Im sure it is possible. But as long as profit is the motivator of civilization this will simply never come to pass. I have absolutely zero faith in the global community to respond to the destruction of the planet. There is far too much money to be made.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

That really depends on how you define "working", doesn't it, Daisy?
That's probably true, given that most Europeans were living in overcrowded cities and drinking each other's excrement for water. Thank God someone came along to start the ball rolling on water purification plants - oh, and I think he did it because someone wanted to make money selling wine. Damn that profit motive!
Well, the fact of the matter is, Daisy, there has never been a time in history when more people, as a percentage, have lived healthier, longer, more comfortable lives than right now. I'm going to bet that things will only get better (unless we all do something stupid like open up some nukes or squash the economic future of billions of people).

But, you guys are free to turn back the clock, and there's a way you can do it. Currently, something like 50% of the land on the planet is off the grid and unpopulated. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from buying some of that land and checking out. If living like pre-European Aborigines is such a paradise, you can get back to those times by simply moving to just about any square acre in Africa.
I know he's not (at least seriously, that is). I'm just messin' wid'im.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and Coffee - Original Glazed

This is misleading. Quality of life is more important than longevity. Comfort is undefined here. Comfort might mean living in a tribe. There is no basis to the idea that we are any healthier than our indigenous counterparts. (we can fix more things certainly, but civilization also creates new deadly illnesses). The Inuit diet is hailed as possibly one of the healthiest human diets possible, and they ate that way for thousands of years. (as we get them addicted to processed foods from civilization they are recording their fist cases of heart disease and colon cancer). The stats on life span are moslty attributed to a higher infant death rate, and besides, very few people can enjoy the extra 20-30 years of old age we force our old people to endure, sometimes against their will.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

In your opinion.

Unless, of course, you're prepared to illustrate, through verifiable references, that every swingin' dick on the planet values quality over longevity.

I guess if anyone knows what constitutes "misleading", it would be you...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Our quality of life is far better. Would you rather live in a cave huddled next to a fire, or live in a house with central heating? My guess is you choose the latter, unless your cave is wired for your computer. We are, on the whole, far more comfortable than we've ever been before. If anyone is not comfortable there's an easy fix: go find a cave somewhere. Get off the grid. Checkout. I don't think it's coincidence that not many people are doing that. In fact, for every one that does, there are billions struggling to get out of their "caves" and onto the grid.
Sure there is - it's called longevity. What do you think the average life-span of the Inuit is, Andrew? I'll tell you - their high protein, low vegetable diet kills them, on average, ten years sooner than your countrymen. Cancer wasn't created by modern Man, Andrew - it was simply diagnosed and named by modern Man. There's always been cancer, even in the tundra and the jungle.
Huh? I bet most people enjoy the extra 20-30 years they get. There's a lot of life to live over the age of 40 - unless of course you're arguing the average lifespan of the pre-industrialized world was something greater?

much more leisurely pace than many work today - except for a brief time when hunting the larger animals that provided maybe 15% of food. Also, a much more social activity than many experience work as today.

1. is that the only measure? I have just been to visit my elderly aunt in a nursing home, filled with elderly people whose quality of life is anything but enjoyable. sure the foods good - but there's more to life than that.

I have also spent time with berbers in the sahara where I saw elders of indeterminate age still with families, still part of their families and still productive members of the community. their ecological footprint was much smaller than mine - which is probably much less than yours.

The quality of life THEY had was far superior to that of an elderly westerner in a nursing home.

2. the 'economic future' argument is bullshit. I live in Australia where industry is pushing the government to act on this because the bootom line - profits - will be hurt if we DON'T act.

have done. Lived it for ten years. Don't need to live like a pre European Aborigine, and can have a very comfortable and satisfying lifestyle. Will return to that in the medium term - and definitely won't be looking back.

The reference to Africa - you DO know don't you Cato, that it is already being adversely affected by Global warming, and has also been negatively affected by colonial exploitation (that has given us the huge advantages we have), decades of being used for proxy wars between the US and USSR and the aftermath of this?

thought you understood Cato that there are many steps between prehistoric man and being an energy pig.

would like to see the references on Inuits and cancer living traditional lifestyles ... do you have a source?

I don't think its the diet that kills them - its other factors, many of which can be reduced witout them becoming energy pigs.

15%? In a land plagued by drought? I didn't realize the Aborigines were such great farmers. Do you have any links showing Aborigines ever grew 85% of their food?
You need to find a new job, Daisy.
Actually, yes, that is the only measure. I don't know about you, but I kind of enjoy living and want to keep on doing it for as long as it's enjoyable. Thanks to modernity that time frame gets longer and longer every year.
Let me see if I got this right: You (and/or your family) put your relatives in a nursing home so that others can take care of them, then you deride society at large for not keeping relatives at home and taking care of them theirselves?
You're right, Daisy. Being green is cheap - that's why everyone is doing it. Silly me.
I'm very happy for you, Daisy. I for one will miss you when you return to that lifestyle. But I wonder what gives you the right to determine what is comfortable and satisfying for the rest of us?
And? Are you arguing Africa was some sort of ecological and societal paradise before Europeans came along?

As I wrote, you are free to go au natural any time you choose. Hell Australia, an Agrarian Paradise, is nearly empty. Of course, you'll have to find some way of getting that property from its rightful owners (who, I assume, you'll say are the Maoris). But I'm sure you'll find a way to get back to nature. Because, to whatever degree you want to take this, Daisy, there are going to be some who don't agree with your definitions of "comfortable and satisfying", "acceptable ecological footprint", or "energy pig." Of course, I'm sure your definitions are the correct ones though.
What are you asking for? That Inuits had cancer before we knew it as "cancer"? Sorry, I have no references for that because, oddly, they didn't call it "cancer" before they started calling it "cancer". They just knew it as "dead." Are you arguing that cancer is a modern disease?
Why do you think that?

Thats what i thought, you define comfort as a soft couch, rather than the warmth of a community. Yes, i also enjoy a nice soft couch and not freezing to death. But our central heating is no better or worse than the igloo or tepee. Those technologies provide all the comfort a person needs.

But nonetheless, im not knocking the convenience of modern technologies, im just saying two things: 1) People were comfortable long before central heating and automobiles came along, and 2) they had the added benefit of community and sustainability (something we seem to have forgotten about).

Im still in favor of quality over longevity. Their low-processed food diet is really vastly superior in promoting quality of life. (longevity is not impressive).

The industrial world did not invent cancer, but we have caused higher rates of cancer and heart disease. There is no disputing that. ~30% of the cancer deaths in the US are attributable to the workplace.

Really? I have a relative who lived for 20 years in bed not knowing who his family was. I have another relative who stopped eating because life became unlivable extremely painful. Have you ever been to a nursing home to see how these people live?

My argument is that death is inevitable. The longer we live the more likely it is that things will break down. . Even in prehistoric times some healthy people lived to be octogenarians. The fact is that the greatest cause of death in our culture can be prevented by a better lifestyle, but instead we focus on a 'cure'. This is the society that spends billions of dollars a years devising schemes to lose weight without exercise. And so on.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Sometimes, and sometimes it's reversed. I can get both. Can't you?
What?! Andrew, if central heating were no better or worse than an igloo or a tepee, then we would all still be living in igloos and tepees. If it weren't more comfortable, then no one would've thought to create it and millions wouldn't have cared to buy it.
Well, sustainability is largely a function of population. Are you advocating population control as well - a la "Logan's Run"?
"Quality" is... well, a qualitative term. It's subjective. If you find it more pleasing to eat fatty fish and eschew vegetables, then you can get that right from your local grocer. No one is preventing you from satisfying any dietary constraints you want to put upon yourself - why do you want to prevent others from satisfying theirs? And, not too ironically, the fact that you can satisfy your dietary desires is directly a product of that evil profit motive you so like to deride.
Really? Do you have a link for this stat?
1) Why did you never go see your relative? 2) Are you under the impression that convalesence is a new invention? Aside from the famous Spartans throwing their "not-up-to-snuff" babies over the cliff, there have been a plethora of societies which simply took their dying off to some place far from the community to get them out of the way. Others felt the obligation to simply disappear as their age progressed and their contribution to the community waned. Hell, even healthy women were treated as outcasts by most Native Americans simply for menstruating. If you want to assume that every Westerner simply pushes off their aged and unproductive, then at least recognize we're not doing this until much later in life than our ancestors did. 3) Yes, my mother passed away two months ago. We put her in a nursing home because she refused to "burden" any of her children with care, and the nursing home could provide her with everything necessary for rehabilitation - which, unfortunately, was ineffective. Yes, it's sad how these people live, but the majority of the aged population do not live in nursing homes AND, when necessary, it occurs much, much later in life. Meaning there are many more productive and enjoyable years than what our ancestors had.

No matter how you slice it, Andrew, we are far better off today, as a species, than we were even 50 years ago.
Well, the vast majority of criteria for living longer, better, and happier is up to you. There is no "we" when talking about how to live longer and better. I don't have diabetes, but I bet those who do are awful glad there's dialysis. I don't smoke, but I bet those who do are awful glad there's chemotherapy. How I live and how long I live is up to me, but I'm sure glad we live in an age where people are working on curing those conditions which I can't control. I'm really glad I don't have to worry about dying from a cold, like my great-great-great-great-grandmother probably worried about.

Except the rise of personal creature comforts has also seen the demise of strong community bonds.
It is more convenient, not necessarily more comfortable. It keeps us plugged into the system, forces us to work to pay for it, and sees massive profits for the elite.
Sustainability is only a function of population if we assume that civilization is necessary or permanent. Certainly we would run into some sort of population control issues if we keep going down the same path. Population control is not an issue in small self sustainable communities that have no need for roads, cities, and supermarkets.

But ultimately i think civilization will have to crash under its own weight. We will have stripped the planet of its life, and people will just die from starvation and disease, war and climate change.

Population rose with cheap oil, and it will plummet without it.


I think you are missing the point. Exercise and a healthy diet lead to quality, and perhaps longevity as a side effect. Yes, it is more pleasurable to shove a cheeseburger and plate of fries in my face, chased by some soda-pop, but in the long term that will detract from my quality of life, and then society will spend millions of dollars trying to keep me alive for a few years in some decrepit state. (and then brag nonsensically about how our society has a long life span). Im not conflating pleasure with quality.


I honestly can't remember where i read that. But here is some background.

Occupational Cancer - NIOSH Topic Page
Cancer deaths drop for 2nd straight year - Cancer - MSNBC.com
American Obesity Association - AOA Fact Sheets

So, there are over 500K cancer deaths a year in the US. Every year there are 60K new cancers attributable to the workplace.

And then when we add the cancers attributed to obesity, (which is pandemic to our sedentary work environment combined with the garbage we feed ourselves) than we have at least 25% of cancers attributed directly to our occupations.


I did. He had Alzheimer's. He had no clue who we (his family) was for 18 years. He literally lived in bed for two decades completely unable to do anything for himself or to remember his wife, children, or grandchildren.

Im not suggesting we put grandma on the ice berg and watch her float down the river. Im suggesting we focus on quality before longevity, and if people choose to pass on voluntarily (or through the choice of a loved one in cases where there is no brain activity) than we should allow that.

Besides, if we focus on quality early in life, we will inevitably end up with worthwhile longevity.

I don't agree. I think we were far better off as a species, in connection with the land and the community, before 10 000 years ago. The only thing that has changed is convenience, self-domestication, and the newfound ability to destroy the entire species, i don't accept that as being good for any animal species. We are really just kidding ourselves if we think this is at all permanent.

Thanks for listing even more diseases whose major rate increases are due to civilization. It only proves my point. Old people still die from colds, BTW. There are many conditions we can control by kicking the legs out from under civilization.

The only thing that civilization has really improved is the survival rate in birth. (but perhaps that would be a sacrifice we would have to make in order to live in reality again).

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Maybe in your community, but not in mine. Who's to blame when communities aren't interactive? Is it the fault of technology, or the people who don't try to interact in their own communities?
It's not more convenient. In fact, it's bloody inconvenient. It has to be paid for, maintained, serviced, cleaned - on top of buying it "food" to keep me warm. But I do it because igloos and tepees are infinitely colder.

Again, if igloos and tepees were more comfortable then we would still be living in them. Andrew, it's almost like you imagine people enjoy harming themselves. That people suffer through their work days so they can afford to buy the things they suffer in using.
People are going to keep on breeding no matter what society is like, or what technologies are available; and there's a finite amount of land. Eventually we get to the point where there are too many people and not enough land regardless of available technology. You think we would be better off facing this with as little technology as possible?
Why would society keep you alive? I mean, I like you Andrew, but if you want to abuse your body and make poor choices then you'll have to deal with the consequences.

If you choose to let your poor choices kill you, then I won't force you to stay alive. I would ask that you not force me to choose to die from my poor choices when I can pay to save myself. Deal?
Hmmm, thanks for the links, but you're stretching here.
I don't understand how this relates, then. Are you arguing we should never put people in homes, or because he didn't know who you were he should've been euthanized?