# We have a very important message here!



## myaskovsky2002

Take your time to see it!
It is long, but interesting

Consumerism is killing out poor planet!

Comments would be very welcome.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

No replies. This is a big (bad) indicator. Many people think that recycling helps the planet... And they do enough. Recycling is nothing, the best thing to do is to USE less. We are trashing the planet. We buy too much, we throw out too much. For how long do you usually keep what yo buy, this is what the video is about. It is a bit long, I agree.
But try to watch at least 50%. We have just ONE planet, 100 years ago, we didn't have this problem. Now we do, why? 

Do you buy water in small bottles? STOP! They use a huge amount of oil (petrole) to make them! Reuse your plastic bottles, this is MUCH better than recycling the bottles. Recycling is a lie. Don't produce so much garbage, this is the solution. When I went to N.Y. I saw the huge garbage they produce each day! We are exporting garbage to the third world, but there they live PEOPLE too. In a few years, all the industrialized countries will need... FOOD!

This is not music, I know. But you are intelligent people, just think about this. Many people view this, nobody answers. Commit yourself, do something for our planet.

I'm sorry if I made some mistakes.

What do I do?

- I use Brita to filter my water, I have some termos that I can use over and over again
- We changed our lawn mower (gas) to one manual and with battery.
- we keep our 2007 car and a 4 years old computer.

Of course we recycle... But this is not enough, the city says they recycle everything, this is just not true.

Martin, trying to help the planet


----------



## sospiro

myaskovsky2002 said:


> No replies. This is a big (bad) indicator. Many people think that recycling helps the planet... And they do enough. Recycling is nothing, the best thing to do is to USE less.


I know & I agree. I just don't need to watch a 21 minute YouTube telling me that.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

sospiro said:


> I know & I agree. I just don't need to watch a 21 minute YouTube telling me that.


It is too long, I agree. But just Realize what we are doing.... And try to change something.

I saw it more than once... I realized many things and changed.

P.S. you have a shorter version on youtube

Martin


----------



## aleazk

I have a 4 years old computer too. 

I try to use my bike and avoid public transport.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Excellent*



aleazk said:


> I have a 4 years old computer too.
> 
> I try to use my bike and avoid public transport.


If many people were like you... We are having the solution here !!

Thank you for writing something, *LIKES* are Great but not enough ( I had several already).

A *Like* could just mean : the idea is ok, but not for me, man!

Martin, pleased


----------



## emiellucifuge

The destruction of our natural world is the greatest tragedy in history.


----------



## jani

emiellucifuge said:


> The destruction of our natural world is the greatest tragedy in history.


Beethoven would agree! He would go mad if he would see how forests&nature are being destroyed today.


----------



## samurai

myaskovsky2002 said:


> No replies. This is a big (bad) indicator. Many people think that recycling helps the planet... And they do enough. Recycling is nothing, the best thing to do is to USE less. We are trashing the planet. We buy too much, we throw out too much. For how long do you usually keep what yo buy, this is what the video is about. It is a bit long, I agree.
> But try to watch at least 50%. We have just ONE planet, 100 years ago, we didn't have this problem. Now we do, why?
> 
> Do you buy water in small bottles? STOP! They use a huge amount of oil (petrole) to make them! Reuse your plastic bottles, this is MUCH better than recycling the bottles. Recycling is a lie. Don't produce so much garbage, this is the solution. When I went to N.Y. I saw the huge garbage they produce each day! We are exporting garbage to the third world, but there they live PEOPLE too. In a few years, all the industrialized countries will need... FOOD!
> 
> This is not music, I know. But you are intelligent people, just think about this. Many people view this, nobody answers. Commit yourself, do something for our planet.
> 
> I'm sorry if I made some mistakes.
> 
> What do I do?
> 
> - I use Brita to filter my water, I have some termos that I can use over and over again
> - We changed our lawn mower (gas) to one manual and with battery.
> - we keep our 2007 car and a 4 years old computer.
> 
> Of course we recycle... But this is not enough, the city says they recycle everything, this is just not true.
> 
> Martin, trying to help the planet


@ Martin, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that just because a lot of your fellow members--probably most--on our forum have not responded means that they don't care or agree with your premise. I really do believe that most fair minded people around the world have come to the conclusion that between global warming and our rape of this planet that we have done quite enough damage and need to do whatever it takes to reverse--if it is not already too late--our pernicious and lethal body blows we have delivered to Mother Earth. In essence, I believe that you are "preaching to the choir" here.
IMHO, as long as more profit can be realized from the continual degradation of this planet as opposed to our restoring it to even a fraction of what it once was, we are all in for a very rough ride indeed, short though it may yet turn out to be!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

samurai said:


> @ Martin, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that just because a lot of your fellow members--probably most--on our forum have not responded means that they don't care or agree with your premise. I really do believe that most fair minded people around the world have come to the conclusion that between global warming and our rape of this planet that we have done quite enough damage and need to do whatever it takes to reverse--if it is not already too late--our pernicious and lethal body blows we have delivered to Mother Earth. In essence, I believe that you are "preaching to the choir" here.
> IMHO, as long as more profit can be realized from the continual degradation of this planet as opposed to our restoring it to even a fraction of what it once was, we are all in for a very rough ride indeed, short though it may yet turn out to be!


Personally, I think we are not doing enough. I took advantage here, people are quite smart, these people could be great initiators for a change. Intellectuals have always been the initiators for change. Consuming less is better that recycling stupid things you bought impulsively. I am a compulsive buyer... But just for music, and I'd prefer to burn myself instead of my music.
As I said before, I'm trying my very best. We are trashing the planet... Even if you say it is not too late... Sometimes I am not so sure. Your message was kind of ambiguous... I am not sure I understood all. I'd like people to talk about what do they do for improving our situation and furthermore, if haven't started to do anything significative, to start. I asked to my students, what do you do? I have always the same answer: I recycle, I changed my bulbs. This is the passive attitude, this is like nothing! In Montreal, the real recycling is 10 to 20%. Many things cannot be recycled, even if they say so. Big firms are the very worst. They just want to increase their sales.
Shop! Shop! Shop! Like the video says. I guess nobody saw it. The problem is the vicious circle we are in. Everybody wants to work, the big companies offer employment, but what kind? Very often unhealthy. Governments don't do enough, corporations are too big, too rich and more powerful than governments. This video speaks about that. It is very well done, it's wort watching it.

Sincerely,

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

Martin
The problem the world has is that all the "western" socieites and the upcoming economies are being driven by consumerism and capitalism.
The only, long term, medicine for our sick planet is a major change in the mindset of mankind.
We have to go back someway to only using what we need. 
Rather than what we think we want.
Have you read Aldous Huxley - Brave New World?








I don't what the answer is.
Human nature will get in the way.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> Martin
> The problem the world has is that all the "western" socieites and the upcoming economies are being driven by consumerism and capitalism.
> The only, long term, medicine for our sick planet is a major change in the mindset of mankind.
> We have to go back someway to only using what we need.
> Rather than what we think we want.
> Have you read Aldous Huxley - Brave New World?
> View attachment 6102
> 
> 
> I don't what the answer is.
> Human nature will get in the way.


I completely agree with you, and yes I read this book. I've just given you one LIKE. I'd give you 10 if I could!

Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

The true solution to our excessive consumerism is not to be found in simple prohibition "stop buying so much!" or _doing _things to make our footprint less hurtful, or even making laws/fines against waste. The root of the problem is rampant Materialism in our world that says meaning/happiness is found in stuff. Of course, there's only one answer to solving such _egregious _error in belief.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The true solution to our excessive consumerism is not to be found in simple prohibition "stop buying so much!" or _doing _things to make our footprint less hurtful, or even making laws/fines against waste. The root of the problem is rampant Materialism in our world that says meaning/happiness is found in stuff. Of course, there's only one answer to solving such _egregious _error in belief.


I agree with you, certainly paganism would achieve a respect for nature!


----------



## jani

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The true solution to our excessive consumerism is not to be found in simple prohibition "stop buying so much!" or _doing _things to make our footprint less hurtful, or even making laws/fines against waste. The root of the problem is rampant Materialism in our world that says meaning/happiness is found in stuff. Of course, there's only one answer to solving such _egregious _error in belief.


Since i joined to this forum i have been curious about your user name. Are you part Finnish or is someone in your family partly Finnish. Because Huilunsoittaja stands for flutist on Finnish, But your location says USA.


----------



## samurai

@ Martin, I did not think I was being ambiguous in my response. I think it well might be too late for this planet; that we have perhaps reached the "tipping point" into an eternally hotter and more miserable world for both ourselves and our childrens' children. Of course, in saying this, I am not saying we should just give up and surrender; we have to keep fighting on whatever fronts we are able to, be they political or economic. My major point, however--which you made for me as well--is that as long as the rapacious corporations in both my country and around the world have so much power--read money--to influence governments and politicians to continue ravaging and raping this planet so that they may be ensured that their hefty profits will continue unabated, the rest of humankind who care about Earth and its future have very little chance indeed of emerging triumphant from this struggle. Now, if they could be shown that they could still make a handsome profit from aandoning the fossil fuels etc., etc. and transforming to a "greener" power grid and transportation system {electric cars at affordable prices for most of us} then I would have more hope in an ultimately positive outcome. But for now--at least in America--those who advocate such sane minded policies are often branded by the political right as pie-eyed liberals, "tree-huggers" {our late and "great" President Reagan's memorable term} or--far worse in America 2012--*SOCIALIST. *If this petty short sightedness continues--as the president for whom I voted shows no signs of mustering the troops to fight against it--I do believe that next 20 years or so will continue to get worse and worse, to the point where this planet may well become uninhabitable for tha vast majority of us, except of course for the very wealthy.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

samurai said:


> @ Martin, I did not think I was being ambiguous in my response. I think it well might be too late for this planet; that we have perhaps reached the "tipping point" into an eternally hotter and more miserable world for both ourselves and our childrens' children. Of course, in saying this, I am not saying we should just give up and surrender; we have to keep fighting on whatever fronts we are able to, be they political or economic. My major point, however--which you made for me as well--is that as long as the rapacious corporations in both my country and around the world have so much power--read money--to influence governments and politicians to continue ravaging and raping this planet so that they may be ensured that their hefty profits will continue unabated, the rest of humankind who care about Earth and its future have very little chance indeed of emerging triumphant from this struggle. Now, if they could be shown that they could still make a handsome profit from aandoning the fossil fuels etc., etc. and transforming to a "greener" power grid and transportation system {electric cars at affordable prices for most of us} then I would have more hope in an ultimately positive outcome. But for now--at least in America--those who advocate such sane minded policies are often branded by the political right as pie-eyed liberals, "tree-huggers" {our late and "great" President Reagan's memorable term} or--far worse in America 2012--*SOCIALIST. *If this petty short sightedness continues--as the president for whom I voted shows no signs of mustering the troops to fight against it--I do believe that next 20 years or so will continue to get worse and worse, to the point where this planet may well become uninhabitable for tha vast majority of us, except of course for the very wealthy.


Just two ideas here:

You are SO right,
I am SO sad.

I see no solution like this. If money were less important... Many things could be solved. The vicious circle is....

Wanna job? (any kind)... Then, work for a corporation, they will reward you, but you gotta pay the price.
Nike is charging you 140$ a pair of shoes made in China for 4$. The guy or child working on it has maybe 1$.

Corporations have a huge appetite, they are so greedy... The government accepts that, they pay taxes, high taxes and support them for votes! It is a marriage! Honest governments do not exist. Corporations don't let them rule. The rich get richer, the poor poorer.

When I was young, very young, I was absolutely socialist. I loved the Soviet Union then, but of course they had their weird things... Nothing is white like snow. The people of the communist party were very rich. Shostakovich was part of the party.... This is one of the reasons I stopped "loving" this composer even if I met him in Moscow...

I am still socialist in my mind.

I loved reading the Capital by Karl Marx, but his ideas couldn't be applied as he wished.

Martin


----------



## samurai

@ Martin, They have huge appetites indeed, which can never seem to be sated. No matter how much profits they make, it is never, ever enough. They simply want more, no matter the environmental costs to both their fellow humans and this wonderful planet we have been lucky enough to have been bequeathed by previous generations. Again--at least from my perspective here in America--any attempts by more progressive minded pols to rein them in and point out that ultimately, we are all responsible for our stewrdship of our home are met with derision and obstruction tactics, with that "dreaded" word
socialist appended. And thus ends all rational and sane argument on this topic. Al Gore is parodied as some kind of eco fruit loop, while George W. Bush goes around assuring us all that there is in fact no global warming. Has he been to the Poles lately and seen the melting glaciers, which year after year grow thinner and thinner? I would highly doubt it; ven if he did, he would be paid a princely sum to "spin" it in a way that everything is copasetic, just as he and his minions did after the 9-11 attacks on this city, when they reassured everyone it was safe to breathe the air near Ground Zero w/o any special breathing equipment. THis erroneous information has of course resulted in many thousands of cops, fire-fighters and other first responders who were there from the onset coming down with all sorts of untreatable cancers and lung related horrors. Then, they have to literally beg the very government for whom they put their lives--and those of their families--on the line for financial assistance after they could no longer work as a result of these afflictions. Ain't capitalism in all its unsheathed and unregulated workings wonderful!!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

jani said:


> Since i joined to this forum i have been curious about your user name. Are you part Finnish or is someone in your family partly Finnish. Because Huilunsoittaja stands for flutist on Finnish, But your location says USA.


Yes! I'm a first generation American, my parents were born in Finland. And, I'm also a flutist (in-training at college), so I hit 2 birds with 1 stone in describing some of my identity with that name.


----------



## cwarchc

Martin

Like you, in my youth, I was a "communist" even to the point of being a member of "the party"
However I soon realised that true communism could never be achieved. Human nature (read greed here) will always interfere.
I was never an advocate of the Soviet regieme. They praciced their own, twisted, version of socialism.
I have come to the conclusion that the planet will heal itself in the future.
Mankind may not be part of the result.
Whilst that sounds depressing, and I suppose you can look at it like that.
You have to put in perspective that humans have only been on earth for the smallest fragment of the planets existence, it will carry on long after we have ceased.
I have not taken the view that we are all part of a greater conscousness. The greater majority are not "enlightened" enough to become a part of it.
I haven't achieved it, but it makes an interesting journey.
I suppose I'm rambling on a bit now.
The ants and cockroaches will the the "life" that carries on when earth heals itself.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> Martin
> 
> Like you, in my youth, I was a "communist" even to the point of being a member of "the party"
> However I soon realised that true communism could never be achieved. Human nature (read greed here) will always interfere.
> I was never an advocate of the Soviet regieme. They praciced their own, twisted, version of socialism.
> I have come to the conclusion that the planet will heal itself in the future.
> Mankind may not be part of the result.
> Whilst that sounds depressing, and I suppose you can look at it like that.
> You have to put in perspective that humans have only been on earth for the smallest fragment of the planets existence, it will carry on long after we have ceased.
> I have not taken the view that we are all part of a greater conscousness. The greater majority are not "enlightened" enough to become a part of it.
> I haven't achieved it, but it makes an interesting journey.
> I suppose I'm rambling on a bit now.
> The ants and cockroaches will the the "life" that carries on when earth heals itself.


I agree totally with you, but if communism is not the solution and capitalism neither? I would say, the middle. Education and Healt free for all. Also jobs for everybody.... Multinationals forbidden, this is the worst cancer of capitalism. I liked in Russia when the prices were the same everywhere, and culture was so important... A ticket to the opera cost 1$, many books cost 0.30, 0.50 cents. LP cost 1$.. It was 1970 and 1971. People were quite happy, their salaries weren't bad. The first time, I stayed 45 days and spoke with all kind of people, the year after I went again and I stayed 30 days. I was in love with the USSR. But I'm still in love with Russia, I am learning the language. I learned how to read and write in Russian when I was 17. I couldn't speak though.

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I agree totally with you, but if communism is not the solution and capitalism neither? I would say, the middle. Education and Healt free for all. Also jobs for everybody.... Multinationals forbidden, this is the worst cancer of capitalism. I liked in Russia when the prices were the same everywhere, and culture was so important... A ticket to the opera cost 1$, many books cost 0.30, 0.50 cents. LP cost 1$.. It was 1970 and 1971. People were quite happy, their salaries weren't bad. The first time, I stayed 45 days and spoke with all kind of people, the year after I went again and I stayed 30 days. I was in love with the USSR. But I'm still in love with Russia, I am learning the language. I learned how to read and write in Russian when I was 17. I couldn't speak though.
> 
> Martin


The ideas tried by the Soviet's were good, and I'm sure if you ask the "average" Russian if they preferred the new capitalist way or the old regime, the majority would say the old way.
Like you said everybody had a job, culture was important (not expensive) people had a life.
Now there is poverty, gangsterism and huge in-equality.
It wasn't Russia that was the problem. It was the "twisted" legacy from the Stalin era, that caused the issues.
The closest I can find to a country trying to do things correctly is Cuba.
Culture, education, healthcare matter. 
New cars, the latest mobile phone or tv don't.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> The ideas tried by the Soviet's were good, and I'm sure if you ask the "average" Russian if they preferred the new capitalist way or the old regime, the majority would say the old way.
> Like you said everybody had a job, culture was important (not expensive) people had a life.
> Now there is poverty, gangsterism and huge in-equality.
> It wasn't Russia that was the problem. It was the "twisted" legacy from the Stalin era, that caused the issues.
> The closest I can find to a country trying to do things correctly is Cuba.
> Culture, education, healthcare matter.
> New cars, the latest mobile phone or tv don't.


About Russia, you are absolutely right. About Cuba you are not. I went 3 times, Cuba is a disaster! They can eat just beens and rice for almost nothing, chicken, black market, beef, black market. One month of salary for buying pants. A lot of money coming from tourism, THEY see nothing! Extreme poverty! Just the government has money! Ah...Also people working at the hotels... Engineers saling stuff, doctors... Direct-tourism is the only "good" source of revenue. They get dollars. Horrible situation!

Martin

P.S. I asked many Russians about the situation before 1990 and the actual one, 100% of them told me Socialism was much better. They are not wealthy, that's why!


----------



## Guest

Oh ye of little faith, science will save you


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> Oh ye of little faith, science will save you


What kind of science? Occultism?

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> What kind of science? Occultism?
> 
> Martin


Well of course not Martin but if it is true then the Higgs boson particle may provide all sorts of goodies that is the kind of science that will be the savoir of mankind


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I read something along the lines of _"....the most effective future planning on a family level for a new family to "save the planet" is to have less children. One human being less would have far more consequences in terms of the planet's future resource usage. Instead of having six or four or three children, have two". _

But is this something new families are really prepared to do? Let's not discuss one child policy of China etc. for now. Let's think about a free society where people can choose to have how many children they like. Many would be "environmentally conscious", perhaps bent on recycling bits of old paper and plastic they have. But I really wonder how many new families actually plan on having X number of children take into account the environment's resouce issue that one extra human being could have? I suspect not much at all.


----------



## Guest

Perhaps the wrong people are breeding????


----------



## myaskovsky2002

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I read something along the lines of _"....the most effective future planning on a family level for a new family to "save the planet" is to have less children. One human being less would have far more consequences in terms of the planet's future resource usage. Instead of having six or four or three children, have two". _
> 
> But is this something new families are really prepared to do? Let's not discuss one child policy of China etc. for now. Let's think about a free society where people can choose to have how many children they like. Many would be "environmentally conscious", perhaps bent on recycling bits of old paper and plastic they have. But I really wonder how many new families actually plan on having X number of children take into account the environment's resouce issue that one extra human being could have? I suspect not much at all.


Do you mean... Less children, less shoppers producing less garbage? Why not educating people in order to trash less the planet?
It is even better more people well educated than less people not educated at all! Isn't that true? I was joking before, I don't think I am a moron. I like to joke, but when I see people's opinion, I'm starting to feel smarter.

If all people are stupid, we are doomed!

Martin


----------



## jani




----------



## myaskovsky2002

jani said:


>


Is Children survival the solution? Or a third WW? If it is a 3rd WW, we are going there, Middle East is not under control any more. I am glad I am old and perhaps I won't see what is coming. I am more and more sad, I feel impotent. The same way a few people are participating here, a few people is taking actions to make a change. I don't agree with the guy about technology, technology is making things worse, it is an uncontrolable technology, it is a technology for shoppers.... Ipad 1, 2, 3... Each year they are pushing us to buy new stuff, we throw out what we bought two years ago. The corporations took the real control. We are stupid enough to play their game. Yes their game. Rich people become richer, poor people become poorer. And we accept that, we are in our comfort zone, we want just to enjoy the new stuff we buy...

" I have a good salary, I live in a handsome house or appartment, please don't speak about poverty, it is not my problem.... I don't say it, but secretely I would like them to be all dead.". " I work for a big corporation, if they have problems, I will have problems too". "God doesn't exist! My firm is my God because they give me everything I have, and I possess a lot". "possessions are the best thing we can count on". " Finally, I work very hard for that, probably poor people are poor because they don't work enough".

This is not science fiction... We shouldn't think like this guy, many do.

Martin


----------



## Sid James

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...The root of the problem is rampant Materialism in our world that says meaning/happiness is found in stuff...


I agree with that, that's the fundamentals or the 'guts' of the issue.

Its a complex issue, there's no 'one size fits all solution.'

But I always think of what Mick Jagger sang in one of his songs with the 'Stones,' _you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need_. Some people can't tell the difference, it seems, between what is a need and what is a want (or need and greed).

Here in supermarkets, there's more of these 'specials,' eg. you save money if you buy two loaves of bread for $6 instead of buying them for $8 in total (at the usual price). There is massive food wastage in this country, I know that. Every year, people throw out tonnes of food, a lot of it goes into garbage (landfill). Composting is becoming more common though, which I think is good. Also, worm-farming, stuff like that to break down organic food wastes instead of throwing them in the trash.

But to get back to the 'deals' in supermarkets, I wonder if the people who buy the two loaves of bread, do they get through it (eat it all), or end up throwing a significant portion of it out? So in the end, are you really saving money by buying two?

Reflecting on population growth, big business loves that! The more people, the more consumers. Stuff the environment and stuff the governments that have to fork out money on things - eg. infrastructure - to deal with it.

So it's the old saying, 'money talks.'


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Twomfish inside an aquarium

First fish: God was here 2 minutes ago?
Second fish: why do youmsay that?
First fish: he has just fed us.

God was replaced by the one who feeds us, the firm where we work.

Dommage!

Martin

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

Here's a quote from somebody who knows whats required

Today, more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of Universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> Here's a quote from somebody who knows whats required
> 
> Today, more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of Universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life


I guess J.L knew what you're talking about






I love this song! We definitely should follow his message. He was so wise.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say 
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I love this song! We definitely should follow his message. He was so wise.
> 
> Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people living for today
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people living life in peace
> 
> You, you may say
> I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> I hope some day you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> Martin


There's a lot wrong with this song. Many think it's Utopic, I find it Dystopic. Imagine singing a song like this:

Imagine no desire,
passion is through.
Imagine no evil,
or goodness too.

Imagine no justice
or mercy as well.
Everything's random,
pain you can never tell.

Imagine no charity
I know it's easy to do.
Take away all hate,
and hate of evil too.

Is this going to solve the world's problems? According to Buddhism, to remove pain, remove your desires. But if you remove your desires, you will find yourself not desiring to stop other people's pain either, for fear of upsetting your personal "peace." So is that going to make everything right? And wanting to stop other people's pain might  cause you to _hate _ what causes pain. And nothing should be called _evil_, because it's all relative, right?

Side note, these aren't just my qualms, but the qualms of many.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There's a lot wrong with this song. Many think it's Utopic, I find it Dystopic. Imagine singing a song like this:
> 
> Imagine no desire,
> passion is through.
> Imagine no evil,
> or goodness too.
> 
> Imagine no justice
> or mercy as well.
> Everything's random,
> pain you can never tell.
> 
> Imagine no charity
> I know it's easy to do.
> Take away all hate,
> and hate of evil too.
> 
> Is this going to solve the world's problems? According to Buddhism, to remove pain, remove your desires. But if you remove your desires, you will find yourself not desiring to stop other people's pain either, for fear of upsetting your personal "peace." So is that going to make everything right? And wanting to stop other people's pain might  cause you to _hate _ what causes pain. And nothing should be called _evil_, because it's all relative, right?
> 
> Side note, these aren't just my qualms, but the qualms of many.


I don't understand (you), you changed completely the lyrics and you speak about the lyrics you've just made up. I thought I wasn't a moron, but apparently I am. IMHO This is not what the songs is about. The lyrics don't speak about removing desires.

But we have good desires or bad. Good ones are respectful, you respect others and others respect you, bad ones are the opposite.

I think I have good desires for me and for the humanity in general. I respect you as a person, even if I think you are a bit "chupa velas" and tried to convince me to be one. It is none of my business.

I wish you good things to you too. Have a wonderful day.

Martin


----------



## Jaws

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Personally, I think we are not doing enough. I took advantage here, people are quite smart, these people could be great initiators for a change. Intellectuals have always been the initiators for change. Consuming less is better that recycling stupid things you bought impulsively. I am a compulsive buyer... But just for music, and I'd prefer to burn myself instead of my music.
> As I said before, I'm trying my very best. We are trashing the planet... Even if you say it is not too late... Sometimes I am not so sure. Your message was kind of ambiguous... I am not sure I understood all. I'd like people to talk about what do they do for improving our situation and furthermore, if haven't started to do anything significative, to start. I asked to my students, what do you do? I have always the same answer: I recycle, I changed my bulbs. This is the passive attitude, this is like nothing! In Montreal, the real recycling is 10 to 20%. Many things cannot be recycled, even if they say so. Big firms are the very worst. They just want to increase their sales.
> Shop! Shop! Shop! Like the video says. I guess nobody saw it. The problem is the vicious circle we are in. Everybody wants to work, the big companies offer employment, but what kind? Very often unhealthy. Governments don't do enough, corporations are too big, too rich and more powerful than governments. This video speaks about that. It is very well done, it's wort watching it.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Martin


The simplest way to deal with this is for people to stop having children. If the world had a very much smaller population all of the above problems would go away. However who is going to tell people to not have children?


----------



## aleazk

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes! I'm a first generation American, my parents were born in Finland. And, I'm also a flutist (in-training at college), so I hit 2 birds with 1 stone in describing some of my identity with that name.


Why they left Finland?, I mean, Finland ---> US,


----------



## NightHawk

I didn't think the film was too long at all - it is alarming, and depressing (but not 'new' news [I hope] for anyone). I have an 18 y/o daughter on the threshold of her adult life and I worry worry worry about what she will have to deal with when I'm pushing up daisies. I thought it was succinctly and cleverly put together and best of all had a 'ray of hope' at the end.

Thanks for posting it. nh



myaskovsky2002 said:


> Take your time to see it!
> It is long, but interesting
> 
> Consumerism is killing out poor planet!
> 
> Comments would be very welcome.
> 
> Martin


----------



## cwarchc

Peace and survival of life on earth as we know it are threatened by human activities that lack a commitment to humanitarian values. Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed, and lack of respect for the earth's living things. This lack of respect extends even to the earth's human descendants, the future generations who will inherit a vastly degraded planet if world peace doesn't become a reality and if destruction of the natural environment continues at the present rate.

Our ancestors viewed the earth as rich and bountiful, which it is. Many people in the past also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care for it. It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past that resulted from ignorance. Today, however, we have access to more information. It is essential that we re-examine ethically what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations.

Not my words, I'm not that profound.
However they have deep meaning.

Even though they will lose money in the short term, large multi national corporations must curtail their exploitation of poor nations. Tapping the few precious resources such countries possess simply to fuel consumerism in the developed world is disastrous; if it continues unchecked, eventually we shall all suffer. Strengthening weak, undiversified economies is a far wiser policy for promoting both political and economic stability. As idealistic as it may sound, altruism, not just competition and the desire for wealth, should be a driving force in business.


----------



## Jaws

cwarchc said:


> Peace and survival of life on earth as we know it are threatened by human activities that lack a commitment to humanitarian values. Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed, and lack of respect for the earth's living things. This lack of respect extends even to the earth's human descendants, the future generations who will inherit a vastly degraded planet if world peace doesn't become a reality and if destruction of the natural environment continues at the present rate.
> 
> Our ancestors viewed the earth as rich and bountiful, which it is. Many people in the past also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care for it. It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past that resulted from ignorance. Today, however, we have access to more information. It is essential that we re-examine ethically what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations.
> 
> Not my words, I'm not that profound.
> However they have deep meaning.
> 
> Even though they will lose money in the short term, large multi national corporations must curtail their exploitation of poor nations. Tapping the few precious resources such countries possess simply to fuel consumerism in the developed world is disastrous; if it continues unchecked, eventually we shall all suffer. Strengthening weak, undiversified economies is a far wiser policy for promoting both political and economic stability. As idealistic as it may sound, altruism, not just competition and the desire for wealth, should be a driving force in business.


And, people need to become green and not have children! The world population is too big, and growing.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Jaws said:


> The simplest way to deal with this is for people to stop having children. If the world had a very much smaller population all of the above problems would go away. However who is going to tell people to not have children?


English correction: _However who is going to tell people_ *not to have* _children_? Your sentence was wrong, grammatically speaking.

I don't think this (yours) is the real solution. If you have AIDS, having less sex would *solve* the problem? Of course not!
The solution is to ditribute money better, less hungry people, less poor people. Having less people doesn't mean having less poor people. Big corporations are the problem. Big corporations can buy too much, can buy the government! And it is the duty of the government to make things more
Equitable. Decreasing the population is hiding the real problem. Of course this is just my opinion.

Martin, president of the United States of Reasonia. Lol


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

aleazk said:


> Why they left Finland?, I mean, Finland ---> US,


Dad moved with his family when he was 6 to US for father's job opportunity.

Mom moved alone at 19 for job and schooling.


----------



## jani

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Dad moved with his family when he was 6 to US for father's job opportunity.
> 
> Mom moved alone at 19 for job and schooling.


Yea, america has more/better possibilities to get successful.
Finland is a small country, we only have a population of 5,2 million.
We could easily fit twice as much in to this country.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I don't understand (you), you changed completely the lyrics and you speak about the lyrics you've just made up. I thought I wasn't a moron, but apparently I am. IMHO This is not what the songs is about. The lyrics don't speak about removing desires.
> 
> But we have good desires or bad. Good ones are respectful, you respect others and others respect you, bad ones are the opposite.
> 
> I think I have good desires for me and for the humanity in general. I respect you as a person, even if I think you are a bit "chupa velas" and tried to convince me to be one. It is none of my business.
> 
> I wish you good things to you too. Have a wonderful day.
> 
> Martin


I will never insult your intelligence, because that's not the point. It's the song that I criticize and how it's seduced people to want a _Dystopia_. The Beatles were favorable of Buddhist beliefs, and that song is definitely influenced. The only way everyone can be "one" is to take away all things that separate us, namely our conflicting desires with one another. Funny they imagined a world with no religion there, because by mentioning such a Buddhist idea, it proves it's _impossible _not to have religious ideas.


----------



## Guest

A woman at 14 has had 9 children in approx 18 years each of the children had to be looked after by the state as did the woman don't even ask about the Fathers. This seem crazy to me.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I will never insult your intelligence, because that's not the point. It's the song that I criticize and how it's seduced people to want a _Dystopia_. The Beatles were favorable of Buddhist beliefs, and that song is definitely influenced. The only way everyone can be "one" is to take away all things that separate us, namely our conflicting desires with one another. Funny they imagined a world with no religion there, because by mentioning such a Buddhist idea, it proves it's _impossible _not to have religious ideas.


I think John Lennon went beyond Buddhism, saying or thinking (and I think the same thing) *that religion and politics separate people.*. No religion, no countries. The idea is lovely. No more comments, it's 2:30 am. They didn't speak about suppressing desires. Desires could be very good. Your analyses and my analyses are not the same, you have young eyes and a young brain, very good things, but we don't have the same degree of maturity. You judge too fast, sometimes I think you see in black and white. Napoleon dijo a su chofer: ve lentamente que tengo prisa. I apply this very often. Go slowly, I am in a hurry. Are female so different? Try to understand the song as it was written, read the words again, it is pure idealism. These ideas had given birth to The hippy movement, love and peace that i lived as a teenager. Better ideals than nowadays, if you may. Money was much less important. No misunderstandings, please read, do not transform. This was pure poetry.

Buenas noches

Martin, old but very young


----------



## emiellucifuge

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I will never insult your intelligence, because that's not the point. It's the song that I criticize and how it's seduced people to want a _Dystopia_. The Beatles were favorable of Buddhist beliefs, and that song is definitely influenced. The only way everyone can be "one" is to take away all things that separate us, namely our conflicting desires with one another. Funny they imagined a world with no religion there, because by mentioning such a Buddhist idea, it proves it's _impossible _not to have religious ideas.


It isnt necessarily a Buddhist thing at all. Schopenhauer argues for a renunciation of the will in his philosophy, which is the result of a tightly and powerfully argued metaphysical grounding. The contradictions/paradox you highlighted in your previous post is invalid as you assume that the desire to help others is the same as the desire to consume which is incorrect.

Now Schopenhauer was an atheist and there is no 'god' in his philosophy (in the christian sense), but I suppose you could call any view of the world a religion. In this case yes, it is impossible not to have religious ideas, but the term 'religious ideas' has become so wide as to become meaningless. It certainly doesnt justify any monotheistic convictions.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

emiellucifuge said:


> It isnt necessarily a Buddhist thing at all. Schopenhauer argues for a renunciation of the will in his philosophy, which is the result of a tightly and powerfully argued metaphysical grounding. *The contradictions/paradox you highlighted in your previous post is invalid as you assume that the desire to help others is the same as the desire to consume which is incorrect.*
> 
> Now Schopenhauer was an atheist and there is no 'god' in his philosophy (in the christian sense), but I suppose you could call any view of the world a religion. In this case yes, it is impossible not to have religious ideas, but the term 'religious ideas' has become so wide as to become meaningless. It certainly doesnt justify any monotheistic convictions.


Excellent! Thank you for your clear explanation. Just to make something more tha clear:

absence of religion DOES NOT MEAN ABSENCE OF GOD. Yes, absence of priests, rabbis, etc. E.g I believe in God , nevertheless not in any kind of priests or religious men or women.

Martin


----------



## Jaws

myaskovsky2002 said:


> English correction: _However who is going to tell people_ *not to have* _children_? Your sentence was wrong, grammatically speaking.
> 
> I don't think this (yours) is the real solution. If you have AIDS, having less sex would *solve* the problem? Of course not!
> The solution is to ditribute money better, less hungry people, less poor people. Having less people doesn't mean having less poor people. Big corporations are the problem. Big corporations can buy too much, can buy the government! And it is the duty of the government to make things more
> Equitable. Decreasing the population is hiding the real problem. Of course this is just my opinion.
> 
> Martin, president of the United States of Reasonia. Lol


I seem to remember reading somewhere that because of population growth there will in the future be a problem with growing enough food to feed the world's population. Distributing more money won't solve this problem. Making more land might, but I am not sure how many big corporations are actually able to do this?


----------



## Jaws

Andante said:


> A woman at 14 has had 9 children in approx 18 years each of the children had to be looked after by the state as did the woman don't even ask about the Fathers. This seem crazy to me.


Probably due to lack of effective contraception for men. Something like an implant for males might be better as this can't be forgotten.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Jaws said:


> Probably due to lack of effective contraception for men. Something like an implant for males might be better as this can't be forgotten.


Eh????? What about Vasectomy? It exists, it is safe and reversible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy

Martin

Martin


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The root of the problem is rampant Materialism in our world that says meaning/happiness is found in stuff.


Yeah.

Would be interesting to pursue the ways in which the distinction between Consumerism and Materialism are more than just semantical... but I suppose that 'Consumerism~Symptom' 'Materialism~Disease' will serve for now.

At any rate, I always viewed Consumerism as something of a self-inflicted condition. Oh, there's a certain amount of fun in _some_ acquisitions, but the substance can be abused, if you know what I mean. It can even mirror an addiction pathology (e.g.: Shopaholism).

I'm not so far away from retirement that I haven't thought of how I'd handle the reduced income-flow that fixed income will inevitably bring. I'd like to think that free-time for low-cost avocations will more than make up for the increased budgetary constraints. Hope to keep finding some appeal in the proverbial "loaf of bread, jug of wine" (although for me, a tankard of ale is more my style) and one other key element of that poetic fragment---


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Would be interesting to pursue the ways in which the distinction between Consumerism and Materialism are more than just semantical... but I suppose that 'Consumerism~Symptom' 'Materialism~Disease' will serve for now.
> 
> At any rate, I always viewed Consumerism as something of a self-inflicted condition. Oh, there's a certain amount of fun in _some_ acquisitions, but the substance can be abused, if you know what I mean. It can even mirror an addiction pathology (e.g.: Shopaholism).
> 
> I'm not so far away from retirement that I haven't thought of how I'd handle the reduced income-flow that fixed income will inevitably bring. I'd like to think that free-time for low-cost avocations will more than make up for the increased budgetary constraints. Hope to keep finding some appeal in the proverbial "loaf of bread, jug of wine" (although for me, a tankard of ale is more my style) and one other key element of that poetic fragment---


I think that materialism and consumerism are of course related. Both are far from art, they neglect art unless you are a compulsive art collector (I am, regarding music)... But, I consider consumerism as a relation between buying and throwing out (then, no money difficults consumerism).
I never threw out my recordings nor my DVDs, I even kept some important VHS or transferred them to DVD. Materialism is also about the total absence of God in your life. People are more and more materialistic. You cannot suffer very much of consumerism when you are poor, materialism has nothing to do with money, you can be very poor.... And be materialistic.

I don't think that what I said was interesting nor useful... Why did I decide to write here? I was just thinking out loud. I'm sorry.

Martin, humble


----------



## Jaws

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Eh????? What about Vasectomy? It exists, it is safe and reversible.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy
> 
> Martin
> 
> Martin


I can't see many parents signing consent forms for this for their young sons. I still think an implant would be better.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I think we have a communication problem here. I wasn't suggesting that *parents* will decide for their sons. *You *decide when *you* want to stop having children or not to have at all and then, you decide yo have a vasectomy. It is a personal decision, of course your wife or parner should participate in making the decision.

Martin,puzzled


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Anyhow, abstinence is the best method. LOL

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I think we have a communication problem here. I wasn't suggesting that *parents* will decide for their sons. *You *decide when *you* want to stop having children or not to have at all and then, you decide yo have a vasectomy. It is a personal decision, of course your wife or parner should participate in making the decision.
> 
> Martin,puzzled


The issue you have with this relates to poverty and education.
In an extremely poor area, think some parts of Africa (I've been to some of them) lots of children mean somebody to share the burden of looking after you in old age.
There is also an educational element. you need to be aware of the, potential impact of your actions.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> The issue you have with this relates to poverty and education.
> In an extremely poor area, think some parts of Africa (I've been to some of them) lots of children mean somebody to share the burden of looking after you in old age.
> There is also an educational element. you need to be aware of the, potential impact of your actions.


*You* are right.

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

Martin
I can't go on
We need to start a collective island (with lots of music available)
There is no easy answer.
Pure communism would work. BUT human nature will get in the way.
Dicatorships will work. But human nature will get in the way. (try Stalin)
Capitalism / materialism will NOT work

Let's all go to the new colonies and start an altuistic socieity


----------



## Lenfer

How would one go about dismantling the current system without causing massive pain to those who benefit from the current system? Most of us posting here benefit in varying degrees and I doubt would be truly willing to make the adjustments needed. I myself know little of the current "cuts" so do not know the pain people are enduring. However the vast majority of people even though they are having a tough time would not vote for a communist system.

At least in the *UK* and *US* I think we *French* (perhaps also the *Spanish* and *Italians*) may partly choose such a system but this could split whatever country. Most people have had 164 years of subtle anti-socialist/communist propaganda forced upon them unknowing combine this with an awkward transition and some what corrupt communist regimes in the past *Soviets*, *Chinese* etc and I don't see how it could happen.

I agree things need to change and would like to see a more leftist Europe but the vested interests are too strong.


----------



## Guest

cwarchc said:


> Martin
> I can't go on
> We need to start a collective island (with lots of music available)
> There is no easy answer.
> Pure communism would work. BUT human nature will get in the way.
> Dicatorships will work. But human nature will get in the way. (try Stalin)
> Capitalism / materialism will NOT work
> 
> Let's all go to the new colonies and start an altuistic socieity


It would never work cober, who does the work?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> It would never work cober, who does the work?


I had to go to Google for "cober", rather "cobber" means pal for Aussies... Is it not?

Martin


----------



## Guest

Could be, or it could be mate, Aussie spelin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I guess... Nothing else is going to be said.

Buenas noches...






Martin


----------



## Jaws

cwarchc said:


> The issue you have with this relates to poverty and education.
> In an extremely poor area, think some parts of Africa (I've been to some of them) lots of children mean somebody to share the burden of looking after you in old age.
> There is also an educational element. you need to be aware of the, potential impact of your actions.


I understand about the African and other poor parts of the world problem, but I wasn't thinking of there, I was thinking more of what is going on in the UK where young people have children, more or less by accident because they haven't used contraception. Or people having big families for the same reason. A young man can get away with having lots of children with lots of different women because if he is living on benefits he has nothing to lose. Hence the implant. We need more education in terms of it is green either to not have children at all, or to not have more than two. At the moment the political situation in the UK seems to be that it is everyone's right to have what ever they want including large families. Too many people put a strain on wild life, water supplies, land for growing food etc. That is even before you get to capitalism and consumerism. Having children is the ultimate selfish act, and sadly the more people who do have them, the more likely the futures of those children becoming even more difficult, in terms of planet damage.


----------



## Guest

Jaws said:


> I understand about the African and other poor parts of the world problem, but I wasn't thinking of there, I was thinking more of what is going on in the UK where young people have children, more or less by accident because they haven't used contraception. Or people having big families for the same reason. A young man can get away with having lots of children with lots of different women because if he is living on benefits he has nothing to lose. Hence the implant. We need more education in terms of it is green either to not have children at all, or to not have more than two. At the moment the political situation in the UK seems to be that it is everyone's right to have what ever they want including large families. Too many people put a strain on wild life, water supplies, land for growing food etc. That is even before you get to capitalism and consumerism. Having children is the ultimate selfish act, and sadly the more people who do have them, the more likely the futures of those children becoming even more difficult, in terms of planet damage.


Couldn't agree more, too much PC crap and untested benefits.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Martin, tired


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Martin, tired


Poor Martin, Have a good nights kip and come back reinvigorated


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> Poor Martin, Have a good nights kip and come back reinvigorated


Not exactly, I am tired about listening stupid stuff. I really thought people were very smart here... Some texts are just durak.
Decreasing population will solve the problem? Rich people have less kids, then, we want to have less poor people, we pretend we are going to solve the heating of the planet, the forests devastated like that? Contra conception. Are we kids? Are we nuts? Conclusion, do you want to see less poor people? Hide them! Poor countries still have lead in their gas, pollution, who cares, they just need money. This is a danger! Sharing fairly the money, educating people....this seems as a possible solution. Chinese are making Adidas and Nike for 3.50$, how much do you pay for these... 140$ or more. Who's making the big bucks, of course Nike and Adidas... Not the little children working in the plants to produce them. Yes, the number of people grew, then old problems became worse. Who are the reponsibles? Chinese because they are a lot or just Adidas and Nike..because.they are so greedy!

Have you seen the movie I've sent you? *Let me guess... No... You don't have the time, it is too long.*.. Then, before continuing this "conversation", take a look? Dont hide your head as the ostrich, problems won't go away... Take the time, as a responsible human been you should see it...our future depends on it.

Martin, tired of injustice

A kindom founded on injustice never lasts - Lucius Seneca

Nota: i do not expect comments... People here just want FUN


----------



## Guest

Dare I suggest that survival of the fittest will eventually be the result, now is that good for every one ? of course not but life is not presented on a plate as a free meal.


----------



## Lenfer

Andante said:


> Dare I suggest that survival of the fittest will eventually be the result, now is that good for every one ? of course not but life is not presented on a plate as a free meal.


I'm not the fittest but my family are very rich and therefor it's likely I would survive. I do very little and have a healthy income, nice house etc. Fittest doesn't always mean you'll win the winners are those with money there is a difference.


----------



## Guest

Fittest does not have to relate to health, and if you look at history a families wealth is not in perpetuity at least not in the majority of cases there is usually some idler that wastes the money. 

casting no aspersions at you of course LoL


----------



## PetrB

Recycling just is taking care of literal mountains of trash which was not necessary in the first place.

I am of a generation which grew up with 'durable goods.' Things made to last, refrigerators which lasted decades, not just a few years. Most beverages were in glass containers for which the consumer paid a deposit (except alcohol - go figure, a strong lobby), to be returned when those bottles were returned to the store: the manufacturer then picked them up, and they were used again. Now, where I live, there is no deposit required on beverages in tin cans, most other beverages are in plastic bottles, and those few which do come in glass are not made to be returned. Every time I buy a bottle of juice, I have no alternative but to throw the empty plastic or glass container into the garbage. Other states have better policies for all such beverage containers.

Now, almost all is made to last only a few years at most, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc.

The packaging of all the products, including foodstuffs and beverages, is another mountain apart from the products themselves.

America now consumes tons of crap which the country itself does not produce. It use to produce durable goods which were consumed and used by Americans and were also considered superior to what was produced elsewhere - those durable goods were used and desired world-wide.

I manage a building of artists studios and a few 'regular' apartments. Over the past ten years I have seen a collective small mountain of I don't know how many mini audio player systems, combo radio / CD, etc. players and a pair of speakers, left behind or tossed in the trash when someone moves out. Ditto for cheaply made lamps, bookshelves of particle board with wood or plastic veneer (blame a lot of this on Ikea!), futon mattresses and frames, picture frames -- the list is long and covers up to 90% of items which can be found in about any urban flat or owned home. One must add cheaply made clothes to this enormous mountain of crap.

This is a serious problem: the consumer is 'buying cheap and buying - not twice - but many times over.' Again and again. It is, really, one reason more and more households are nearer the poverty line. Promotional advertising of having what you want, 'now' only exacerbates the situation. Real economy is waiting and purchasing a better quality 'anything' which will last, whether it is a better bookshelf or a higher quality shirt - both will last longer and cost the individual less in the long run.

Produce from far far away is another problem -- tremendous amounts of jet fuel are used to bring us the Kiwi fruit from New Zealand, those Oranges from Israel, and again on and on. While the organic waste from foodstuffs is actually welcome, the pollution from all the burnt fuel is another fraction of the entire wasteful 'system.'

There is / was a Dutch economist who advocated putting that new sewage processing plant in the 'negative' column of government expenditures. As it is now, in the states and many other places, the garbage dump, the recycling plant and the sewage processing plant are all put in the 'assets' or positive column,_ because they create jobs!_ Whatever revenue and tax income is generated from those jobs, the overall expenditure is truly a large 'debit.'

Until governments can be convinced to start accounting for all this waste, and what it takes to remove, process or recycle it, as a huge negative expenditure, I believe the problem will simply continue, and typically it will have to reach a perilous critical mass before it is truly addressed.

Another thing -- there are simply too many people in the world. I have no humane suggestion as to how immediately solve that one 

ADD: and no, I am neither child or idiot, nothing on this scale can be done overnight or even a decade of transition without doing more harm to people, and the economy, than good. Long-term planning is out the window in American government, and in many other countries.

And who needs $120 rubber shoes, anyway?


----------



## mmsbls

My work focuses on transportation technology to reduce criteria pollutants (air pollution), carbon dioxide, and fuel use. We study technologies that are used in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell vehicles. There are colleagues of mine that research behavioral change as it relates to these problems. They look at telecommuting to reduce driving, city planning to reduce the need for large vehicles and energy usage, and marketing/education to inform people of the options they have to improve the environment.

In the years I have worked in this field there has been enormous reduction in criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide per vehicle due to technological change. Unfortunately I am not aware of much positive behavioral change. In fact the only real behavioral change I'm aware of that has benefited the environment is recycling. Two generations ago no one had heard of recycling, and now most people recycle without thinking much about it. Humans seem to be stubbornly resistant to changing behavior - there has been too many years of evolutionary pressure to act in certain ways. (If anyone knows of other behavioral change, please let me know). I still hope for something that will make behavioral change more likely, but I'm not holding my breathe. 

As far as I can tell, technology and regulations are necessary to ultimately drive significant environmental change. Of course regulation will not happen without societal pressure on regulators and politicians.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

mmsbls said:


> My work focuses on transportation technology to reduce criteria pollutants (air pollution), carbon dioxide, and fuel use. We study technologies that are used in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell vehicles. There are colleagues of mine that research behavioral change as it relates to these problems. They look at telecommuting to reduce driving, city planning to reduce the need for large vehicles and energy usage, and marketing/education to inform people of the options they have to improve the environment.
> 
> In the years I have worked in this field there has been enormous reduction in criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide per vehicle due to technological change. Unfortunately I am not aware of much positive behavioral change. In fact the only real behavioral change I'm aware of that has benefited the environment is recycling. Two generations ago no one had heard of recycling, and now most people recycle without thinking much about it. Humans seem to be stubbornly resistant to changing behavior - there has been too many years of evolutionary pressure to act in certain ways. (If anyone knows of other behavioral change, please let me know). I still hope for something that will make behavioral change more likely, but I'm not holding my breathe.
> 
> As far as I can tell, technology and regulations are necessary to ultimately drive significant environmental change. Of course regulation will not happen without societal pressure on regulators and politicians.


Very interesting! Thank you for sharing! But what about countries like India, Pakistan, big etc where they are still using gas with lead, they continue polluting and they ignore completely the environment... Are we going to educate them or not? We are speaking about BIG populations here, thus, big pollutors.

Martin,worried


----------



## Guest

I am sure mmsbls will correct me if I have this wrong but regarding transport I was under the impression that the ICE days were numbered and the future lay in other areas such as Hydrogen (fuel cells) or Electric power now that we seem at last to be making headway into battery and Solar technology so it is only a mater of time and I think the general public will take this in their stride. 
I am sure we will find other uses for Oil.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Everything is fine... But I think that we could do more... Throwing out less, buying less! I guess you haven't seen the video I sent at the very beggining, it illustrates quite well the actual situation, and the way we can act to improve many things and have again a wonderful life.

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I guess you haven't seen the video I sent at the very beggining, it illustrates quite well the actual situation, and the way we can act to improve many things and have again a wonderful life.
> 
> Martin


I started to watch but quite frankly it was too long winded and needs editing, no offence intended.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> I started to watch but quite frankly it was too long winded and needs editing, no offence intended.


I guess IT IS long, I think there are shorter versions on youtube... I liked this one, a guy who could see Der Ring could see this... LOL

Here is just the first part of three with Spanish subtitles.






If shorter is better, here you go.

Essential things are here... Like seeing just the first opera of the Tetralogy

Martin, enjoy


----------



## Guest

The message is the same as usual! so you cut production and loose millions of jobs is that what is needed? PS I don't like the ring.


----------



## mmsbls

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Very interesting! Thank you for sharing! But what about countries like India, Pakistan, big etc where they are still using gas with lead, they continue polluting and they ignore completely the environment... Are we going to educate them or not? We are speaking about BIG populations here, thus, big pollutors.


As far as I know, there's absolutely no reason to use leaded gas. The problems far outweigh any possible economic benefits. In general environmental problems often come down to making investments in new technology that ultimately will help both the environment and the economy, but the near term economics may be problematic. Countries that are not wealthy have a difficult decision. Even countries that are wealthy can struggle with these issues during recessions.



Andante said:


> I am sure mmsbls will correct me if I have this wrong but regarding transport I was under the impression that the ICE days were numbered and the future lay in other areas such as Hydrogen (fuel cells) or Electric power now that we seem at last to be making headway into battery and Solar technology so it is only a mater of time and I think the general public will take this in their stride.


I agree that the future of transportation technology lies in electric drivelines (hybrid, battery electric, or fuel cell). The question is when will those technologies begin to significantly penetrate the vehicle fleet. There are still problems with each technology:

Conventional vehicles - pollution, greenhouse gases, imported energy, energy from unstable regions
Hybrids - cost, some use of oil and (to a lesser extent) the same problems as conventional vehicles
Battery electric - cost, range
Fuel cell - cost, lack of fueling infrastructure, some uncertainty in technological problems with fuel cells

If you talk with several people in my area, you will get many different responses to the question, "Which technologies will begin to seriously increase market share and when?" The automakers have a very difficult problem. They must invest in the "right" technology (or technologies) and market it at the right time. I do not envy that decision they must make.


----------



## emiellucifuge

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Very interesting! Thank you for sharing! But what about countries like India, Pakistan, big etc where they are still using gas with lead, they continue polluting and they ignore completely the environment... Are we going to educate them or not? We are speaking about BIG populations here, thus, big pollutors.
> 
> Martin,worried


It is not countries like India that need education, it is us who live in wealthy developed nations.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/greendex


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> The message is the same as usual! so you cut production and loose millions of jobs is that what is needed? PS I don't like the ring.


Of course you do not CUT production, you just make things in another way. Trying to avoid nature destruction, less toxic products, paying better salaries. For every pair of shoes Nike you pay 140$, 2$ goes to the producer in China, 138$ are cashed elsewhere, the store and Nike. This doesn't seem logical to me. Hunger should stop! Rich people are becoming richer, poor people are becoming myserable. Big corporations are big cancers, as you have seen in the video, corporations are much bigger than the government. Goverment are closing their eyes, the coporations pay their campaign...

Money became TOO important nowadays, no moral, no pity, no love...no God, just money

Martin, sad


----------



## jani

I know that this is very obvious but rich become rich because someone buys their products and they buy their products because they need/want them.
Normal people are making some people rich!
If you have a problem with that don't buy their products! 
You don't need a Iphone&some other entertainment electronics/products to live, no one forces you to buy them!
You can even grow your own food if you are willing enough.
The fact is that the big companies have given us lots of great things! 
Like Computers etc...
I am not saying that they are saints but you trying to make them look like they were the biggest thing that is wrong in this world etc..


----------



## Guest

The old music hall song = 
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer,
in the mean time in between time
ain't we got fun, 
have a search on Youtube.....
It has been like this from the dawn of time. :tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

emiellucifuge said:


> It is not countries like India that need education, it is us who live in wealthy developed nations.
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/greendex


The message is very clear, I suppose. Money is more powerful than God for the USA, religion is just hypocricy to make more money.

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

It's a vicious circle.
Humans need to get off the cycle.
See that it is un-sustainable

Unfortunately I think Martin is correct, especially in the western world

Money has become God, people are driven by greed.
I can't see a way out of it without serious social upheaval.


----------



## LordBlackudder

everything will be eco friendly eventually than there is no problem.

olympic 2012 is the greenest olympucs so far.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> It's a vicious circle.
> Humans need to get off the cycle.
> See that it is un-sustainable
> 
> Unfortunately I think Martin is correct, especially in the western world
> 
> Money has become God, people are driven by greed.
> I can't see a way out of it without serious social upheaval.


I think Marx got a point, not well understood... But HE got a point. In USSR no big private corporations... This was the beginning... And that IS ok. Imagine Apple, , Microsoft, Adidas... And big etc, being state companies and all people in Unions earning a fair salary, no made in China any more, no cheap labor and big profits any more. Sharing the money, a bit as John Lennon's song, Imagine. He was a dreamer, so am I.

Martin, a dreamer


----------



## myaskovsky2002

LordBlackudder said:


> everything will be eco friendly eventually than there is no problem.
> 
> olympic 2012 is the greenest olympucs so far.


I am sorry, this is ****** I don't put the whole words, I do not want a warning. LOL.

Martin


----------



## cwarchc

LordBlackudder said:


> everything will be eco friendly eventually than there is no problem.
> 
> olympic 2012 is the greenest olympucs so far.


I dont see how we can make this eco-friendly quick enough to make a difference









aren't these people striving to attain what the rest of the world has?
Doesn't that mean more production, more burning of fossil fuels, more pollution?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cwarchc said:


> I dont see how we can make this eco-friendly quick enough to make a difference
> 
> View attachment 6309
> 
> 
> aren't these people striving to attain what the rest of the world has?
> Doesn't that mean more production, more burning of fossil fuels, more pollution?


How couldn't I agree with you?

Martin


----------

