Re: The Destructiveness of High Technology

Bombadil wrote:
caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
D.Campagna <ynnadrebyc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bombadil ha scritto:
There is no need to be very fluent to say, anyway, that:
- cancer is growing
- allergies are growing, (following some sources 30% of english childs suffers now of some kind of allergy)
- Industry pollutes. We here had many cases of dead fishes, completely polluted rivers, soil so contaminated that it is unthinkable to eat vegetables grown on it, if ever someone would be able to grow something on it.
You fail to mention the desruction of ecosystems because you Europeans
have already destroyed most of yours, building over them or pillaging
them or appropriating them for agriculture and the like. Now, you
export most of your environnmental damage.
sigh, quite true (but QUITE)
-It's a matter of fact that brazilians are destroying the forest that is the lung of the planet at a rate that makes think that in a short period scientist should begin to think were to find the Oxygen we need to breathe.
Destroying it to make things to sell to Europe and America and China,
etc. This destruction of the world's forests is hardly confined to
Brazil.
Of course. Globalization, that is.

-Whe burn one milliard barrel oil every year? Well, someone really thinks that all the smoke and toxic products of combustion go away in the air without consequences?
Again, pollution is only part of it. Freshwater shortages, destruction
of ecosystems by development and industry, loss of the world's great
oceanic fisheries due to overfishing, the list goes on.
right (in my opinion)

Most of the damage done by cars is accomplished by the numerous mines
and related processing industries needed to make the things. And roads.
And the industries involved in fueling them.

What comes out of their tailpipes is insignificant by comparison.
Not so insignificant. The really amusing (in a sort of way ) thing is, where now we put the very toxic exhausted catalyst devices (sorry again for my lack of technical dictionary in this amazing language - English).

It seems we have only put the venenom in a barrel, and now we are scraping our heads trying to figure out where to put the barrel. :-)

But when it comes to remedies, then I must say that we differ a lot from those pseudo-environmentalists that are only able to speak against the technology and the progress.
If a solution will come, it will be from science and technology.
And there you have it. The Big Lie. It is the overindulgence in technology that is largely the cause of the problem, providing
incredibly destructive and inefficient and costly solutions to
challenges that could be met well with lower orders of technology.

But that doesn't create investment income....
Fact: if it would be possible to achieve the nuclar fusion, we would have illimitate energy with no pollution at all.
The damage done to the environment, which includes enormous amounts
of pollution, mining and refining and manufacturing and transporting
and assembling all the materials needed to make a nuclear power plant, is staggering.

And what is most of that energy used for? To power industries
that do further harm to the environment on a large scale, making
things we don't need or can produce without electricity.

We have more than enough energy already. It is misused and
abused at this point. We have more than enough for our need, but not our greed. And greed never has enough.

Electricity is not needed for most of the things it is used for.
Renewable, organic sources of energy, methane/gasified carbon/alcohol/
vegetable oil can be produced locally by hand and used to provide
heating and lighting and cooking fuel and hot water, etc., without
trashing the planet in the process.

Like all the people who believe that high/complex technologies
hold the answer, you don't look at the big picture. For you,
things like nuclear power plants just materialize out of thin
air, rather than requiring thousands of mines and refineries
and factories and roads and power plants and water supplies
and landfills and so on. Not to mention supporting the super materialistic lifestyles of the tens of thousands of people
needed to design and make and assemble and transport all the materials involved. It takes MANY years for such a nuclear
power plant to produce the energy needed to make it in the
first place.

The blind worship of technology is going to bury us, I fear.

<snippety>

Bombadil


Part of what you say is true. But even without our modern technology
man has always destroyed his environment with the technology of the time.
So is technology to blame or Man?

caver1

That's not true. The 'Native Americans' lived on the 'North
American' continent for tens of thousands of years and it
was a paradise when the Europeans arrived. And there are
still millions of people living around the globe, as gardeners and gatherers and hunters and crafters, who have lived
on their lands since time beyond memory and harmed it not in
the least.

(You really need to turn off your TV and do your own research.
Those scientists you see on the flashy documentaries are in
the pockets of the corporations and they tell you what their
corporate masters pay them to tell you.)

We can't live like that now, because we are too many and the
planet has suffered too much damage. But with the right technologies, most of them pre-industrial, we can live well and sustainably,
utilizing the 'higher', more destructive, technologies only when absolutely necessary.

Bombadil




How many places have you been where humans have deforested areas that
do not have "modern" technology. How about the ancient Chinese and their gas wells,
iron making, wars with gun powder, etc.
Okay the "Native Americans". How far back do you want to go?
Where are all the largest of the animals that were here when they got here?
Were they peaceful? No. No human ever was.
How about Africans and their over grazing their goats?
You can go on and on and on.
So who is to decide when necessary is?
The problem is not technology but how it is used.
TV what is that? Ask my kids the oldest is 33 and we have never had a TV
in our house that he can remember. You need to learn you history.
caver1
.

Loading