If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by John Lansford on January 31, 2009, 5:24 pm
>When millions of caterpillars chew away at cultivated plants they are
>seen as pests. But, when heavy equipment chews away at wilderness it's
>called "economic growth." It "creates jobs" but what does it really
>accomplish?
>Minus the pretext of housing-starts and construction jobs, the main
>impetus is to flatten nature and accommodate endless numbers of
>people. This is all happening on a planet that isn't getting any
>larger. People keep buying into the fable of endless greener pastures.
>Many of them are actually brown, with so much desert construction
>despite shrinking water supplies.
>There are roughly 3,000,000 more people in the U.S. each year and
>75,000,000 more on the planet annually. This growth would
>automatically be treated as a crisis if other species were
>perpetrating it. We would expect them to live in balance with their
>surroundings. But humans are supposedly of supernatural origin, so
>it's OK to obliterate wilderness as long as we "plan" for constant
>crowding.
Obvious troll is obvious. Contractors do a lot more with Caterpillar
equipment than work on undisturbed land.
Go away.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
Posted by on January 31, 2009, 6:05 pm
> >When millions of caterpillars chew away at cultivated plants they are
> >seen as pests. But, when heavy equipment chews away at wilderness it's
> >called "economic growth." It "creates jobs" but what does it really
> >accomplish?
> >Minus the pretext of housing-starts and construction jobs, the main
> >impetus is to flatten nature and accommodate endless numbers of
> >people. This is all happening on a planet that isn't getting any
> >larger. People keep buying into the fable of endless greener pastures.
> >Many of them are actually brown, with so much desert construction
> >despite shrinking water supplies.
> >There are roughly 3,000,000 more people in the U.S. each year and
> >75,000,000 more on the planet annually. This growth would
> >automatically be treated as a crisis if other species were
> >perpetrating it. We would expect them to live in balance with their
> >surroundings. But humans are supposedly of supernatural origin, so
> >it's OK to obliterate wilderness as long as we "plan" for constant
> >crowding.
> Obvious troll is obvious. =A0Contractors do a lot more with Caterpillar
> equipment than work on undisturbed land.
> Go away.
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Woodhttp://wood.jlansford.net/- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Not to mention that CAT makes gen sets and truck engines.
|
|
Posted by Rich Piehl on January 31, 2009, 7:33 pm
Enough Already wrote:
<numerous paragraphs of drivel>
Was your home or apartment built by large machinery(Caterpillar)? What
about the laying of water and sewer lines and utilities? Perhaps you
live in a cave? Then how are you powering your computer?
Oh, yeah, that computer...built in a facility constructed with the help
of large equipment and shipped to you on ships, rails and roads
constructed by large equipment.
If you are serious in this post you're a hypocrite. If you're a troll
you're a moron.
Which is it?
--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living.
The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
--Mark Twain
|
|
Posted by on January 31, 2009, 7:55 pm
> When millions of caterpillars chew away at cultivated plants they are
> seen as pests. But, when heavy equipment chews away at wilderness it's
> called "economic growth." It "creates jobs" but what does it really
> accomplish?
> Minus the pretext of housing-starts and construction jobs, the main
> impetus is to flatten nature and accommodate endless numbers of
> people. This is all happening on a planet that isn't getting any
> larger. People keep buying into the fable of endless greener pastures.
> Many of them are actually brown, with so much desert construction
> despite shrinking water supplies.
> There are roughly 3,000,000 more people in the U.S. each year and
> 75,000,000 more on the planet annually. This growth would
> automatically be treated as a crisis if other species were
> perpetrating it. We would expect them to live in balance with their
> surroundings. But humans are supposedly of supernatural origin, so
> it's OK to obliterate wilderness as long as we "plan" for constant
> crowding.
> The wide open spaces that lured people to America are being chipped
> away daily. With the potential for a BILLION people by 2100, imagine
> America with far less open space, and industrial blight (like wind
> farms) on much of it. Even if people are corralled in denser housing,
> they will spread out on vacation and crowds will grow everywhere. This
> scourge on the land is welcomed by the construction industry and
> logged as GDP growth.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&safe=3Doff&q=3DU.S.+population+1+bil=
li...
> On a personal level, it's no fun that Caterpillar had to cut 22,000+
> jobs. But the building industry is not sustainable in its current
> form. A slowdown of construction is a reprieve for everything that
> remains pristine.
> There's much talk of living efficiently and reducing the human
> footprint, but when it actually happens it's called a recession. In
> many ways, a recession is based on the expectation of endless
> population growth. The GDP has shrunk, but why must it keep growing in
> the first place? Without more people, we wouldn't constantly need to
> create more jobs; more of them funded by government loans now. In a
> steady-state system, we could refine the economy instead of just
> fattening it all the time.
> Housing starts should be dropped as a leading economic indicator since
> they indicate bloat, not health. People buy fat homes with money they
> don't really have, which enables slick operators to do the same.
> Investors get involved and the whole sham collapses. Endlessly-growing
> resource consumption is the disease, not the cure, for our economic
> woes. But more growth is being peddled as the answer. People are still
> playing games with money while pretending the physical size of the
> economy is irrelevant.
> In a sane world with a stable population and steady-state economy, the
> construction industry could scale back and finally operate in balance.
> Its main focus would be repairing old structures or replacing them
> with new ones. Since the Earth is FINITE, the entire economy should
> stop trying to grow all the time to pay off increasing debts. Global
> replacement-level birth control is the first step on the road to
> equilibrium.
> E.A.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
Step 1, deport every single illegal alien living in America. Step 2,
limit legal immigration to 75,000 per
year, and only the best and brightist. Step 3, increase
industrial output with products competitive
in global market.
mitch
|
|
Posted by zzbunker on January 31, 2009, 9:16 pm
> When millions of caterpillars chew away at cultivated plants they are
> seen as pests. But, when heavy equipment chews away at wilderness it's
> called "economic growth." It "creates jobs" but what does it really
> accomplish?
Well, none really. Since Caterpillar, is one those companies, much
like GM,
which is why the people with actual engineering brains even started
researching
into Autonomous Vehicles, Biodiesel, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Pv
Cells, Fiber Optics,
Holograms, Parallel Processors, Cell Phones, Gas Turbine Engines,
Post Ford Batteries,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, lasers, masers, robotics,
cruise missiles,
digital-terrain mapping, GPS, and Drones.
Rather than waste more money on Cement Mixers.
> Minus the pretext of housing-starts and construction jobs, the main
> impetus is to flatten nature and accommodate endless numbers of
> people. This is all happening on a planet that isn't getting any
> larger. People keep buying into the fable of endless greener pastures.
> Many of them are actually brown, with so much desert construction
> despite shrinking water supplies.
> There are roughly 3,000,000 more people in the U.S. each year and
> 75,000,000 more on the planet annually. This growth would
> automatically be treated as a crisis if other species were
> perpetrating it. We would expect them to live in balance with their
> surroundings. But humans are supposedly of supernatural origin, so
> it's OK to obliterate wilderness as long as we "plan" for constant
> crowding.
> The wide open spaces that lured people to America are being chipped
> away daily. With the potential for a BILLION people by 2100, imagine
> America with far less open space, and industrial blight (like wind
> farms) on much of it. Even if people are corralled in denser housing,
> they will spread out on vacation and crowds will grow everywhere. This
> scourge on the land is welcomed by the construction industry and
> logged as GDP growth.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&safe=3Doff&q=3DU.S.+population+1+bil=
li...
> On a personal level, it's no fun that Caterpillar had to cut 22,000+
> jobs. But the building industry is not sustainable in its current
> form. A slowdown of construction is a reprieve for everything that
> remains pristine.
> There's much talk of living efficiently and reducing the human
> footprint, but when it actually happens it's called a recession. In
> many ways, a recession is based on the expectation of endless
> population growth. The GDP has shrunk, but why must it keep growing in
> the first place? Without more people, we wouldn't constantly need to
> create more jobs; more of them funded by government loans now. In a
> steady-state system, we could refine the economy instead of just
> fattening it all the time.
> Housing starts should be dropped as a leading economic indicator since
> they indicate bloat, not health. People buy fat homes with money they
> don't really have, which enables slick operators to do the same.
> Investors get involved and the whole sham collapses. Endlessly-growing
> resource consumption is the disease, not the cure, for our economic
> woes. But more growth is being peddled as the answer. People are still
> playing games with money while pretending the physical size of the
> economy is irrelevant.
> In a sane world with a stable population and steady-state economy, the
> construction industry could scale back and finally operate in balance.
> Its main focus would be repairing old structures or replacing them
> with new ones. Since the Earth is FINITE, the entire economy should
> stop trying to grow all the time to pay off increasing debts. Global
> replacement-level birth control is the first step on the road to
> equilibrium.
> E.A.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
|
Page 2 of 2 << first < 1 2
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>seen as pests. But, when heavy equipment chews away at wilderness it's
>called "economic growth." It "creates jobs" but what does it really
>accomplish?
>Minus the pretext of housing-starts and construction jobs, the main
>impetus is to flatten nature and accommodate endless numbers of
>people. This is all happening on a planet that isn't getting any
>larger. People keep buying into the fable of endless greener pastures.
>Many of them are actually brown, with so much desert construction
>despite shrinking water supplies.
>There are roughly 3,000,000 more people in the U.S. each year and
>75,000,000 more on the planet annually. This growth would
>automatically be treated as a crisis if other species were
>perpetrating it. We would expect them to live in balance with their
>surroundings. But humans are supposedly of supernatural origin, so
>it's OK to obliterate wilderness as long as we "plan" for constant
>crowding.