of businesses whose chief aim is growth and profits? Surely you cannot be suggesting that any business, no matter their stated intentions, can put the interest of human betterment and right relationship above all else? That interest may and often does lie within their motives, but most often it is heavily subverted, very secondary to the bottom line of: the business comes first (read: "I" come first). So any action on the part of such a business is bound to be fragmentary- it benefits a group of segregated individuals (of one side or another, it doesn't matter which one), and if it benefits the whole it is often by circumstance and not by chief intent. The problem, then, is not businesses or corporate America, per se; the problem lies in the human trait of "me" and the propagation of the self through the running of businesses by individuals, and in it's interactions with society and the world- and the environment.

There are two "I"'s dealing with the environment-keep in mind the following is, for illustration, a look at the extreme end of both:

the business (right wing usually) "I" which seeks to profit from the environment, all the while justifying the usage and gross exploitation of the earth in the name of human needs; indeed there are human needs for our resources, but the culture we have created, from the top down, has resulted in one which plunders and recklessly uses these resources like there is no tomorrow- mainly, because there is no day like to today to make money. And it is in response to the base culture which encourages, in almost every facet, immediate gratification and self-promotion and assertion of our values and our lifestyles.

The other "I" is the one that claims to "represent" the environment (left wing usually). This person's actions are wholly devoted to coming into conflict with anyone who disagrees with their stated and finalized, unbending stance on what is "right". Extreme activists in particular spend their energy sponsoring exclusory legislation which seeks to shape the actions, or non-actions, and personal freedoms of others through intimidation, stifling regulations, and laws. While some of this legislation does indeed "protect" the environment, the very enaction of it and the means in which "truth" has been imposed has shattered relationships and breeds further conflicts and opposition. These people do not actually do physical harm to the environment, and their actions have in many cases benefitted the environment, but in large part, they are not in fact at all concered with the environment in themselves. Their views are merely a public display of "me", and to ruthlessly propagate them upon the world is the same exact psychological process that the person who is devoted to money, and the art of making it, is undertaking.

In all of this, there is regard for neither human relationship nor for the environment. There is merely an ongoing battle of ideologies and egos.

So, sorry to digress, but Fairweather, your comments about sour grapes contains merit and absurdity all at once. Merit, in that many who are crying foul are indeed just mad that they are not getting their way. Absurdity, in that it presupposes that any business expansion and "improvements" are being done chiefly with the interest of bettering the lives of all.

What I say might sound negative to you. Well, I say that one has to be able to identify false values before the individual, untainted discovery of true values can begin.

The unfortunate impact in the meantime is that wild spaces are disappearing, and these places are not something that only a few people need. In fact, the connection with nature is something that a great majority of people have utterly lost, having been raised in the cities and having no conception at all of what undeveloped land looks like. The culture is all we see, and it shapes all that we are, and we are no longer living simply. Having a relationship with nature and recognizing that fundamental need in myself- I have to go away to wild places periodically. It is the only way I know how to prepare for meeting the crazy situations I encounter in the cities. We have developed our land to the exclusion of this relationship. Additionally, the developments in mountain areas are increasingly reflecting the false societal values- the skiing industry certainly does not cater to folks with lower or even middle level incomes. Building golf courses in the mountains? That would be fine, except that golfing also caters and appeals to a certain income level person. Yosemite Park is going out of its way to make it very difficult to go there are not spend any money (i.e.- go climbing there).

The Access Fund is one of the few groups that I truly believe in- for they are a group of people who seem to be able to concern themselves with community, to deal with issues in a non-partisan and open minded forum that seeks to listen to understand rather than to assert.

Until we can move beyond our own individual personal control trips in our relationships with one another, the environment will merely become an indicating factor of our health as a species. The whole world is basically at war, both abroad and at home. Why should the fact that wild places are disappearing come as any surprise?

[Heinouscling]

One word is sufficient to describe the cause for most of the world's ills ... "Overpopulation".

-Heinous

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heinouscling:

One word is sufficient to describe the cause for most of the world's ills ... "Overpopulation".

-Heinous

---

Do your part to solve this problem, kill yourself.

Consumption is just as big a problem as overpopulation. If every person consumed at the level North Americans do it would take 8 more planets to support us all. If we were to standardize population indices by resource consumption level that would show the USA having a larger effective population than India's and almost the same as China's.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Dru ]

[sayjay]

quote:

---

By the way...The Kyoto Treaty WAS NOT about cutting CO2 emissions; it was about the re-distribution of wealth.

---

Actually the Kyoto Treaty was about cutting CO2 emissions, but it failed in part because the U.S. gov't (and people like you) view it only as a tool for re-distribution of wealth. Those who are rich (US) do not want to pay for the damage we are doing, which will inevitably be felt first and foremost by those who are poor (developing world).And, hey, that's cool cause we all know that unbound, unregulated, let-em-make-money-the-rest-of-the-world-be-damned capitalism ultimately makes the world a better place, right? Just look at Enron...

- Climate researcher- PhD, Atmospheric Science

[W]

Exactly, Dru. That's why statement's like Fairweather's blaming poor countries for doing more harm to the environment are dualistic. Indeed, the poor countries are doing a great deal of environmental damage- but ever ask why? Is it in part because of voracious consumerism in wealthy countries is demanding more resources of them? or because these countries economies are at the mercy of what happens elsewhere? It is no surprise that countries like Brazil are tearing down the rainforest. These people are desperate to keep afloat in the world. We create a dog-eat-dog world at home, and it breeds the same thing elsewhere. If everyone has to be out for themselves in order to survive, surely the environment will not be of importance at all.

Overpopulation ain't the problem. The problem is the same one humans have had from the beginning- lack of understanding of the self.

[erik]

'W' is so balanced in his approach!!!!

my sentiments exactly!

[Dru]

so, having made my point on consumption, at least my drive to Lillooet is shorter than yours....

i will make up for it by drinking more beer than you. at least beer is a renewable resouce

[Rafael_H]

But you see, W, there are no textbooks on "understanding of the self", there aren't even "Idiot's understanding of the self" or "Understanding of the Self for Dummies"!

And so as long as the material world is of a concern for you, sides are bound to be taken. You belong to one implicitly, even non-action is a vocal statement. And so even if the regulation causes what I call "disabled black woman" sindrome in the government (and yes, they often make decisions for us) I prefer (publicly)controlled regulation to free-for-all. Because in the latter case, by the time the Who-needs-the-spotted-owl Fairweather figures he chopped too many trees, situation is irreversible.

[coyote]

It seems to me there are a lot of factors but, when you look at other countries being a part of enviro downfall due to lack of regulations on emissions, etc...a lot of those companies are ours. just doing business in other countries because o the lack of regs, cheap labor etc...Yes over consumption on our part and anything goes to pad our pockets....And for the local forests and environment, they need to curb the development or stop it completely for a while or forever....and definetely need to stop Immigration!

2 cnts

[Matt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

I will agree with the suggestion that poor populations tend to ravage their mountains at a faster pace than developed. Makes me wonder why so many enviros want to move backward instead of forward economically. It is also poor nations that are "overpopulating" the planet. USA population growth is primarily immigration and the offspring thereof. The Sierra Club had a very contentious debate a couple years ago on whether to support an anti-immigration agenda.

Anytime a report is released by the UN it seems to be light on science and heavy on left wing agenda, if one takes the time to read the fine print.

By the way...The Kyoto Treaty WAS NOT about cutting CO2 emissions; it was about the re-distribution of wealth.

---

Why don't you crawl back into your cave of ignorance, Brian Rybolt. Why did you decide to hide behind the avatar of "Fairweather"? I am sick of your bullshit popping up all over this site.

Here's something to think about:

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following. There would be:

57 Asians8 Africans21 Europeans14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south52 would be female, 48 would be male70 would be nonwhite, 30 would be white70 would be non-Christian, 30 would be Christian89 would be hetrosexual, 11 would be homosexual6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the U.S.70 would be unable to read50 would suffer from malnutrition1 would have a college education1 would own a computer

Brian Rybolt, you are in this village. You have EVERYTHING YOU WANT!!! You are the rich, white Christian hetro educated computer owning American. Why can't you share? We, as Americans, are the richest most successful people on the planet. We have a responsibility to our children to reduce our insatiable consumption of natural resources because we take too much! Our resources are finite! We waste too much! We have a responsibility to help those less fortunate because: (1) we can, (2) it is the right thing to do and (3) because it is in out own self interest to do so-- business operates in a global market. Stop distancing yourself from those people in "poor nations that are overpopulating the planet" and start thinking about them as your neighbor. Try and consider why you should help them. It is called civil society.

When you go climbing with a friend and he discovers on the top of the mountain that he forgot his lunch, what do you say? Sorry sucker watch me eat? I'll bet you share it with him.

[Dwayner]

So if I give some of these guys a sandwich, can they promise me that they won't hijack an airplane full of innocent "first world" consumers and ram it into our buildings, nuclear plants, etc.? Can they promise not to have ten kids or more kids, a good many of which survive because of our generous international food and health plans?

Ain't it ideal to be an idealist!

[Dru]

if he honestly forgot his lunch... i share. but if he deliberately forgot his lunch cause he knew i will feed him, the bastard can stand to lose some weight!

c'mon matt lets not get the simple platitudes going cause they are so easy to subvert.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Dru ]

[sayjay]

To add to Matt's ##'s, but specifically on the Kyoto/CO2 issue-

Per capita CO2 emissions, in tonnes of carbon:U.S. 6.2Canada 5Australia 4.5Former USSR 3Japan 2.75Western Europe 2.2-2.5China 0.6Latin America 0.6India 0.25Africa 0.25

And lest you should say "yeah, but this is per capita and China & India have so many more people!"...

Percent of total CO2 emissions:OECD N. America 30%OECD Europe 17%Eastern Europe 5% Former USSR 13%Japan 2.5%Oceana 2%China 6%India 4.5%Other Asia 5%N. Africa & Mid-East <2%Other Africa 5%Brzil <3.5%Other Latin America 6.5%

Kinda makes it look like we're the problem, not China and India, doesn't it???

[Dru]

We're #2, we're #2... oh wait... that is 2nd most bad, nothing to cheer about.

At least we're still first in energy consumption.

power

[Matt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dwayner:

So if I give some of these guys a sandwich, can they promise me that they won't hijack an airplane full of innocent "first world" consumers and ram it into our buildings, nuclear plants, etc.? Can they promise not to have ten kids or more kids, a good many of which survive because of our generous international food and health plans?Ain't it ideal to be an idealist!

---

Why do you think they are so angry at America? What has driven them to think the only solution is terrorism? I think it's because they are losers in the global ecomomy. They see us as greedy and unwilling to share. It is a simple case of the haves and the have nots.

[W]

Rafael,

I understand your point- that, given the way the world is set up right now, protection by regulation is better than allowing business and exploitative interests to run roughshod over the environment. I feel the same way, actually.

Yet even with regulations things continue to slowly go down hill. Resources are still disappearing, untrodden land is becoming more and more difficult to find. We are not solving the problem at all. In fact, we already are- doing nothing about it, really.

I think it is clear that what we are and have been doing as a culture is not working, and more importantly, doesn't make any sense. You are correct in pointing out that there is no one and no guide to help one understand one's self. In fact- you are more correct than you know- you have to be your own guide. If someone else gives you a blueprint for understanding yourself, it is not about you at all, but it is about them. We have things like this already- they are called organized religions. The trouble is, humans the world over are conditioned to seek the answers to truth, life, and understanding themselves by looking to another person to tell them; to seek out a method, system, or rigid formula or path in order to "arrive". In fact authority, methods and systems have no place in these matters, for the method is where one's attention focuses and the end- truth- is forgotten, forever postponed as something to be attained later. Truth becomes an idea, and never is actualized. So truth, freedom, is actually the first step. The insight is an immediate occurrance when one's attention is proper and right.

So in effect, if you state that because no one else "is doing it", no one else is making the effort to understand, and the world is just the way it is, then you have capitulated to the culture and are effectively stating that you are satisfied with the way things are; in other words, you say the process of understanding yourself is too arduous and therefore you find it more satisfying to immerse and conform to the circle and process of conflict in which we have been embroiled since time began. The state of "non-action" you speak of, in reality, is not "doing nothing". Bruce Lee wrote of the difference between "having no form", which is the opposite of the forms he felt were false, and which means lacking any ability to act on anything at all- and having "no-form", which is a state that is FREE of all rigid forms and structures- and their OPPOSITES, and which is a state that allows the individual to explode from the center outwards, with limitless possibilities for action and self-discovery. Do you see the difference? In terms of action, most people think that to not act on conflicts and aggression and violence and all the rest of our problems is to do nothing at all and just vegetate and let people run over you. That is because they have not formulated the insight into this enclosed, limited thinking in terms of opposites. The state of true "non-action" is entirely outside of action and it's opposite, and allows for infinite creatively and energy for action to meet any situation in life. But if one doesn't see it, all that remains is speculation and idea that exists and is born within the box one has created and in which one operates.

It is extraordinarily important to understand these distinctions. Unfortunately, it also is I admit extraordinarily difficult and arduous to accomplish this while living in this culture, for the culture discourages independent thinking and questioning of our values- that may in fact be false. It teaches us to think to oppose and not to understand, and this carries right to our ability to recognize a problem- in this case, the environment, and yet we are really in fact doing nothing about it. Because we don't really know what to do, we find a fragmentary outlook created within the culture that suits our individual preferences and views and we take a stand on it and content ourselves with things as they are- we content ourselves with having problems we are not actually serious about solving.

If people can begin to recognize the expanding impact of their actions upon the world, they will be able to instantly see and feel the urgent importance of understanding themselves. When there is regard for all, there is no "one" who, when faced with the truth of the causes of our problems, asks "what will happen to me?"

Meanwhile, imposing regulations and disempowering the destroyers of the environment has even more power if those doing the imposing and disempowering are doing it for the RIGHT reasons, and not for their OWN reasons.

Yes it is tough to see...but it is absolutely all that is needed. It's been right in front of us from the very beginning.

[vegetablebelay]

Where's sexual cocoa puff? This discussion is right up his alley!

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:

Why do you think they are so angry at America? What has driven them to think the only solution is terrorism? I think it's because they are losers in the global ecomomy. They see us as greedy and unwilling to share. It is a simple case of the haves and the have nots.

---

Osama bin L. is (was) a Saudi multimillionaire... I dont think your argument is very persuasive there...

[Dru]

W, can you fix my motorcycle for me

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dru:

Osama bin L. is (was) a Saudi multimillionaire... I dont think your argument is very persuasive there...

---

I'm not sure that Ladin's status as a multimillionaire negates Matt's analysis. We're such nice guys, I don't know why he doesn't like us, but he may well misunderstand our benevolent objectives when it comes to power and politics in the Middle East. Anyway, he appears to me to be a meglomaniac that derives a lot of power from promoting terrorism and I bet that many of his followers do indeed belive as Matt suggested.

[Dru]

... and the fact that America is the Great Satan is just a forunate coincidence...