Good.

The comment "good" speaks to the intellectual level (that's the same as IQ in more common terms Jason), of those behind and in support of the destruction of the environment.
Following election 2000, a nationwide study found that 51% of U.S. citizens had a reading comprehension level at or below the 8th grade level. Its no wonder the environment is in serious trouble, this is a nation (and world) of ignorant people that just don't know any better.

In that way ignorance serves its purpose (bliss), just imagine what a curse it would be to knowingly go through life realizing that you're stupid enough to destroy your own environment! And, then realizing this is one of those times when 20/20 hindsight comes too late.

Learning the meaning of life begins with having a proper attitude towards life, all life.

"The only thing worse than suffering an injustice is committing an injustice."
--Plato

The comment "good" speaks to the intellectual level (that's the same as IQ in more common terms Jason), of those behind and in support of the destruction of the environment.

And that comment about Jason's response speaks to the air of intellectual arrogance of some of the environmentalists who feel it is their perogative to make decisions for others and that they are somehow mentally superior just because they hold a particular position on an issue.

They are also the same snobs that feel all environmental issues should be handled by Federal bureaucrats and regulators, rather than letting the local people directly affected by the proposed actions have any say in the issue.

Most of the changes proposed by this administration can be connected to a philosophy of letting decisions be made on the local level whenever possible. However, as was implied in the statement above, everyone knows we common folk are simply too mentally challenged to have the same grasp on these complex issues as someone might have who is thousands of miles away and likely only slightly vested, if at all, in the result they propose, right?

Monte, stop kidding yourself and open your eyes.

Most of the changes proposed by this administration can be connected to a philosophy of letting decisions be made on the local level whenever possible

That is an incorrect statement. If you had used whenever it suited them or to its prized constituents instead of whenever possible , I would have agreed with you. Let me cite two Supreme Court cases. The first is Engine Mfrs. Assn. V. South Coast Air Quality Management Distr where the current administration took the side of the engine manufacturers. Basically, in a nutshell, South Coast Air Quality management enacted rules that generally prohibit the purchase or lease of vehicles that do not comply with stricter emission requirements enacted locally. The auto and truck manufactureres weren't happy and sued and said that the district has no right to preempt the federal rules. Full case here. The question you must ask yourself is if a state wants to enact stricter emissions standards than that of the federal requirements, does the state have that right, or is preemempted by [weaker] federal standards?

The second case was just heard in front of the Supreme Court which is Ashcroft v. Raich regarding medicinal use of marijuana. California and other states have passed medical marijuana laws. However, the current administration says the federal Controlled Substances Act, which lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs such as cocaine and LSD, overrides laws in nine states that permit medical use of marijuana. Does the rule of people in those states who voted for these on statewide ballots override the 535 members of Congress? Ask yourself that question.

Both of these cases indicate that Washington is trying to centralize its operations instead of decentralizing them. It is only decentralizing them when it suits them such as to energy companies, utilities, lumber and other industries who back this administration. These are the facts. Look them up yourself. It appears to me that the federal government is actually trying to strengthen its influence over the states on most issues. Mandatory federal sentencing is getting a second look now because of the Martha Stewart case.

That being the case, I do have some room for agreement on intellectual arrogance. I always have thought education was the key. Instead of saying that something is wrong and pressing the panic key, it would probably behove the environmental movement to explain the problem fully and what it means to everyone in tangible terms and what can be done about it. It is like the alternative/renewable energy debate. Most people aren't going to pay a lot more for alternative sustainable energy while traditional energy is so cheap. However, when the prices and costs converge, then you can switch people without adversely affecting their pocketbooks given that they have been educated on the issues.

My thoughts anyway

Good call there Nagamaki. It's been said that insults and attacks are the last refuge of a weak mind. You've proved that.

Az, you're just a little off there...but part of the same thing we're talking about. Many people want federal protection of certain key ideas, such as the environment, and yet on the other hand, do NOT want federal oversight of other items like, oh, the Patriot Act or who should marry and so on. It's a delicate balancing act that really says "we want the feds to step in and make this over reaching ruling on something we agree with, but not on something we don't agree with". And quite honestly, people on this forum are quite bad at that idea.

What makes it difficult is that in the key items I've studied, such as drilling in the ANWR, the majority of locals do want it. People want "someone" to force a ruling on what they think is right, as long as that force isn't applied to them.

This is a perfect example of that.

Either you do or you don't want the feds to oversee local issues. Which do you want?

Monte, the sooner people get off the this " consume it now while we have it " addiction, the sooner we begin finding sustainable non-polluting answers to the problems. We should have been way ahead of this problem, instead we find ourselves more and more behind and in a mess. And, the basic simple reason is greed and ignorance.
Believe me, I'd be happy to be completely wrong and simply arrogant, however, the truth and reality happen to be the same in this instance.

And, Chicken little used to be just a fairy tale we could all ridicule and say the sky is not falling, nor will it. Do we really wish to find out how close to crossing the threshold of serious irreversable environmental problems we really are, or do we all begin changing direction in a focused and serious manner, now! Not tomorrow!

Jason, I think we have had this discussion before about the role of government. My answer is no. It should be left at the state or even local level.

Nagamaki, the cure to this is a free market economy with no government interaction regarding a national energy or environmental policies. The federal government already has in place certain tax policies which put traditional energy companies at an advantage over alternative energy. The latest craze is the hydrogen economy. While it may hold a promising future, other promising technologies that do not receive government support will be at a disadvantage and may not be able to get off of the ground.

Bottom line, educate everyone about what is happening and keep the federal government out of it. It seems that any time the federal government tries to solve the problem, it compounds them 10 fold. We have a vibrant economic base and the entrepreneurial spirit in our citizens. Other people share the same concerns that you do, and if anyone can find a way, it will be done. However, this has to be kept away from any government interaction so that the initiatives have a chance to succeed.

I have said it once and I will say it again. I still have hopes of oil reaching $80 a barrel or $5 for a gallon of gas. That will jumpstart people and companies into looking at alternative energy sources. I figure at that price point, the prices of the traditional energy and renewable energy will be almost the same. People can then make their choices. On a side note, it should tempt people to trade in their SUV's and trucks for vehicles that get better mileage. That should reduce greenhouse gases in the short term.

My thoughts again

AzDesertRat,

I agree with you about the need for a free market devoid of government interference.

As far as the state requirements on the environmental requirements for products, I have my own position and that is that those type of exclusionary laws are or should be a violation of the US Constitution's ban on intrastate tariffs or other trade bans if they apply to products produced by other states.

If California or any other state wants a special set of restrictive requirements of that type, then they should create a business environment within the state that would allow that business to be created there. However, in the case of California and some other states, it appears that creating a business friendly climate is the last thing on their mind. The removal of this type of intrastate tariff, trade restriction, tax, etc., was one of the primary stimuli for the first Constitutional convention after the Articles of the Confederations were found to be lacking in that area.

I also agree about the need to let conventional energy sources increase in cost without interference, despite the whining and gnashing of teeth. This will help make alternative energy sources more attractive, but not all.

For certain, the cost of many of the alternative energy sources are not independent of the increase in the cost of conventional energy. For example, considerable energy is currently required to produce some of the sustainable fuels like alcohol and biodiesel. When the cost of the conventional energy needed to produce these alternatives increases, so does the cost of the alternative energy. Barring a substantial technological advance that significantly reduces the required energy input, for some time, it will be a case of chasing your tail to find the true breakeven price for some alternative energy sources. There is also the problem of what happens when you start using expensive alternative energy to generate affordable, renewable, and sustainable alternative energy. That additive cost reflux has the potential of extending the timeframe where conventional energy is more attractive cost wise.

In many aspects I agree in the free market developing alternative energy. Where i feel the Federal government can lead the way is on a couple of different fronts.

First, they need to offer tax incentives (as AZ noted) to stimulate alternative growth and make the playing field level.

Secondly, when the EPA comes out and sets strict levels and standards for all the States to follow, contrary to what industry says and complains about, it has an effect of not only moving the environment in a cleaner direction, it stimulates new technology and job growth!!! It stimulates new technology simply because where there is money to be made Americans always find a way to develop the technology to meet the challenge. This is and always has been America's greatest strength.

NYS lead the way in developing drinking water standards and the EPA was quick to follow and then take the lead, at least until now. In any case, when these standards were put in place it generated literally thousands of privately run laboratories across the country to open and hire thousands of college educated employees at sustainable living wages.

And, it forced the polluting companies making millions of dollars to face the piper that they were becoming rich while polluting the nations drinking water supply.

Its funny how these polluting companies still manage to make millions even after being forced to clean up there act. See, this where greed and ignorance comes in. Think about it, these companies are polluting the very environment their own empoyees are living in. The same employees generating the labor necessary for making the company big wigs wealthy. Not to mention the fact that then the company complains because the cost of health insurance and time lost on the job, because ill health is costing too much! Uggghhhhhh!

Further, some of the bigger companies (that were polluting) realized there were profits to be made in testing to insure clean water quality and opened up their own labs. So, you see there is a positive role for the Feds to play as kind of a referee to make certain the playing field is level and the game participants are not cheating or stealing or polluting!

What gets my blood boiling is when conservatives cry about big government and spending, then when they take over it only gets worse! Check the GAO records for yourself. All they're really crying about is rules of the game that prevent them from cheating. Ahh, but don't forget to go to church on sunday and ask for forgiveness. What a bunch of horse poop.

When you give any vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry flavored senators, congressman, the president, not to mention every state has its own bureaucracy, a full-time job with nothing better to do than to figure out how to legislate this and legislate that, for often personal political favors and gain, its the same as giving a room full of kittens a big ball of yarn and expecting to return and not finding one big mess!

Still, the bottom line is one planet, one environment, and so far humans have done a very good job at screwing it up in only a few hundred years, perhaps not even a full second of geological time!

Monte, regarding the first court case I cited, the new stringent emmissions standards were based on existing technologies , so I fail to see how it is a restriction of interstate commerce. The 10th amendment reads "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". This is what the state wanted and it doesn't violate any laws on interstate commerce. Like I said before, the current administration only believes in state rights when it wants to. It is by no means a general movement towards federalism.

In regards to alternative energy, I wasn't referring to alchohol or bio diesel fuels, but other technologies including geothermal, solar, tidal and whatever else is in the works. I have heard that lithium batteries are being considered for a couple of car models including the mini Cooper and the Chrysler Crossfire. Nuclear would be good option if they could figure out what to do with waste. Sticking it in a mountain in Nevada is not a good long term solution IMHO. Maybe if they figured out how to harness fusion energy, that would be cure to all of our problems.

Nagamaki--I consider myself a true conservative in its original meaning, not like the people in office now who claim to be conservatives. Just an FYI, the biggest polluter in this country is not the oil industry, not heavy industry, not automobile drivers, or even the energy companies. It is the federal government. Do you think any of the military vehicles have smog controls? We were just talking about perchlorate in another thread which is a rocket fuel. The federal government should very little say in environmental matters until it cleans up its own act. Every state has its own philosophy about clean air, and many of them are much stricter than federal controls. If people have a big brown cloud hanging over them every day, they will do something about it. The people in Washington are too busy scratching each other's backs to get any real reforms done.

It is very simple. Elimate tax breaks and subsidies for all energy companies and leave a level playing field. And while they are at it, clean up their own act. The free market and local voters will take care of the rest when given the opportunity. The federal government should only be involved when the dispute is across state lines and on reporting the facts.

Nagamaki, here is an immediate and real-life example of typical attitudes and human nature:

I have a client with assets of somewhere around a hundred million dollars. I'm doing a renovation of his house. Today I suggested that we install some solar collectors on some of the abundant south-facing roof, at a cost that would be a very small fraction of the cost of the whole project.

Nope. He'd rather just keep paying the gas bill, becase he wants to keep the up-front cost down. Even people with more money than god want to save pennies today rather than think ahead.

I'm going to put panels on my roof this winter, even if my wealth compared to his is as the acorn to the proverbial mighty oak.

Secondly, when the EPA comes out and sets strict levels and standards for all the States to follow, contrary to what industry says and complains about, it has an effect of not only moving the environment in a cleaner direction, it stimulates new technology and job growth!!! It stimulates new technology simply because where there is money to be made Americans always find a way to develop the technology to meet the challenge. This is and always has been America's greatest strength.

I see it somewhat differently. I see this additional level of new jobs based on some of the excessive regulations as simply another indirect financial burden for which the American consumer ends up footing the bill. Note that I said "excessive", not those that may be necessary. This regulation linked industry is not dissimilar to the government bureacracy that makes the regulations. No durable goods or similar products are created by this type of industry, just bills that businesses must pay. Most equipment and supplies specially manufactured for this industry are intimately tied to this industry and not of use elsewhere.

The bills absorbed by the businesses to comply with excessive regulations, just like corporate taxes, etc., are passed down to the consumer as added costs for the products, etc., they supply or manufacture. When this added cost is part of the price of necessities like energy, food, clothing, etc., it reduces the available capital the consumer has to spend on products that actually do contribute to the strength of the economy, or that they can put into savings, and that has a negative effect. It is especially hard on the lower income population that spends a larger fraction of their money on necessities. The end result is price inflation, not economic stimulus, in my opinion.

Monte, regarding the first court case I cited, the new stringent emmissions standards were based on existing technologies , so I fail to see how it is a restriction of interstate commerce. The 10th amendment reads "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". This is what the state wanted and it doesn't violate any laws on interstate commerce. Like I said before, the current administration only believes in state rights when it wants to. It is by no means a general movement towards federalism.

I am a strong advocate of states rights as well. My problem with the laws in California, for instance, is that they apply to products that are for the most part not manufactured within California. When California or any other state passes state laws that specifically target out-of-state products, they are in violation of the US Constitution, in my opinion, which of course, costs for squat.

It would be no different, again in my opinion, than the intra-state tariffs and taxes of the early colonies where some states, especially some of those strategically located between the manufacturing based New England and raw material based Southern colonies, levied tariffs and taxes specifically on products passing through their territory. They didn't always highly tax or tariff products produced within their borders, but instead specifically and heavily taxed and tariffed raw materials from the South, headed north to the manufacturing areas of New England, and then taxed and tariffed them again as the finished materials returned to the South.

If California wants to require a manufacturing change that has no effect on that industry within their border, just on the economy of other states like Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, etc., they are unfairly applying an intra-state tariff.

If, on the other hand, they actually had a thriving automotive industry within California's border and required the same changes of them, I would see it differently. However, not only does California not have a thriving automotive manufacturing industry or supporting industries like steel mills, they also don't have a business climate or environmental culture that would allow one to exist or start up.

I suspect that if North Dakota and several other Midwest states passed laws that required all tropical fruit and vegetables grown in California be grown by farmers employing 100% American citizens and be certified 100% organic, before entering those states or crossing their borders, that California would have a cow about the absolute unfair burden of those requirements on their local industry.

Nagamaki,

You seem to imply that the blame goes to greedy, conservative "big Wigs". Certainly we can't leave them out when it comes to environmental shortcomings. However, I have worked in industry. Many of those laborers you mentioned have been guilty also of blame....it's the millions of smaller lapses that also add up.

"... in only a few hundred years,..."

I don't think you can isolate the events of the past few hundred years from the cumulative history of human civilization. This has been ongoing 15-20,000(?) years, and only has become more evident being more widespread.

Maybe this is a little off topic but I also think alot of the problem is cost cutting and pressure from companies Last friday we had a massive oil spill close to 500,000 thousand gallons of heavy crude venezualin oil spill on our Delaware river. I have been down there every day searching for wildlife we did rescue a kingfisher. But I'm afraid the rest are at the bottom of the river. It smells it's a mess and spreading every day. And although they can't find the cause Maybe if we had dredged the delaware deeper and forbid the type of oversized barge. I just think there has to be a better way there have been to many oil spills . Sarah

Here is a link that might be useful: delaware oil spill

Althea, a generation ago we came to realized that most of people who ever lived were still alive. Well, in my lifetime, there are nearly three times more people alive now than when I was a child. So even more are still alive, so to speak.

So sheer numbers NOW given contemporary technological "forces" have environmental impacts far in excess of anything experienced in even the recent past.

In 45 years, the world population is expected to exceed 9-12 billion, or more than double the current population.

Marshall, that is what I intended to mean with the word "widespread". But also, apart from sheer numbers, it isn't as if humans sprung upon the planet fully capable of the types of impacts we have today a few hundred years ago. There is a very long history of the development of tools and so on, leading to advances which have increasingly greater impacts.

Marshall, the reason i used the description of vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, is because it doesn't really matter what flavor you are, be it liberal or conservative, there are those that have their priorities and beliefs in balance and those that do not. My problem is with the conservatives that never had any balance and only pretend they do at election time. In fact most of my friends are conservatives and we get along just fine.
Yes Marshall, our own government is a big part of the problem when it comes to not playing fair, be it polluting vehicles or whatever.

Monte, the current playing field is so tilted and industry has grown out of control to the point that someone has to step in and blow the whistle. Bush's voluntary compliance strategy is a complete joke. In regards to voluntary air pollution compliance the last report i saw had 50 companies sign up, 14 companies actually submitted a compliance plan, and so far only 5 companies execute their plan. Do you really believe the worst polluting companies are not laughing all the way to the bank. But, i'd be willing to make a wager they paid a good chunk of change to get GW and friends re-elected.

Wayne, there are very few people left on earth that are not to blame in some sense for the fix we're in to one degree or another. You're only likely to ever encounter them in a National Geographic program or magazine.

Althea, very recently a glacial core sample tested for increased CO2 levels graphically revealed an absolute correlation between the beginning rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and when Europeans began clearing the forests of europe. We were all once hunter and gatherers in direct balance with nature, and then we lost our way.

He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.
-- Socrates

Nagamaki, I think you're romanticizing the past. Humans, to my knowledge have always sought to manipulate their environment to their advantage, sometimes through physical means such as clearing land, building irrigation channels, intellectually by observing animal habits and domesticating plants, other times with prayer & rituals. I'm not convinced there was ever a time when humans were naturally in balance with nature. I'm also not convinced that "the fall" should become scientific doctrine.

Did those Europeans you cite wake up one day and begin to use fire? Probably not. They only became better at controlling and manipulating fire for their advantage.

Ancient humans must have followed the same subsistence patterns of my local coyote pack: heavy predation on other wildlife (esp. rabbits and my chickens), collapse of food supply, then move on to other areas (increasingly backyards and alleys). We might be genetically wired to maximize return with least effort, then wander off to greener pastures, so to speak.

Nagamaki says, "You're only likely to ever encounter them in a National Geographic program or magazine."

I read recently that the sands of the Sahara are traveling around the globe. Even National Geographic wilds are suscumbing. It seems that where once camel feet traveled the desert now dune like buggys are crisscrossing it.

Althea, guilty as charged and probably more.

It has now been conclusively determined through genetic tracking that all humans, yes all, can be traced back to the Bushman of southern Africa. Which even to this day survive in tune with their environment as they have for thousands of years. In fact if modern man completely with all his creations vanished from the face of the earth, the african bushman wouldn't miss a step or heartbeat, in fact they would be much better off. They remain hunters and gatherers and there is no other language like theirs. Genetically unaltered, they are pure in every sense.

In the jungles of southern asia has lived a tribe that till the 1990's had never before seen a white man and still lives by the bow, spear, and arrow, they too share a common gene with the bushman tribe.

Man's dicoveries, fire, bow and arrow, were not our downfall. Perhaps the downfall of certain animal species, but not ours (at least not till border and property disputes began). Our downfall came about not in the clearing of forests for firewood, but for agriculture. Which lead to unatural prolific increased population growth and expansion, sustained by agriculture, then followed by trading, followed by industrialization. And so the avalanche started.

Suddenly instead of being preoccupied by hunting and gathering, man began to have time to place his cunning instints toward other endeavors and sharing those endeavors with other people. Bad news, why, for the reasons of what you cannot forsee can hurt you!
And,

He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.
-Socrates-

Ha, for certain some of these people were my relatives.

Human mass extinction, maybe not, mass human die off and suffering, highly likely at the current pace. Ahh, so we're faced then with darwinism, survival of the fittest. That is as it should be in a capitalistic free society! What the hell do humans need compassion for, all that caring crap just gets in the way of real progress and profits, and oh yes pollution. A world war is what we really need to speed things up and settle things down once and for all. What is all this willy nilly, pansy approach right GW?

On the other hand all this concern might be all for not anyway, an asteroid from space, a highly possible mass explosion beneath yellowstone park, all this worrying and wasted cyber space talk for nothing. Wouldn't this be the ultimate environmentalist's irony, being taken out by the very nature we're trying to protect. The fact that it isn't done for profit and it would be random and non-selective would lend some gratification of justice being served. If only those ancient dinosaur bones could tell stories.

Actually, a pocket of volcanic gas like what is building beneath yellowstone, exploded only ~ 65,000 years ago and wiped out 80% of the human population at that time. If old human bones could talk.

Marshall, a study published in either the defenders of wildlife or sierra club magazine, addressed the very issue of coyotes you bring up. In yellowstone at the time wolves were introduced the coyote had been the dominant predator. In being the dominant predator the native populations of small game mamals were decimated and in further decline by the coyotes. The big game animals (elk, deer, buffalo) suffered few casualties and their numbers increased to the point of becoming harmful to the park (over grazing winter food supplies) and themselves (disease).
Just three years after twolves were introduced, the coyote population had been cut by 2/3rds, the small game populations returned to almost normal, the big game populations came back into balance and good health.
This is being written from memory, but should be fairly accurate. The wolf populations while increasing from the original numbers have been kept in check (within the park) by natural population controls (mainly hard winters and population rise and fall of big game animals).

Seasons Greetings to All

'Genetically unaltered'. So what?

So would we all be if every mating population was isolated geographically and followed the same habits and the climate was consistent. If south africa became suddenly a lot colder the bushmen would genetically alter. After some generations they would be bigger, have paler skin, eyes and hair, and have body hair.

Perhaps the desire to destroy the environment and subjugate one's fellow humans is correlated with those physical traits?

One thing missing in your remarks Nagamati is any real reference to anyone being truly in charge of things here. If you believe that you are just another predator or perhaps some accident, that is certainly your right. Myself, I have a real Hope.
Regards to all

Nagamaki, I have to disagree with your characterization of agriculture as saving work and time for prehistoric people. According to anthropological studies and archeological investigations, there was less work involved in hunting and gathering and plenty of time for non-work activities. Hunter gatherers didn't have a big material culture because they had to move around alot to take advantage of different ecological niches available seasonally and geographically. There was also (at least in American Indians) extended family/band economies that mixed hunting and gathering with smallscale horticulture of selected vegetables that supplemented the diet. There were also groups that banded together in large numbers for certain times of the year around some resource that was clustered (spawning fish) and could be best utilized in large cooperative groups and then went separate ways in extended kin groups to pursue a hunting and gathering economy for resources that were distributed widely in small parcels. These were all very successful lifestyles. Over the eons of time, humans have spent more time as hunter-gatherers than in any other ecomomic type including agriculture.

I think what big time agriculture led to was more work with great risk (but with a big payoff) but also need for coordinated work (work gangs), centralized management and social hierarchies, specialization, longterm group settlement, storage, food redistribution, and competition over scarce land. Those factors (not extra time or saved energy) may have been contributors to the development of a complex society with its good and bad qualities that we know today.

Ditto what pnbrown stated and I will add a bit.

In what way is genetical uniqueness beneficial? I find it extremely ironic that individuals who likely believe that biological diversity among all species and genetic diversity within species is essential to a healthy ecosystem, would at the same time honor a very limited human genetic pool as an advantage in the species of homo sapiens. Genetically unaltered, they are pure in every sense.

In some ways that sounds strangely supportive of puritan culture and racial purity, both of which find little support in the modern world because of their rigid order and intolerance.

I personally think it also points to the inherent self-flagellating, human demonizing nature of some of the more radical environmentalists that view man as entirely outside the ecosystem. I'm not convinced there was ever a time when humans were naturally in balance with nature.

-snip-

We were all once hunter and gatherers in direct balance with nature, and then we lost our way.

Furthermore, the constant bashing of the mostly Caucasian Europeans and generically the white man as anti-environment and the cause of all that ails the world points to an underlying racist nature as well. Althea, very recently a glacial core sample tested for increased CO2 levels graphically revealed an absolute correlation between the beginning rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and when Europeans began clearing the forests of europe.

-snip-

In the jungles of southern asia has lived a tribe that till the 1990's had never before seen a white man and still lives by the bow, spear, and arrow, they too share a common gene with the bushman tribe.

I suspect that if above mentioned Southeern Asian tribe actually lived in total isolation, then they had also never seen an African man, an Inuit man, a native American man, an Aboriginal Australian man, a Polynesian man, a blonde, a red head, a blue eyed or green eyed person, or any other natural variation either, but the authors of the statement chose to single out one race as conspicuous. Go figure.

"I personally think it also points to the inherent self-flagellating, human demonizing nature of some of the more radical environmentalists that view man as entirely outside the ecosystem. I'm not convinced there was ever a time when humans were naturally in balance with nature."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hee, hee, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. (Taking a breath) Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha.(Wiping tears from my eyes.) Ha, ha, ha.

Thanks Monte. I've been in a bit of funk & that might just turn things around.

I'l admit, the sentence was ill-phrased. A better version is: I'm not convinced there was ever a time when humans (lived perfectly) in balance with nature. I think it is clear from the context of the thread my intention was to challenge the idea of "a fall", and to address various ways of understanding & changing the environment to advance human interests. How that could possibly be interpreted as "... inherent self-flagellating, human demonizing ..." is testament to the human imagination, at best.

Nevertheless, I agree with Pat, KT & Monte on all other points. Honestly, that racial purity idea carries shades of eugenics.

Nagamaki, people around here aren't likely to be moved by characterizations of humans as acting primarily according to "cunning insticts". But, this statement is, imo, the most ridiculous, "... unatural prolific increased population growth and expansion ...." Can you please explain how overcoming hunger, disease,and so on is "unnatural"?

KT writes: I have to disagree with your characterization of agriculture as saving work and time for prehistoric people.

Hmm, i don't believe that's what i said, what I wrote is: " ...... agriculture. Which lead to unatural prolific increased population growth and expansion sustained by agriculture, then followed by trading, followed by industrialization. And so the avalanche started. "

KT writes: I think what big time agriculture led to was more work with great risk (but with a big payoff) but also need for coordinated work (work gangs), centralized management and social hierarchies, specialization, longterm group settlement, storage, food redistribution, and competition over scarce land. Those factors (not extra time or saved energy) may have been contributors to the development of a complex society with its good and bad qualities that we know today.

So, aren't we essentially saying the same thing, only your words are more direct and better stated than mine?

PN writes: 'Genetically unaltered'. So what?

We are all decendants of the Bushmen, that's all. They are the original humans genetically speaking, none prior. The reason they began to disband and spread out, leading to the progression of all the different types of humans we see today, is due to a natural geologic catastrophy that altered the environment. Part of the tribe was pressured to seek refuge (food, water, shelter) elsewhere.
Now if religion holds true, that means the Bushmen were the original humans placed on earth in the garden of eden in gods image. I'd say that is fairly significant.

Thanks Althea, "eugenics" was the word I was searching my limited mind for and couldn't seem to come up with when I made that post. As far a self-flagellating, human demonizing, you were not the primary target of the paragraph, you just provided the only quote which contained the example text I needed. I appreciate your correction for clarification.

Althea writes: Nagamaki, people around here aren't likely to be moved by characterizations of humans as acting primarily according to "cunning insticts". But, this statement is, imo, the most ridiculous, "... unatural prolific increased population growth and expansion ...." Can you please explain how overcoming hunger, disease,and so on is "unnatural"?

Althea, survival and wanting to survive is completely natural! What is unatural is the way it which it began to change and evolve into what we have today. Man was in balance hunting and gathering. If the hunting and gathering was good population increased. If hunting and gathering was poor there was a decline.

Human population was directly tied (in balance) to nature. Over hunting, bad weather, and so on also meant a direct decline in numbers. Agriculture allowed man to by-pass a big part of natural population control and the rest is history.

When man discovered and used his "cunnning (survival) instincts" to figure out he could do better by adding agriculture to the picture, this is what lead directly to our current unsustainable (over population, polluting) situation. For the better or worse only time will be the final judge of that. What man believes is good for man is not necessarily good for the environment or man.

He is richest who is content with the least.
-- Socrates

He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.
-- Socrates

Nagamaki, the cure to this is a free market economy with no government interaction regarding a national energy or environmental policies.

A "free market" does not exist. Even more so about energy.

Nothotsuga--either you have the free markets do this, or you have the government pretend to do it. It's a clear choice.

We have insiders in all government positions. The FDA is filled from people from the pharmeceutical industry. The vice president formulated an energy policy, based on you guessed it, oil. Do you really expect these people to formulate policies that are realistically "in the best public interest" or do you think they might have some bias? You know the answer.

My point is the federal govenment should not be intervening trying to formulate policies. Any goverment policies help a handful of groups and hurt the rest. You get a deduction for using a hummer and almost nothing for buying a zero emmission car. The least you should expect is a level playing field. The free market is great at sorting things out afterwards. Just check out the pork that will be put in the spending bill.

If people in California want cleaner air than the people in Texas, let it be. After everyone figures out they don't want to live in Texas because the air is too dirty, the people of the state will vote for and empower local politicians to do so. Expecting a bunch of people who sit in their DC offices to formulate national policy for air and water standards is a unrealistic at best and a complete joke at worst.

Recently, Colorado passed an initiative in the last election that stated 10% of the energy in the state was going to come from renewable energy by 2015. You don't see any kind of initiative like that coming from the federal government. My point again. Get the federal govenment out of policy and let local and state officials get the mandate from their constituents to do what is right. Lobbyists and others at the federal level will never let this happen.

You have any other suggestions?

Recently, Colorado passed an initiative in the last election that stated 10% of the energy in the state was going to come from renewable energy by 2015.

Thank you for supporting the fact that a "free narket" does not exist.

You don't see any kind of initiative like that coming from the federal government.

Maybe people elected the wrong one...
In a true democracy, the initiative can come from the people. Maybe the first change should be just this one: becoming a democracy.
By the way, you are not discussing about "market", but at which level decisions should be taken.

"Maybe the first change should be just this one: becoming a democracy"

As Althea said: "ha, ha, ha, ha....etc".

Maybe you should take a look around for a change.

My point was that the federal government passes legislation which makes the markets "unfair" and not free. Oil companies and other energy companies get all kinds of tax credits and other benefits which reduces their costs of doing business (Monte will probably disagree). If the playing field were truly equal and this and all similar legislation were repealed, other types of energy have a much better chance of getting off of the ground. Any time there is a demand for a product or service, our citizens and companies are smart and ingenious enough to come up with a solution.

Decisions are best done at a local level. Fact is the federal government has grown in scope to over 40% of GDP makes the markets much more suscepitble to government influence rightly or wrongly. The federal government also the largest employer in this country with almost 3 million civilian (not including contractors and the armed forces) employees while Walmar, the largest private employer is dwarfed by its 1.3 million worldwide employees. The undo influence by such a large segment of our economy as well as being the largest polluter in this country has a lot to do with policy.

In a true democracy, the initiative can come from the people. Maybe the first change should be just this one: becoming a democracy.

I don't disagree with you there. It will take be a monumental change because the people in power don't want to give that up. Besides, this country's founders were paranoid about power being concentrated in the hands of a few. Read the constitution especially Article 1 Section 8. That was the role the founding fathers envisioned for the government. It has obviously grown way beyond that.

Instead of trying to become a democracy, why don't we do the next most sensible thing. Shrink the size of the federal government and keep the resources and funds closer to home where democracy does exist. At least you would be able to control things immediately around you.

Here is a link that might be useful: Constitution

All this bandying about the words "democracy" and "free market" as if we know what these mean in each other's contexts. These are meaningless in political context, reduced in substance to slogans. I doubt that true democracy exists or would be tolerated because its function and structure would seem to most as too anarchistic. Every decision would or could be subject to democratic review by those affected -- all citizens of a political unit and even all others to be affected by the vote.

What we really mean is the installation of a ruling class amenable to and responsive to the ruling elites, not the Great Unwashed. This ruling class changes elements/members but the mission of the class remains pretty much constant. We celebrate this as Representative Democracy. Seems to me that members of the RD ruling class owe first allegiance to the Party while meeting the overt and covert needs of those that "brung 'em": the deep ideological and economic supporting pockets.

Nagamaki, I don't know why you're complaining about the possibility of immenent doom due to environmental degradation. According to your reasoning, the current administrations' policies serve as a natural check to human overpopulation. Perhaps the next generation will better know it's place, as limited to hunting & gathering for survival, and not dare to function according to human nature, the need for freedom & creativity

Marshall, a couple of definitions

Free Market --An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

Democracy

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

The government at a federal level is the latter. True democracy only exists in a smattering of small (really small) towns in this country and around the world. Democracy is considered to be the most inefficient form of the government because of the debates involved about passing each item. Autocratic forms of government are considered the most efficient because power is vested in few (even 1) hands. Make decision, implement decision, end of story.

I don't disagree with you about a more resonsible ruling class. It just won't happen. I am not a pessimist, but a realist. Just think about mankind and the influence of power.

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--John Emerich Edward Dalberg

Reviewing the thread, I caught a typo I made earlier. Even though it has no impact on any aspect of the discussion, I'll correct it anyway. I meant to type "100,000 - 150,000(?) years".

So, Nagamaki, what you are saying is that these 'bushmen', the original and purest humans (allegedly), were also the first to soil their own nest. So I guess they invented environmental degredation, one could say. Really, then, can't we hold them purely responsible for everything unfortunate that has happened since?

No? What a ridiculous and specious argument, you might say? Yes, and just as ludicrous (and dangerous)to deify those tribal peoples who still exist on the planet. It's a mere truism to note that there would be far fewer of us if we all lived as 'bushmen' live. There would be far fewer of us if we all lived as monastics do, or homicidal maniacs.

Remarkably, most of us seem to agree on this basic issue: humans are not apart from the rules of nature. We don't deserve to be eliminated simply because we do what we must to survive. What gets my goat is the very stupid things humans do simply to exceed their fellows.

Thank you for the standard definitions. The definition of free market begs the question; have in fact any economic system enjoyed free markets free of public or private control and manipulation. I can't think of any major economy past or present so organized.

If true democracy is so inefficient, why is it held to be the standard of political nirvana, reason enough to wage preemptive wars? A better description of simple democracy ought not to conclude that the system is too argumentative to be applied to the larger political world. In fact democracy works best in societies having limited diversity and expansive shared values and experiences. True democracy can lead to a tyranny of the majority with attending systemic inequalities for those holding minority views.

Your second definition of democracy, the representative form, is not limited to the federal governing system. In fact it exist in every village board of selectmen, every town council, and every country board of supervisors. On the other hand, there are other governing bodies that are not elected representative but are appointed; so are most regulatory bodies. These are not necessarily "democratic" in practice but are answerable to those with the power to appoint or sometimes to complain.

I see this as just a step away from a tyrannical system where a larger part of the legislative and executive functions is delegated from the top, rather than enfranchised from below. Autocratic systems are not as simple (and efficient) as you suggest. They are often cumbersome, unresponsive, and corrupt. Their success depends sometimes on force or the threat of force but sometimes by traditions, by acceptance by the governed.

How does a Parliamentary System fit within your definition of democracy? Many of the current "democracies" have some form of parliamentary system where the party is assigned seats in the legislative branch(es) based on the number of votes received. In other cases the legislators voted in by the peoples serve in advisory roles to more autocratic rulers.

Seems to me that democracy comes in many forms and degrees.

To contend for a point....who cares? I do. I care about how I got here, what my purpose is, and where I am going.

Nagamati says,

"It has now been conclusively determined through genetic tracking that all humans, yes all, can be traced back to the Bushman of southern Africa."

"Now if religion holds true, that means the Bushmen were the original humans placed on earth in the garden of eden in gods image. I'd say that is fairly significant."

Sir, my Bible says that the three rivers watering Eden were in Ethopia, east of Assyria, and the Euphrates. That doesn't look like South Africa to me.

Free markets had existed in this country until the 1880's or so when the government started going after the robber barons. It also exists in other parts of the world to a greater degree than here. While we can agree that the government should probably have some influence, it is the extent which is the most debated. IMHO, I do think that the government should intervene to break up monopolies. Monopolies can set prices not based on supply and demand as the free market would dictate, but on an artificial price set by the company. That makes them bad for a free market and creates great inefficiencies because the companies have very little incentive to improve their production, cost structure, innovate new products, etc. A country with a bunch of monopolies (even government run monopolies) will fall behind other countries and regions with more competition.

Democracy is inefficient in that decisions cannot be made and implemented arbitrarily like they could under say Stalin and Saddam. In a democracy when someone asks you to jump, you ask why. In a more authoritian regime, the response would be how high. It is true that these regimes tend to be more corrupt and use more violence, but that is part of human nature and is to be expected (sorry, just being realistic). You almost never hear of benevolent dictators either because they don't exist or because someone more violent wants to take their place.

A system of representative democracy such as that found in a parlimentary system should be the next step to evolve in this country. Unfortunately, the two parties in power will do everything they can to not let that happen. Of the 535 members of Congress, there are 2 independent members (not R or D's). The parties in power have created almost unsurmountable barriers for independents or third party candidates. In the last election, 98% of the incumbents were reelected. What kind of odds does that give other candidates? Parlimentary systems usually employ proportional representation. In that regard, it reduces disenfranchisement of the population because the votes are allocated in proportion to votes cast for a party. Usually there is a floor set like 10 or 15% to gain entry. There are other differences such as the lack of an executive office and other nuances (no confidence votes, cabinets selected by coalition, prime minister not president has most powers, etc) most of which could not be implemented here without major revisions to the constitution. I attached more information.

I for one, am very disenchanted with the 2 parties in power and would like to see other parties such as the Libertarian, Green, the Constitution Party, and others elected to public office. The current parties encompass ideas and supporters who are at odds with each other (in Democrat's case, environmentalists and labor unions). On top of all of these issues, people who are appointed to fill government positions are insiders in the industries they are supposed to regulate. That is why I am against especially the federal government trying to pass these "one size fits all" policies across the country. This country is diverse and it simply doesn't work. I used to be optimistic about goverment interceding and "doing the right thing", however, in the last few years, optimism has turned to reality, and it has sunk in. That doesn't mean I am optimistic, it just means that I have the "I'll believe it when I see it" syndrome.

I don't want anyone to get the idea that I am an anarchist or anything. I am an environmentalist at heart and try to do my share to achieve those goals. I am a proponent of finding alternative sustainable energy and reducing our emmissions of greenhouse gases. (I am actually hoping to be in a zero energy home in the next two years). I just have a different approach. Instead of government taking the initiative, I think the initiative should start from the people. Education is key. Also, get rid of any tax credits or incentives that cause people to pollute or look for "traditional energy" in the federal regulations, and leave those decisions to people in the states and the markets to innovate. It is tough to change the mindset of 2 senators from each state and one representative in Congress out of the 535 members in order to change national policy. It is much easier to influence your town, city or state by getting people out of office or pass decisions in local or statewide referendums.

Here is a link that might be useful: Parlimentary System Definition

Survival is just another word for dominance, whether it be another species, another man or one's envoronment in general. We are hard-wired for survival, otherwise we would never have made it to this point.

Power corrupts. The more sophisticated the culture, the more rampant the corruption.

There is no human being more pure than another. We are all driven by fundamental needs and grow from there. Following the purity argument, to become a complicated personality through the mechanisms of human civilization makes one more purely human, not less. A child raised by wolves is less human than one raised within the bounds of human constructs. This talk of purity is nonsense. Let's talk of enlightenment instead.

Carrying capacity is a stark truth. No matter if we haven't reached it today - the population is doubling at an astonishing rate.

We cannot escape the nature that gave birth to us. On an individual level that means accepting the inevitability of your own death. On a higher level, that means accepting a massive reduction in population size for the human race, at some unknown point in the future. As we dance around the more basic population controls, we violate the deeper mechanisms that control our planet's energy/elemental distribution. Just as deer season was opened in my home town, so will Mother Nature control us from some unknown angle.

I think many posters here would benefit from reading "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." So many things that you struggle against are inevitable.

I hate developers with all my heart.

All pain comes from clinging.

"Hating developers" isn't struggling? Doesn't it cause you pain rather than them?

How does hate fit in with the rest of your Zen-like dogma? (most of which I agree with, by the way). I hate speeders: developers are trying to make a buck and get ahead of their fellows; speeders are morons who endanger children and animals for no reason at all.