brenthutch 444 #1 June 28, 2015 This is what "sustainability" looks like. http://www.happybirthdaywishesimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/zulu-the-most-fearsome-black-warriors-2.jpg No Big Oil, no coal mining, no other extractive activities, no industrial farming, no Big Pharma and just a touch of low tech, low impact skirmishing, for proper population control. The epitome of sustainability! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #2 June 28, 2015 For you Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #3 June 29, 2015 Awe, that was cuteI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #4 June 29, 2015 I don't know whether to be offended or flattered,....... Since I don't believe in taking offense, I will choose the latter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #5 June 29, 2015 brenthutchI don't know whether to be offended or flattered,....... Since I don't believe in taking offense, I will choose the latter. False dichotomy; there's also ashamed, but I suspect you don't believe in that either. A->B does not imply B->A. Not only are you confusing correlation with causality, you are also assuming the causal link (which doesn't even exist) is reversible. Really though, you're not making an actual point. Just trolling.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #6 June 29, 2015 As I would tell my six-year-old, take a deep breath, get your words straight and try again. Be mindful of the original post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #7 June 29, 2015 brenthutchAs I would tell my six-year-old, take a deep breath, get your words straight and try again. Be mindful of the original post. My second paragraph was about the original post. Rather than call you a child though, I will simply break it down for you. The fact that some primitive culture is sustainable (something which is not even established by your post, but let's pretend it is), does not imply a causal link in either direction. More simply: A culture being primitive does not imply that it is sustainable. A culture being sustainable does not imply that it is primitive. Like your post above about having to choose between feeling flattered and offended, this is also another false dichotomy. Sustainability and technological advancement are neither mutually exclusive nor 100% dependent. If we preserve 100% of our resources, we certainly sacrifice technological advancement for sustainability. But on the other hand if we preserve 0% of our resources, there can be no technological advancement because there can be no life. Neither extreme is desirable, which is why this is not a binary choice. But again, your OP doesn't actually make a point. Just subtly hints at a nonexistent causal connection, a false dichotomy, and for bonus troll points it uses a photo called "black warriors."www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #8 June 29, 2015 >This is what "sustainability" looks like. Ah, you have fallen for the "myth of the noble savage." They lived in harmony with their environments, listening to the wind spirits and living in peace with the animals, right? Hogwash. Early people were much worse on the environment than a modern society that is making a concerted effort to be low-impact. Take 1000 people who hunt and gather vs. 1000 people determined to live a low-impact life, and those 1000 people who work on their impact will have a far lower impact. Don't believe everything you see in TV shows. Our problem now is not our ability to live sustainably. It is the combination of a lack of desire to do so and the sheer number of people we expect the planet to support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #9 June 29, 2015 The fact that the hunter/gatherer/warrior model of societal organization predates history and continues onto the present seems to be de facto evidence of its sustainability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #10 June 29, 2015 >The fact that the hunter/gatherer/warrior model of societal organization predates >history and continues onto the present seems to be de facto evidence of its >sustainability. What does "historical" have to do with "sustainable?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #11 June 29, 2015 billvon>This is what "sustainability" looks like. Ah, you have fallen for the "myth of the noble savage." They lived in harmony with their environments, listening to the wind spirits and living in peace with the animals, right? Hogwash. Early people were much worse on the environment than a modern society that is making a concerted effort to be low-impact. Take 1000 people who hunt and gather vs. 1000 people determined to live a low-impact life, and those 1000 people who work on their impact will have a far lower impact. Don't believe everything you see in TV shows. Our problem now is not our ability to live sustainably. It is the combination of a lack of desire to do so and the sheer number of people we expect the planet to support. Bill you are naively leaving out the warrior component of the equation. 100 hunter/gatherer/warriors have much less of an environmental impact than 1000 tree-hugging, Tesla-driving, garbage-separating, Whole Foods-shopping, solar panel-festooned idealists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #12 June 29, 2015 brenthutchThe fact that the hunter/gatherer/warrior model of societal organization predates history and continues onto the present seems to be de facto evidence of its sustainability. That's an absurd understanding of the word evidence. It's evidence of one thing only: that they haven't run out yet. Put an immortal man in a room with one million unspoilable apples. If he eats an apple a day for 30 days and concludes that the presence remaining apples are evidence of the sustainabilty of his lifestyle, then he is a stupid immortal. But I already said I'd pretend that part was true. The deeper problem lies with the conclusions your OP seems to draw from that "truth," I say seems because you still fail to explain what the OP actually posits. So I'll ask one last time before giving up: what is your actual point?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #13 June 29, 2015 billvon>The fact that the hunter/gatherer/warrior model of societal organization predates >history and continues onto the present seems to be de facto evidence of its >sustainability. What does "historical" have to do with "sustainable?" I never said anything about "historical". I said the hunter/gatherer/warrior model is the oldest contiguous form of societal organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #14 June 29, 2015 The111***The fact that the hunter/gatherer/warrior model of societal organization predates history and continues onto the present seems to be de facto evidence of its sustainability. That's an absurd understanding of the word evidence. It's evidence of one thing only: that they haven't run out yet. Put an immortal man in a room with one million unspoilable apples. If he eats an apple a day for 30 days and concludes that the presence remaining apples are evidence of the sustainabilty of his lifestyle, then he is a stupid immortal. If he was immortal, he would not give a sh*t about the apples. "Truly you have a dizzying intellect" DPR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #15 June 29, 2015 >I never said anything about "historical". I said the hunter/gatherer/warrior model is >the oldest contiguous form of societal organization. Murder as a means of political control is even older than that. I guess murder is more sustainable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #16 June 29, 2015 >100 hunter/gatherer/warriors have much less of an environmental impact than 1000 >tree-hugging, Tesla-driving, garbage-separating, Whole Foods-shopping, solar panel- >festooned idealists. Try drinking from the stream those 100 brave, noble hunter/gatherer/warriors have been shitting in and cleaning their deer intestines in for a few years - then get back to us on who you want to live downstream from, and who will impact your environment less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #17 June 29, 2015 billvon>100 hunter/gatherer/warriors have much less of an environmental impact than 1000 >tree-hugging, Tesla-driving, garbage-separating, Whole Foods-shopping, solar panel- >festooned idealists. Try drinking from the stream those 100 brave, noble hunter/gatherer/warriors have been shitting in and cleaning their deer intestines in for a few years - then get back to us on who you want to live downstream from, and who will impact your environment less. I never said anything about "my environment" I was talking about "the environment". I think George Carlin said it best, "We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #18 June 29, 2015 >I never said anything about "my environment" I was talking about "the environment" Oh, the environment will be fine in the long run. All we can do is damage it in superficial ways, and if we damage it too much in those superficial ways (many of which we depend on) at worst we wipe ourselves out - which solves the problem neatly. The question is - do you want to be a part of that? Do you want to be part of the force that drives the bald eagle to extinction? Or the leopard, or the ibex, or the rhinocerous? And even if you decide to do that - even if you care only about yourself and your comfort, and do your level best to pollute as much as you can - you will never in a million years drive the cockroach to extinction. And they can take the place of a lot of the larger animals in the ecosystem. So the Earth will live on no matter what you (or I) do. At best we can decide what the future looks like to us. >You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re >worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, >unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. Sounds like every climate change denier I've ever met. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #19 June 29, 2015 brenthutchThis is what "sustainability" looks like. http://www.happybirthdaywishesimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/zulu-the-most-fearsome-black-warriors-2.jpg No Big Oil, no coal mining, no other extractive activities, no industrial farming, no Big Pharma and just a touch of low tech, low impact skirmishing, for proper population control. The epitome of sustainability! Ungawa, Bwana! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #20 June 30, 2015 brenthutch If he was immortal, he would not give a sh*t about the apples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rgQ2adNiKgc#t=20 Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
