Looking back to take steps forward is a better solution then willingly skipping towards our own destruction. Pastoralan is right, we cannot continue our resource usage forever, and in all likelihood not much longer at all.

Life expectancy data on hunter gatherers is skewed because of the high infant mortality rate. That drags the average down. If you made it past say... 2 years old you were reletivly likely to make it to your 60's and beyond. Depending on what data your using too, murder can be a huge factor. some societies, like new guineans were extremely violent, a whopping 35% of deaths are from warfare or murder. There are just as many peace-like societies though. for every hawaii theres a chatam islands. for every new guinean theres a hopi.

I'm not suggesting we just "go back" to the stone age, shedding all technology except spears. I'm saying we are headed nowhere good right now. What our society/civilization has become for all its flaws and wonders, can not last, barring some revolutionary technology. And some new technology that converts us to clean energy, allows us to live in harmony with our planet (not like new age harmony, just plain old fashioned harmony in which we dont destroy everything around us) is about as liklly as the rapture. But humans have lived on earth for at least a million years, and they figured out how to survive in a mutualistic way with their surroundings, instead of the parasitic way we survive. So why cant we look at what worked in the past to figure out where to go next? What I'm suggesting is not some sort of tribalistic utopia. I'm just saying that we should look critically at our past (and present) and apply thjst knowledge to our future, our next steps. Because we cannot continue 'business as usual'. we are doing irreperable harm to the planet, and setting ourselves up for a big fall.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Right now detroit sits empty. There are so many vacant properties, and everyone is so spread out, that they are starting all kinds of urban farms. Redefining what it mans to be in a city, an attempt to be more sustainable. obviously this is a very small step, but one in the right direction no?


Let's learn from our pasts so we can have a future.

But the source, Biff! The source!

@Sic

I was slightly confused by your last post to me. Are you for or against forms of energy such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear? This are all very realistic ways to cut down on our coal energy.

Of all the people I read on this site, I try the hardest to take you seriously. You're very active and passionate about your beliefs. But, your beliefs are just incredibly misguided or you're not explaining yourself well at all.

P.S.

Didn't prehistoric humans drive the woolly mammoth to extinction?

Scroll down to "Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination."
http://ryan-koch.blogspot.com/2009/05/reality-of-primitive-peoples-lifespan.html

For or Against? thats not it. What is important is what works. Right now even wind energy (on a large scale) is absolutely dependent on industrial civilization. so its not sustainable. It wont last. If we can figure out how to use these resources in a responsible way, how could I be against them? A waterwheel to power a mill seems like a responsible use of hydro power to me. But for it to be useful today it must be a massive structure that both disrupts the ecosystem around it, and requires the use of lots and lots of oil and other non-renewable, unsustainable resource use. Solar power takes rare metals and oil to make. None of these things are a permanent solution for our energy requirements. So what do you do when you cant satisfy your energy requirements? cut your energy consumption.
duh.
Besides many of these energy sources have a high cost. Oil... Do I really need to go into that? Nuclear... lol come on. chernobel, three mile island, and lets not forget nuclear weapons, and nuclear waste. white sands, yucca mountain, familiar?

"But, your beliefs are just incredibly misguided or you're not explaining yourself well at all."
Agreed, I lack writing skills and cant accurately make all of my points. I'm horrible at debates. I really dont even argue my own case very well. I'm hoping that you, as rational intelligent human beings will be curious about the points I do bring up, and learn more about it then I am able to tell you. I dont base my beliefs on feelings or alarmism. I look at facts, history. I just dont document the sources. Do you write down the website or cut out the newspaper for everything you learn? It's available if you look. But I'm not going to tirelessly drudge through the internet because you all demand I back up my every word, particularly when most of it is common sense.

"Didn't prehistoric humans drive the woolly mammoth to extinction? "

I dont know. It could have been the shift in climate at the end of the last ice age, but it seems to have coincided with the arrival of humans on the north american continent. I suppose there will always be some extinctions when a new predetor enters an ecosystem. I really dont know much about the subject. But I fail to see your point. Even if humans did hunt the mammoth to extiction (which i think is likely) it is nothing like the daily extinctions we face today

http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html

@Sic

Why is industrial civilization inherently not sustainable? If we solve our energy problems (which, tbh, is more of a political than technical problem at this point) what other concerns are there? Food? Again, this is a political, not technical issue.

Referencing Chernobyl and 3MI proves nothing. That was a long time ago. The design and safety systems of modern-day Nuclear plants have advanced incredibly in that time. We have more than enough room to safely and securely store the by-products of nuclear reactors.

I agree that many of these things have high costs, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. An oil rig is high-cost, but we make those. A Blackhawk is high-cost, but we make those. Again, it isn't a question of can we, it's a question of do we want to.

I agree with you fully that there are many aspects of our society that are broken and non-sustainable. But, more (and better use of) technology is the answer. Not less.

My point is that humans are inherently opportunistic and predatory. That's why we're the best of all the animals. With spears, we could only take out one species. Now we can do it much more efficiently. However, you'll also note a much different attitude of protecting the environment now compared to then. Do you think anyone cared about killing a mammoth? No, but they do care (a little at least) about killing whales now. Going back to yester-year will diminish the symptoms, not the cause. Only by moving forward can we try to better ourselves.

FYI, rare earth metals are very common. They just are found in large concentrations, so it's more expensive to mine them.

Its not necessarily inherently unsustainable. But there is no realistic way to make it sustainable in a timely enough fashion to prevent extreme ecological damage. I'm not just imagining big scary machines hurting fern gully, look at whats happening! Look at deforestation and pollution and extinctions, its insanity.

I dont mean high cost in dollars. An oil rig sure as hell has a high cost but not because it took millions of dollars to build. the BP oil disaster is a perfect example of what I mean. The extent ecological damage from that disaster is not well understood yet, but we can be sure it will have far reaching effects on the gulf.
"
Israel Palestine

Muslim-in-america133
Muslims In America

Education
Education

Livelihood-pic
Right Livelihood Award

Passport-stop
Immigration

Whistle
Whistleblowers

Katrina
Hurricane Katrina

Coal-wagon
Mining

Womendemopak
Women's Rights

Wall-st-1
Financial Meltdown

Comment on site

Pacifica: Radio With Vision

Tote Bags

DN! tote bag

Mugs & Coffee

two yellow mugs

DN! Apparel

DN! T-Shirt
Bring DN! to Your Community
Today’s Show

* Headlines
* WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs Expose US-Backed Iraqi Torture, 15,000 More Civilian Deaths, and Contractors Run Amok



RECENT SHOWS
Friday, October 22, 2010

* Headlines
* Does Opposing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" Bolster US Militarism? A Debate with Lt. Dan Choi and Queer Activist Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
* Juan Gonzalez: Controversial Evaluations System Will Unfairly Target New York Teachers
* "Lawless Courts": Lack of Accountability Allows Immigration Judges to Violate Laws, Deport US Citizens
* EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks Prepares Largest Intel Leak in US History with Release of 400,000 Iraq War Docs
* With New Limits, US Military Reinstates "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"

Thursday, October 21, 2010

* Headlines
* 6 Months Since BP Oil Spill, Writer and Environmentalist Terry Tempest Williams Asks "Where Is Our Outrage?"
* Anti-Gay Fervor in Uganda Tied to Right-Wing US Evangelicals
* Chicago Parents Occupy Elementary School Building to Prevent Demolition

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

* Headlines
* NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups
* Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz: Foreclosure Moratorium, Government Stimulus Needed to Revive US Economy



BLOG

*
When Banks Are the Robbers

The big banks that caused the collapse of the global finance market, and received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bailouts, have likely been engaging in wholesale fraud against homeowners and the courts.
Listen

Filed under Weekly Column
*
BREAKING: Pentagon instructing recruiters to accept openly gay applicants

In a victory for gay rights advocates, the Pentagon is instructing military recruiters to accept the applications of gay men and lesbians who wish to join the military. See all of our coverage of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell here

Filed under News
*
Web Exclusive
Part II..."Slavoj Zizek: Far Right and Anti-Immigrant Politicians on the Rise in Europe"
Zizek-p2

Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist. He is author of dozens of books; his latest one from Verso Books is called Living in the End Times. [includes rush transcript]

Filed under Web Exclusive
*
John le Carré: Calling Out the Traitors

John le Carré, the former British spy turned spy novelist, has some grave words for Tony Blair.
Listen

Filed under Weekly Column
*
From Tuskegee to Guatemala Via Nuremberg

News broke last week that the U.S. government purposefully exposed hundreds of men in Guatemala to syphilis in ghoulish medical experiments conducted during the late 1940s.
Listen

Filed under Weekly Column
*
WATCH: Amy Goodman on CNN's John King USA
Jkusa-amy

Democracy Now!’s award-winning host Amy Goodman discusses upcoming midterm elections on CNN’s John King USA on Friday, October 1 at 7pm ET.

Filed under D.N. in the News
*
Web Exclusive
WATCH: Jon Stewart Gets Haiti News from Democracy Now!
Dailyshow

Filed under Web Exclusive
*
BREAKING...Attempted Coup in Ecuador: On the Ground Report from Sofia Jarrin

Sofia Jarrin works with the Latin American Association for Radio Education.
Listen

Filed under News
*
Xml More Blog Posts »



Podcasting & Torrents

*
DN! Audio & Video Podcasts
*
Democracy Now! by BitTorrent



Post this story to a social networking site
Include this video in your blog or website
Whole Show | First Story »
October 25, 2010
Headlines for October 25, 2010

Help

Printer-friendly version

Email to a friend

Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH

Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…
WikiLeaks Docs: US Allowed Iraqi Gov’t to Torture & Murder

The United Nations chief investigator on torture is calling on the Obama administration to order a full investigation of the role of US forces in human rights abuses in Iraq. Manfred Nowak’s call came after the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks released nearly 400,000 classified US military documents that detail how US forces did nothing to stop reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers. In addition, the WikiLeaks war logs show at least 15,000 more Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq than previously thought. In the streets of Baghdad, local residents say the leaked documents confirm what they have known for years.

Salah, Baghdad resident: "I think there is no new information, because all Iraqis witnessed the events following the invasion and those following the war. At least every family has a detainee who was tortured in prison, whether taken by Iraqi or foreign forces, or they know someone who was killed, either by Iraqi or foreign forces. This is something we all know about. We don’t need documents to know this. The only thing is that these documents are official confirmation."

Cholera Outbreak Kills 325 in Haiti

Health officials in Haiti say the toll from a cholera epidemic has risen to 253 dead and over 3,000 infected. Most of the deaths have occurred in the rural Artibonite region north of the capital Port-au-Prince, but there have been a growing number of confirmed cholera cases in the capital city, as well. Authorities have begun establishing treatment centers in Port-Au-Prince, where over one million Haitians have been living in tent camps following the January earthquake.

Dr. Jon Arbus, Pan American Health Organization: "This outbreak is likely to get much larger, given our experience with cholera epidemics in the past, particularly in a population that has really no protective immunity, not having been exposed recently to cholera. So we expect it to get bigger, and we have to expect that and react to it."

In the Haitian town of Saint Marc, patients with cholera have been seeking treatment at the local hospital.

Roselin Elins: "Yeah, I felt the symptom in my stomach, and then I went to the bathroom, and I had watery diarrhea. I went to the hospital, and they told me how to make an oral serum at home. I drank it all night, and it didn’t help the diarrhea, so I’m back at the hospital."

Large Amounts of Oil Spotted in Gulf of Mexico

In Louisiana, large amounts of oil from the BP spill has been spotted floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta. A photographer from the Times-Picayune captured images of the oil on Friday. In some areas the oil strips were as much as 400 feet wide and a mile long. The discovery came just days after the US Coast Guard declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico."
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/25/headlines#3

oh and by the way the link in my above post covers both extictions we face today, and wolly mammoth extinction.
I hope that since I'm caving to y'alls link demands, they are at least read.


"I agree with you fully that there are many aspects of our society that are broken and non-sustainable. But, more (and better use of) technology is the answer. Not less."
Your statement is a leap of faith nothing more. Show me conclusively that technology holds the answer to sustainable living. We know for sure what does hold the answer, history. What I'm saying is that we are very obviously living beyond our means, and hoping for an answer from industrial civilization (the cause of these problems) as opposed to looking to solution that we know works is a gamble and a dangerous one. Do you not think that living beyond our means in such a destructive way will not have far reaching consequences?

wow shit I copied the whole web page. apologies.
let me try again.

Its not necessarily inherently unsustainable. But there is no realistic way to make it sustainable in a timely enough fashion to prevent extreme ecological damage. I'm not just imagining big scary machines hurting fern gully, look at whats happening! Look at deforestation and pollution and extinctions, its insanity.

I dont mean high cost in dollars. An oil rig sure as hell has a high cost but not because it took millions of dollars to build. the BP oil disaster is a perfect example of what I mean. The extent ecological damage from that disaster is not well understood yet, but we can be sure it will have far reaching effects on the gulf.
Large Amounts of Oil Spotted in Gulf of Mexico

In Louisiana, large amounts of oil from the BP spill has been spotted floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta. A photographer from the Times-Picayune captured images of the oil on Friday. In some areas the oil strips were as much as 400 feet wide and a mile long. The discovery came just days after the US Coast Guard declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico."
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/25/headlines#3

oh and by the way the link in my above post covers both extictions we face today, and wolly mammoth extinction.
I hope that since I'm caving to y'alls link demands, they are at least read.


"I agree with you fully that there are many aspects of our society that are broken and non-sustainable. But, more (and better use of) technology is the answer. Not less."
Your statement is a leap of faith nothing more. Show me conclusively that technology holds the answer to sustainable living. We know for sure what does hold the answer, history. What I'm saying is that we are very obviously living beyond our means, and hoping for an answer from industrial civilization (the cause of these problems) as opposed to looking to solution that we know works is a gamble and a dangerous one. Do you not think that living beyond our means in such a destructive way will not have far reaching consequences?

@Sic,

But, my point with the woolly mammoth is that we *weren't* sustainable in the past either! We had a natural resource that we drove to extinction. The only reason we're still around is because we moved on to other things. History does *not* hold the answer, as you so think. It merely gives of more examples of what didn't work.

You actually have a very old way of looking at things. Little history lesson on the French Revolution:

The most significant thing (in my opinion) was the idea that we can look to the future for things to improve. Before that, the prevailing sentiment that it was better in the past, that we fell from grace, and the only thing you can do is try to return to how it was shortly before we fell (Garden of Eden, etc).

After the Revolution, the prevailing zeitgeist was that the we can advance in the future beyond what we were, instead of looking back, we looked forward.

And saying we lived to age 70+ as hunter-gathers when you disregard infant mortality is just cooking the books. Sure, I can make the stats read any which way I want if I cut out the parts that I don't like.

Its pure flimflam, and I hope you know that.

Also, you are the one making the case that the way we are doing things is wrong. Its incumbent upon you to prove to US that we're wrong. You can't turn it around and make us prove ourselves, because you're the one demanding things change in a radical way.

I agree that you're terrible at explaining yourself.... I suggest you try to educate yourself further, because it seems many if your points rest on faulty or flawed assumptions or facts.

Sic, I give you this. After reading the scholorly article you referenced on life spans for industrialized vs non-industrialized (i.e. aboriginal, hunter-gatherers), you quote a legitimate source for your assertions that people don't live any longer now than before. Not a definitive source, but a credible one. Which helps your credibility. (I note for those who haven't read this, its funded by the National Science Foundation).

So you've thrown up a flag... you believe the current lifestyle and path to be non-sustainable.

Please answer the following to clarify:

1. what power sources do you endorse, if wind, nuclear, coal, oil, and (you point out) hydroelectric/water wheels have unacceptable environmental impact? Or do you not endorse an electrical/power grid?

2. Let us suppose that the authors are correct, that hunter/gatherers lived approximately as long. How would you compare their "quality of life" to current day?
( I include, at the end of my post, a snippit from the author's study)

3. If you feel "going back to nature" give equal quality and length of life....why are you sitting there typing on the internet?

I look forward to serious answers for all three questions.

The author's commentary:
We do not fully understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of
modernization. Do members of industrialized countries age more slowly,
in a physiological sense, than people exposed to greater environmental assaults?
Alternatively, are most of the mortality improvements attributable to
reductions in cause-specific mortality at specific ages through prevention of
assaults or medical treatment of illnesses? Is a 50-year-old Hadza as robust
and functional as a 50-year-old American? It

1. What I endorse really does not matter. What does matter is the question of whether or not we can utilize the resources sustainably. I am for sustainability. ie I am for continued life on this planet.

2. There were alot of arguments on this very forum about that subject. it is my personal belief that the quality of life was higher, citing both my personal anishinabek culture and upbringing, as well as anthropological studies, and personal accounts of people living in traditional ways (mutant message down under is a great personal account of living with austrailian aborigines, I highly recommend). Others disagreed on the basis of their personal beliefs. One person cited articles that humans are basically the same level of happy no matter what. Is happiness what you meant by quality of life? if you meant medicine or art or something I would say that its relatively similar. It doesnt really matter ultimately, we cant continue the way we are living.

3. Because property laws, hunting laws, etc. exist, essentially preventing the possibility of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I am working on getting land though, and if that happens you can expect me to pretty much drop off the internet entirely.

@Sic

I read through "Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination" and the author also says that the chance of living to age 15 in a hunter-gatherer society is less that 60%! Do you have any idea how awful that is?

I'll just point out that it wasn't solely woolly mammoths that were driven extinct. Other than bison, almost every other variety of North American megafauna such as giant bears, giant ground sloths, giant beavers, etc. all had their extinctions roughly coincide with the advent of humanity. Much of the same is true elsewhere in the world. It's been hypothesized that Africa is the only continent to maintain much of its megafauna because there they evolved alongside humans and the development of hunting techniques, whereas elsewhere the megafauna were caught completely off guard.

It's important to note that while in recent times the argument can be made that humans are in fact reducing their own carrying capacity through ecological damage, the majority of human history has been the story of a unique species with the ability to raise its own carrying capacity by manipulating the environment around it (though some others also share this ability). Shelter to reduce thermoregulatory caloric expenditures, agriculture to increase the calorie per acre yield, etc. We have never been able to feed so many people as we can now, and this has been a constant historic trend upward. Nobody is arguing that this can go on forever, because obviously it can't, but where's the evidence that this is the peak? Malthusian catastrophic predictions predate even Malthus, and have yet to come to fruition. And furthermore, what evidence is there that when the peak does arrive it will be an event of a severe catastrophic nature rather than a milder longer term leveling off of production and birth rate?

Sic,

1. You are proposing society give up their sources of power - and refuse to answer whether there are any you believe are worth keeping? Why so shy? If you feel like centralized power distribution inherently hurts the environment and should be eliminated - why not say so.

2. You'll feel that quality of life is equivalent until you are a person who has to live with rotted teeth for 20 years (no toothpaste) or has to depend on what they catch for their next meal.

3. America has these laws... nice laws that protect you from other preditors - but that's not true of every country. I"m sure you could find some less civilized and more environmentally humane territory - perhaps South America. Or do you like having the backing of an organized, civilized society just in case things don't work out?

What do you think i'm using here in South America? Internet through smoke signs?

Xapi +1

Xapi perhaps drums? Perhaps Indy was refering to the wilderness areas in the rainforest?

@Sic
I'd like to touch upon a couple quotes from one of your earlier posts because I think it really highlights your problem:

"Life expectancy data on hunter gatherers is skewed because of the high infant mortality rate. That drags the average down. If you made it past say... 2 years old you were reletivly likely to make it to your 60's and beyond."

If infant mortality is large enough that is is noticeably bringing down the average life expectancy is a HUGE problem. Consider, not only the child's life that was needlessly lost, but all the other ramifications: unnecessary stress on mother, wasted extra food mother consumed, need for mother to have another child, increasing risk of birthing complications. This alone makes it hard to justify higher quality of life.


"What our society/civilization has become for all its flaws and wonders, can not last, barring some revolutionary technology. And some new technology that converts us to clean energy, allows us to live in harmony with our planet (not like new age harmony, just plain old fashioned harmony in which we dont destroy everything around us) is about as liklly as the rapture."

Myself and others have presented (in this thread and others) many technological advances that are in place or will be in place soon that will do a lot to make things more sustainable. You can't just ignore those facts.

"But humans have lived on earth for at least a million years, and they figured out how to survive in a mutualistic way with their surroundings, instead of the parasitic way we survive."

No, they did not. Chrisp and I have both showed how humans have always been destroyers of their environment. This argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

"So why cant we look at what worked in the past to figure out where to go next?"

Because it worked less good in the past.

"I'm just saying that we should look critically at our past (and present) and apply thjst knowledge to our future, our next steps."

I'd suggest you do that. Most of us already have and some of us are even doing something constructive about it. Researching new forms of Energy, for instance.

"Because we cannot continue 'business as usual'. we are doing irreperable harm to the planet, and setting ourselves up for a big fall."

I agree, but I think my time-table is much longer than yours and I think the solution is much different than your proposal.

"I'll give you an example of what I mean. Right now detroit sits empty."

I agree, Detroit is a cluster-fuck.

lol Detroit +1

Yes to the rainforest.

You see no difference between an ecosystem adjusting itself and what we now face today? other predetors have drove species to extinction too, but thats not to say cougars are unsustainable. Mammoths were ill-adapted to being hunted by humans. So where all of Namericas megafauna, that or were unable to adapt to the thawed continent.
but what about now?

1. after millions of years in the mountains, goat populations begin to decline when the cougar first enters the ecosystem. After a thousans of so years the goat is extinct forever, unable to compete with the cougars superior hunting skills.

2. After millions of years in the mountains, goat populations begin to decline because cougars have blown up thousands of mountains to get coal to power their factories. (they even have cougar reality tv, yay!!) Also in decline is indigenous frog, beaver, songbird, wolf, and wild bpar populatioms because of loss of habitat, toxifycation of the environment (run-off chemicals, yum).

some people want to resist the cougars destruction, but find out that several million years ago, they were responsible for the extinction of a species of moutain goat. After finding out that cougars have always been this way, people go back to work at the bauxite mine, shipping it out to the aluminum smelter so everyone can have cougar soda.

Just for curiosity's sake, Sic, I assume you don't plan to have children at any point? Because you wouldn't want to contribute to the problem, after all - the problem, apparently, being "people"

Which is cool, I can respect that. What I can't respect is the same argument coming from people who had five, six kids - what they're usually saying when the bitch about overpopulation is that there are too many *brown* people, not too many people just like them....

But, we also have restrictions on hunting certain animals, too. Whales, Elephants, etc are on watch lists. It's true that not everyone follows the rules and enough animals probably aren't on it, but it is a step in the right direction.

Here's the short of it. Even if you're right; nobody will listen to you. People are not going to give up modern medicine, transportation, entertainment because of some unknown future disaster. Your persistence is commendable, but you need to make a choice: stay on the fringe where you believe you're 100% right and accomplish nothing, or move towards a more moderate stance, where you might not get everything you want, but you will get something. That's the realistic situation you face.

Instead of talking whatever you're talking about, you should be working on things like:
Japanese Whaler
Renewable Energy
Mountain-top Mining

I know your solution to all of these is "Look to the past," but that isn't helping the situation. Try coming up with innovative solutions to these problems.

@strategos. I aint white bitch.

"Even if you're right; nobody will listen to you" Dont I know it.
Just because I have a diplomacy hobby and can currently devote the time to complain on the internet doesnt mean I'm an armchair activist. You think just because I rail against destruction of life on this planet, that thats all I do to try to stop it? wrong. I've done some pretty extensive work against mountain-top removal. and i tried to join the sea shepherds. didnt get back to me yet. or they dont want me. anyway my point is just because I try to point out things I see as problems doesnt mean that talking is all I'm doing. I just dont like to toot my own horn. I dont think I have a very big ego.

I think y'all should take a look at this. it's called "As the world burns: 50 things you can do to stay in denial" its a comic so even strategos can read it ;]

http://www.slideshare.net/savenaturalworld/as-the-worldburnsderrickjensen

Just because I believe some of our answers lie in the past doesnt mean I ignore the present.

I know you aren't an armchair activist, which is why I bother talking to you. I'm glad to hear your working on some actual problems that can be solved : )

"Just because I believe some of our answers lie in the past doesnt mean I ignore the present."

I'm not saying you're ignoring the present, I'm saying you aren't looking to the future to see how it can *help.* You're only seeing how we'll destroy ourselves.