Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 10:55 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2011 at 11:01 am by KichigaiNeko.)
[youtube]TBrgRsjR-JQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Some good ideas here Summerqueen...thanks for the tip!! 
[youtube]yIXYHk0A0gM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
I have heard of Australia taking on this technology for about 10 years now maybe more.
Much more constructive than 'human rights' for a planet.
You know...this is permaculture for an Urban setting...'edible Landscaping' ...NOM!!!
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 1011
Threads: 57
Joined: December 22, 2009
Reputation:
6
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 11:11 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2011 at 11:12 am by ib.me.ub.)
You think this idea is constructive. A future conept that would be nowhere near economically viable.
How about if you want to talk about pseudo-science, you open a thread about it there. I would be very surprised if this idea ever gets off the drawing board.
Posts: 12586
Threads: 397
Joined: September 17, 2010
Reputation:
96
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 11:27 am
I told her the idea had merit but many problems. It's a step in the right general direction. You wanted true discussion, how about discussing it? I'm quite interested in how we can grow much produce in areas where it might not have been considered entirely feasible in order to keep transportation and energy emissions down.
Which, after all, is a big problem I can see if we follow JohnDG's seeming line of thinking that we need to "share" with the rest of the world. We can share all we want, at the expenditure of much effort and energy. Not to mention all the bureaucratic red tape.
After all, everyone complains about the number of SUV's on the road, but no one talks about how we have to haul food from all over the world because it's more profitable to grow things in some areas than others. Very simple example: It's entirely possible for me to grow repeat roses outside here in NC. It's also entirely possible to grow MORE of them in greenhouses that use a fuckload of energy and water, or in CA even where the growing season is even longer and transport them other places. Ships, trucks, airplanes, etc...all because we want tomatoes for a BLT and they might have been grown in Guatemala.
And once you figure out how to grow things locally and we stop giving our business to the other humans on this planet, some of which depend on those major exports, you tell me how you plan to drag them out of the third world so that they care about saving the planet the same way our privileged asses get to do.
No fruit-picker cares about saving the planet. That's for non-hungry white fucks with too much time on their hands.
Posts: 1011
Threads: 57
Joined: December 22, 2009
Reputation:
6
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2011 at 12:41 pm by ib.me.ub.)
I am discussing the point raised, unlike some. But this a deviation from the original topic.
You think building a sky scraper out of cement to grow food is emmision friendly or economically viable. I just don't think it is a feasible idea, holds no merit in realtiy and is far from the correct direction. The heating & pumping of water alone would cost a fortune.
If we were to move towards renewables for our source of energy, it would't be such a large problem. Clean renewable energy.
We need to understand that we can't have what we want when we want it. Fruit & veg out of season, never ending meat, and every other conveience you can think of. We just can't have everything at arms length all the time. We need to learn that if things are going to change, we must change the way we live. A BLT out of season would be out of the question, its just not viable. Let alone our reliance on fossil fuels.
I tell you now, if the third world lives a we do in the first world, we are all in alot of trouble. That that is one of the major factors in the pending food shortages. The Palnet cannot support this amount of people living at a first world level. It just can't sustain this many people the way we want to live, the growth is just too fast, and we consume too much.
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 1:14 pm
(April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: I am discussing the point raised, unlike some. But this a deviation from the original topic.
What that humans can "give human rights to a planet"....are you serious?? The Planet is fine WE are the things that are in danger of going extinct.(as per that..what did you call him??...'Idiot George Carlin' humerously pointed out) The whole notion of the UN's 'discussion' is ludicrous and as has been stated nothing more than peddling a countries religious belief system
(April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: You think building a sky scraper out of cement to grow food is emmision friendly or economically viable. I just don't think it is a feasible idea, holds no merit in realtiy and is far from the correct direction. The heating & pumping of water alone would cost a fortune.
You didn't even look at the vids or articles I posted...did you. Buildings like this are being built in Australia and around the world...OK they are not "intensively farming" but the potential is there. This concept is not new...it has been around for about 50 years maybe more (about as long as the whole 'global warming' notion)
(April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: If we were to move towards renewables for our source of energy, it would't be such a large problem. Clean renewable energy.
Wonderful!! What resources are these??
(April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: We need to understand that we can't have what we want when we want it. Fruit & veg out of season, never ending meat, and every other conveience you can think of. We just can't have everything at arms length all the time. We need to learn that if things are going to change, we must change the way we live. A BLT out of season would be out of the question, its just not viable. Let alone our reliance on fossil fuels.
This is nothing new....it has also been like this for as long as I can remember
(April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: I tell you now, if the third world lives a we do in the first world, we are all in alot of trouble. That that is one of the major factors in the pending food shortages. The Palnet cannot support this amount of people living at a first world level. It just can't sustain this many people the way we want to live, the growth is just too fast, and we consume too much.
Your statements are not new. Every young person for around 40 years that I'm aware of who have "raised the alarm", have produced very little to solve the problem others have gone ahead with these unrealistc concepts as you have called them and come a long way since the first draft of the Vertical farms. Earlier I asked you what YOU were doing to be part of the solution...you haven't answered me as yet.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 12586
Threads: 397
Joined: September 17, 2010
Reputation:
96
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Reread the first sentence of what I wrote. I do believe I said it was a flawed idea.
I agree about the clean renewable energy. Companies are getting smarter about it - they're using monetary incentives to get people to use solar and such. Hit 'em in their pocket books, it always works. We still need something similar for transportation.
With clean renewable energy, it's perfectly acceptable to dream that we can have what we want when we want. That's partially what hydroponics is all about.
We do have to change the way we live - but that doesn't mean we have to give up everything we like, which is what a lot of alarmists like to say and it's no wonder people don't want to listen to them.
Also, I've never been against a population control - I hate the pope with a passion for his denunciation of condoms in the third world countries that need them most. I just don't think you're going to get those same third world people to give a shit about it. They're just scratching out a living.
Posts: 1011
Threads: 57
Joined: December 22, 2009
Reputation:
6
RE: Human rights for mother nature?
April 24, 2011 at 11:31 pm
(This post was last modified: April 25, 2011 at 12:14 am by ib.me.ub.)
(April 24, 2011 at 1:14 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: (April 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: I am discussing the point raised, unlike some. But this a deviation from the original topic.
What that humans can "give human rights to a planet"....are you serious?? The Planet is fine WE are the things that are in danger of going extinct.(as per that..what did you call him??...'Idiot George Carlin' humerously pointed out) The whole notion of the UN's 'discussion' is ludicrous and as has been stated nothing more than peddling a countries religious belief system
This argument is so poor. Its not about the planet itself, its about us and the other beings that inhabit the planet, the Planet as a whole. Like I said, Carlin is an idiot, usuing a play on words to make people think we are trying to save the actual rock itself. It is about saving our species and others from extinction. But you just can't see the correlation between the biosphere and human survival, instead using an argument used by a comedian! It certainly is a joke.
I did actually, I have seen them before. Please post a link to any one of these buildings that has been built in a city on the scale you talk of, plus the costs involved. These types of buildings are not environmentally friendly, they are made of CEMENT for one.
Are you serious. Thermal, wind, solar & wave. There are other such as biomass, but this method isn't renewable, as it takes land used for food to produce energy.
Some include nuclear in this section, but I am firmly against nuclear in the long term.
It has yes, but most people still don't listen. Actually most are unable to listen or do anything at the moment due to the sysytem that we use. It is beleived that we are now past peak oil, as estimated by many prominent oil researchers. When the oil price goes through the roof, people will start to change. Lets see if it is too late. Well most of us will see, the younger ones anyway.
This is a good documentary on the subject;
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
Its not about being 'new', its about what is threating our species. The problem won't go away.
I do what I can.
You think its alarmist, well we should be ringing the alarm bell, because that is reality. People should be scared, because the weather events, food situation & energy situation are not going to get better. Business as usual is a very slippery slope.
The longer Politicians keep people wrapped up in the cosy, safe, assured blanket the worse it will become.
|
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
