|
Posted by RicodJour on June 16, 2008, 12:06 am
>
> > > Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
>
> > > I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
> > > bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
> > > very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
> > > seems "un-green" to me.
>
> > > I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
> > > other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
> > > an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
> > > energy-efficient manner".
>
> > Would you prefer if they wasted their money in an energy inefficient
> > manner?
>
> I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
> -- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
> to "wasting in an efficient manner".
Pat, I realize your quote ended here, but Jaqo May can't figure out
how to quote. Sorry.
> So if we all went back to living like our ancestors living with very little
> energy use just growing food, then that would be the best situation? Of
> course humanity would not be able to reach anywhere near our capabilities,
> just living a minimal existence with great hardship in an extremely
> difficult life.
If you are the alternative, I'll take whatever doesn't make you.
> There would also be accepting a very short life with a 50% chance of dying
> before age 20 and only about a 2% chance of making it to 40 as was the life
> of our ancestors and present people living in a primitive life.
You are a maroon. Life expectancy went down due to the technology.
Agriculture is technology. Building houses is technology. Lack of
sanitation and living in tight quarters is technology. And please
don't give me any, oh, that was then, crap. Look out your window,
you'll see a brown smog ring around the city wherever you live. Give
me your zip code and I'll find a Super Fund cleanup site within ten
miles of you.
> Well those conditions are not what I consider a worthy goal. We can
> develop technology that does not increase CO2 or pollution while we keep
> improving life span and a better existence. I think that is a far better
> goal for humanity. The losers can go back to a primitive, miserable life
> that they idolize. The rest of us want nothing to do with their
> gullibility and hatred of innovation.
We can click our heels three times and land in Kansas, Dorothy.
It's not a question of whether we can develop technology that will be
better for us and for the planet, but whether we can stop idjits like
you from destroying it first.
R
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap