About Us

T i m

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:54:58 +0100, wrote:

snip

So I see no reason that our present reasonably good ways of life which
have been reached by centuries of hard work, tolerance , and
Innovation should become worse to accommodate those whose ancestors
did not decide to experiment with funny rocks and liquids exuding out
of the ground around them but carried on herding a few goats and going
hungry because every so often one had to be given to the Gods.

Except, the world can 'naturally' sustain their way of life in a way
it can't, without massive assistance (and interference) from us,
sustain ours.

The earth has been here ~4.5 billion years, life has been here ~4.28
billion, humans ~300,000 thousand and we have consumed most of it's
natural recourses in the last what, 200 years?

So, we have thousands of years of proof how man (and animals before
that even longer) were able to live here without consuming all it's
recourses and (possibly) pollution it to the level it is now whilst we
were at it but no idea that it's all going to be fine if we carry on
as we are.

One thing you can be sure of though is that people learned pretty
early on that you had to have some form of vent in your cave so you
didn't die whilst breathing the fumes created by burning stuff. Now
those fumes are mostly invisible and odourless, we (the great
unwashed) don't seem to consider them an issue (till we see thousands
dying for 'no reason').

It's like anything (renewable), if you take at an appropriate rate
then you can keep taking indefinably (like cod), but once you go above
that threshold you stand a chance of losing the lot and for ever.

With the non renewable's you can only take it once and many of our
early predecessors knew to consume both types at a rate that would
probably last till we all burn up with the sun.

Assuming humanity lives long enough to to be able to look back on
itself, we may be disgusted and embarrassed how we assumed we had the
right to consume everything as we have recently. To have the *need* to
maintain the different sides of the insides of our cars at different
temperatures (within the same enclosed tiny box).

We are like foxes in a chicken coop and we will have nothing to eat
once they are all gone and we don't as yet know if there is another
planet with any more.

Cheers, T i m

[email protected]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 22:07:59 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:54:58 +0100, wrote:

snip

So I see no reason that our present reasonably good ways of life which
have been reached by centuries of hard work, tolerance , and
Innovation should become worse to accommodate those whose ancestors
did not decide to experiment with funny rocks and liquids exuding out
of the ground around them but carried on herding a few goats and going
hungry because every so often one had to be given to the Gods.

Except, the world can 'naturally' sustain their way of life in a way
it can't, without massive assistance (and interference) from us,
sustain ours.

The earth has been here ~4.5 billion years, life has been here ~4.28
billion, humans ~300,000 thousand and we have consumed most of it's
natural recourses in the last what, 200 years?

Well if things get too short in the future then the Human population
will shrink by war famine and disease until the remnants can live that
lifestyle again.
I don't actually give a **** because I won't be here.

snipped for brevity

It's like anything (renewable), if you take at an appropriate rate
then you can keep taking indefinably (like cod), but once you go above
that threshold you stand a chance of losing the lot and for ever.

With the non renewable's you can only take it once and many of our
early predecessors knew to consume both types at a rate that would
probably last till we all burn up with the sun.
That last line sums it up for me , we know the planet will become un
habitable one day so why should we worry about stretching out
resources till then

Assuming humanity lives long enough to to be able to look back on
itself, we may be disgusted and embarrassed how we assumed we had the
right to consume everything as we have recently. To have the *need* to
maintain the different sides of the insides of our cars at different
temperatures (within the same enclosed tiny box).
They will be about as disgusted and embarrassed as I am that I can't
eat a Dodo or have a wooly Mammoth skin coat because somebody already
ate them all.
Ie not very much

We are like foxes in a chicken coop and we will have nothing to eat
once they are all gone and we don't as yet know if there is another
planet with any more.

You care about those that are to come, I'm not that bothered .

If it was to bother me then should I not be downgrading my lifestyle
by selling my possessions and giving the proceeds to make a strangers
lot better now while degrading my own lot rather than worring about
strangers in the future.

Cheers, T i m

G.Harman

T i m

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 02:43:02 +0100, wrote:

snip

They will be about as disgusted and embarrassed as I am that I can't
eat a Dodo or have a wooly Mammoth skin coat because somebody already
ate them all.
Ie not very much

But with respect you don't know that. Millions (billions?) of people
do care (and are starting to care more) when they hear of an animal
near extinction as they realise they are all part of the balance of
life as we know it today. There are programmes in place to protect
these endangered species etc.

We are like foxes in a chicken coop and we will have nothing to eat
once they are all gone and we don't as yet know if there is another
planet with any more.

You care about those that are to come, I'm not that bothered .

You may not and of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, I
would suggest most people who were younger and especially those with
children may well be.

If it was to bother me then should I not be downgrading my lifestyle
by selling my possessions and giving the proceeds to make a strangers
lot better now while degrading my own lot rather than worring about
strangers in the future.

No one has suggested anyone do that ... I was just suggesting that
there could be a time when what we did would be considered squandering
and wouldn't be allowed (but could be achieved via other and more
sustainable means [1]). Like being forced to drive an EV in the city,
even though it negatively impacted you personally but improved the
health of the millions living there. [1]

If everyone was in it purely for themselves then even more people
would have even less than the little they have now.

Cheers, T i m

[1] You may have seen SiFi films where people (who could afford it)
lived in the high-rise buildings, up in the fresh air whilst the poor
people had to live nearer the ground in the smog. Or rather than
banning IC engines in the city, everyone walks round wearing breathing
gear but buildings were hermetically sealed and internally 'purified'.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How the electric car revolution could backfire	whisky-dave[_2_]	UK diy	24	August 11th 17 07:47 PM
How the electric car revolution could backfire	tim...	UK diy	4	August 3rd 17 11:05 AM
Grauniad: Welsh tidal lagoon project could open way for ukp15bn revolution in UK energy	Mike Tomlinson	UK diy	161	October 18th 16 01:27 PM

Menu

About Us