Re: turn off for learning assembler
From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: J.Mo: "Re: ASM vs HLL : absurd war"
- Previous message: Herman Dullink: "Re: Prime number in assembly?"
- In reply to: Dunny: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- Next in thread: Randall Hyde: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:45:12 GMT
Dunny wrote:
> Beth typed:
> > The problem is not that Mother Nature couldn't
> > "self-correct"...of course this happens or the planet would
have
> > been buggered long since...the problem is that if we're
> > attacking on two fronts like this (multiple fronts, we're
> > unfortunately "tipping the balance" in all directions in all
> > manner of ways simultaneously), then She has the "Hitler
> > problem"...she can't fight on two different fronts at the
same
> > time...and if she loses the battle, then so do we implicitly
> > because we're living on her planet...
>
> I think that the idea that the human race can "destroy/wipe
out the planet" is
> pretty boastful. At best, we're capable of wiping out
ourselves and a large
> chunk of life with us - but certainly not capable of
destroying the planet.
> Given a few million years, things would be pretty much back to
how they were
> before we stumbled along, and Mother Nature would hardly hav
registered a blip.
Oh, indeed; I didn't mention it in this post but I think I did
in the one in response to Annie that the "world" in "save the
world" or "planet" in "save the planet" isn't literal...as I
said there to try to sum it up, we're NOT talking about "the end
of the world" but, rather, "the end of the world _AS WE KNOW
IT_"...
It's a similar use of "world" as something like a store called:
"World of Sport" or "World of Carpets"...it's a metaphorical
sense of "world" rather than a literal one...calling the store
"World of Sport" is not meant to seriously imply that it's a
true planet orbitting the Sun of its own devoted to sports...I
mean, if that were true, then we wouldn't actually be able to
get to it to buy any sporting goods, lacking the convenience of
having a spaceship parked in the back yard ;)...
Although, speaking of other worlds, there is our neighbours to
consider...they actually make very interesting "case studies"...
Both orbit within a "zone" - give or take - where temperatures
for any satellites would be in a reasonable range for supporting
life (well, our kind of DNA-based life...other types might be
possible...we don't know, we've never met any other kind, but
the stuff on Earth, as yet...at least, to a certain degree,
anyway...the nature of the elements don't changes so there's not
total "free reign"...for instance, carbon is common because of
the type of "bonds" it makes with other elements...a kind of
"atomic glue", so to speak...silicon is similar - same "group"
property-wise - but is somewhat weaker...perhaps "life" can also
work with something "like DNA" but that isn't DNA...there may be
"variations" available on the basic design...so, indeed,
whenever scientists talk about "life supporting", there is a
pinch of salt applied from the perspective that we don't fully
know the extents of all possible forms of "life" that may be
based on something slightly different to that we already
know...and, even on this planet, there are examples of creatures
that actually freeze solid (a lizard-y thing; Its cells are
special that the freezing doesn't puncture them and it goes into
a "hybernation" mode whilst frozen until it "wakes up"
afterwards when the temperatures rise) or live inside
volcanoes...there's also a small "ecosystem" of creatures that
live at the bottom of the sea around hot volcanic vents in the
ocean floor that are actually "cut off" from the rest of life on
Earth, in the sense that their little "ecosystem" is based on
these volcanic vents and, unlike every other creature on the
planet, is not connected to the Sun's energy in any way...so,
even on Earth, there are examples of "life" that really, really
push the boundaries of the "possible"...on the other hand, the
"freezing lizard" can evolve to be that way eventually but the
"origins of life" couldn't really happen inside a static
solid...that is, "life" would still likely need to start in
ordinary water or similar liquid (liquids are good from the
perspective of random chemicals in it floating around and
banging together and "mixing" to create new compounds and that
kind of thing...solids are no good because things wouldn't
"collide" and create these "random" new compounds (until, so the
theory goes, the one in a trillion event happens that the
compounds that collide form "amino acids" or the beginnings of
"DNA" or something like that...with a totally "evolutionary"
origin to life, the first single-celled thing that sparked it
all off is just 100% "pure chance")...anyway, the point being
that, yes, this "zone that supports life" thing is a concept
with "fuzzy" edges...not a precise science...this is implied in
discussing such things but best I state it explicitly ;)...
Anyway, both Venus and Mars orbit either side of us and are,
_roughly speaking_, within a "zone" of "hospitable conditions
for life"...that is, head towards Mercury, temperatures are far
too high...head out past Mars and, well, it gets too cold...not
to mention they all become "gas giants" for a while, which isn't
particularly useful...oh, the "too hot" and "too cold"
distinctions might seem a touch "how do you know?" but the basic
idea makes sense when you realise some of the
figures...basically, daytime temperatures on Mercury are
typically 400 celsius (800 Farenheit)...hence, four times
water's boiling point...and "too cold" that you drop below
freezing point...
Also, in this regard, you also _NEED_ an atmosphere and a touch
of "Greenhouse Effect" here implicitly as well...for example,
though Mercury is 400 C in the Sun, it's -180 C on its dark
side...such wild temperature variations aren't something "life"
is typically happy about...an atmosphere with a touch of
"Greenhouse Effect" stablises this a touch...you know, the heat
from the Sun gets "trapped" inside the atmosphere and so the
"dark side" doesn't drop so far in temperature when the Sun
ain't pointing at it...as noted, "Greenhouse Effect" in itself
is actually _NEEDED_...the problem is too little or too much of
it...that the "balance" which keeps temperatures "just right"
tips one way or the other too far...it's a "balance" problem
rather than a "absence / presence" ("all or nothing")
problem...we don't want to completely get rid of the "Greenhouse
Effect" or we'd arugably be _MORE_ buggered by that than the
"minor" imbalance that's normally talked about (although, that's
"minor" in universal terms...it's _MAJOR_ in "life supporting"
terms for the whole globe to rise or fall even by a few degrees
from its "norm"...it triggers all manner of things just to even
be a little bit "out"...for example, zero celsius is freezing
point...raise the temperature by a degree or two from that and
ice starts melting into water...all the sudden "extra water" can
start triggering other things...rising seas...more "Greenhouse
Effect"...and so forth ;)...
Anyway, the point is our neighbours are actually _very
interesting_ to look at from this perspective...basically, with
particular "special conditions" (which don't actually exist,
unfortunately), both could theoretically have "life"...they
probably don't and the reasons are actually very much
educational from the perspective of our own environment...
Venus is an unholy mess, however "goddess of beauty" she seems
from afar (appears her beauty really is only "skin deep" in this
instance ;)...we have _MAJOR_ "Greenhouse Effect" in operation
with an atmosphere that's 97% carbon dioxide (the remaining 3%
being mostly nitrogen but having traces of water vapour, sulphur
and a only the merest touch of oxygen ;)...the effect can be
understood from it being 482 Celsius (900 Farenheit) on the
surface...yes, _hotter_ than Mercury's typical surface
temperatures despite being further out that it's not being
"baked" by the Sun's heat to the same degree, all down to this
"Greenhouse Effect" (and because it's "Greenhouse Effect" then
daytime and nightime temperatures don't differ as sharply...it's
basically permanently this hot all the time ;)...the atmosphere
is also a big problem from the perspective of its _pressure_: a
crushing 90 times more than Earth (1330 pounds per square
inch)...there is a _permanent_ incredibly violent thunderstorm
raging on Venus everywhere...another consequence of that
atmosphere...Venus was the Roman goddess of beauty...but, well,
that beauty appears superficial only...get "under her skin"
inside the atmosphere and on the surface and, well, I suppose
the phrase has to be "hell hath no fury", as conditions there
would, indeed, make even the boldest visions of hell in
literature seem positively lame in comparison...
That's too much "Greenhouse Effect" for you...
Mars, on the other hand, has compelling evidence that it might,
indeed, have once had running water and conditions suitable for
life to perhaps have formed...if so, something went wrong with
its atmosphere, which is quite thin...the NASA probes and such
are rummaging around in the Hopes to perhaps find traces of
ex-life from this earlier period or perhaps some microbes or
something hiding somewhere...the atmosphere is also mostly
carbon dioxide (a nice prospect "terraforming"-wise in that if
you can get plant life to survive there - and with water looking
possible and sunlight a ceratinty - the plants could perhaps
convert the carbon dioxide to oxygen, like they do on
Earth...that is, slowly _build_ a "rainforest" - as opposed to
chopping them down as we do here - that can start off a similar
"balance" / "cycle" like Earth...a long ways off from happening
and no doubt easier said than done but it's a nice idea that
perhaps Mars could be "converted" to be reasonably Earth-like to
act as a "second home" for humans in a distant
future...although, not to spoil the "Star Trek" fantasies, the
conditions _will_ be different...any evolution will be
_separate_...one thing that many fail to consider about ideas
like this is that Martians and Terrans ("Earthlings" ;) would /
could diverge culturally, linguistically (if there's more
communication amongst themselves than regular "chats" back and
forth between the planets ;) and, eventually,
_genetically_...one has to consider the prospect of, well,
humans going to Mars becoming "Martians"...that is, evolving off
in their own "Martian" kind of way...the different gravity alone
would probably actually be _fairly QUICK_ in successive
"Martian" generations tending to be taller...plants and animals
introduced from Earth would also be effected pretty quickly by
different gravity...as, on Earth, we easily forget that
"evolution" does a lot to do with "environment"...Earth's
environment hasn't altered too radically that it doesn't force
any sudden, radical changes...suddenly dumping things from Earth
onto Mars, though, will immediately cause effects and the
beginnings of such "life" _diverging_ from its Terran
counterpart...for example, different gravity - which
"terraforming" couldn't really do anything about - meaning
things more easily grow taller...bones and other supporting
structures don't need to be so strong (astronauts in space have
this worry that, with no gravity to constantly fight, bones and
muscles get weaker...counteracting these effects will be
important when sending people the long distance to Mars, one day
(you can tell Bush knows he's screwed up...promising to put
people on the Moon or on Mars is a cheap "feel good factor"
vote-winner...regardless of his political motivations to
suddenly announce this after NASA has been side-lined more and
more over the years, though, shouldn't impact on the idea of
such a mission itself...indeed, Bush knows he's screwed up,
which is why the promises of "good stuff" start
appearing...you're supposed to now think he's a
"visionary"...except, of course, it ain't his "vision" at
all...the idea of such missions have been on the cards and
pre-planned in "wishful thinking mode" by NASA for ages but
always told "no" because of budgets and funding ;)...by how much
the different conditions effect things and the speed at which it
might happen is, of course, all complete speculation...it's
never happened and is still a long ways off...the idea is more
"sci-fi" than anything else...
Anyway, actually looking at our neighbouring "worlds" shows us
something I think is very important...Venus has serious
"Greenhouse Effect" and it's a vision of hell because of
it...Mars appears to have possibly "aborted" half-way through
possibly going on to support life (it might even have done so
for a very short time)...that it was headed down a path not too
dissimilar to Earth but conditions were just too much one way or
the other and it failed to actually materialise...
As much as these planets are different to Earth, they are also
very much the same...if you like, they obey the same laws of
physics and their positions - certainly with Mars - place them
near or within the rough "zone" where life is potentially
possible...if Earth had Venus' atmospheric conditions and such,
then Earth would also be the vision of hell that Venus is...if
Earth had also taken that "wrong path", then it could very well
have ended up to a Martian-like fate...
Looking at these and then hearing the phrase "Nature has an
infinite capacity for self-correction"...then, sorry, the reply
has to be to say Jackson Pollocks to that idea...total Sandra
Bullocks...the capacity is clearly very much _FINITE_...these
two neighbours _could_ have headed down paths not to different
to Earth...yes, actually different...yes, perhaps no "life" on
them...but they _ARE_, in a sense, obeying the same "laws"...
It can go wrong...because, arguably, with Venus and Mars, it
_DID_ "go wrong"...more so with Mars, though...and that's kind
of why the presence of water on Mars has such significance when
they look for it there...it's not just that if it has water,
this bodes well for manned missions to the red planet (but that
is something to think about ;)...it's that, if it had water and
it had a warmer atmosphere and so forth, then the idea of "life"
there isn't completely perposterous...
Indeed, pointing at the hell on Venus begins to show how "global
warming" doesn't just mean higher air-conditioning costs and a
chance to wear that new bikini you bought...it throws conditions
into permenant turmoil...and pointing at Mars, we can being to
say: "look, it _CAN_ go wrong" (if any "fossil" of life is found
on Mars then it quite literally _DID_ go wrong...life was on its
way but got snuffed out because conditions weren't "just right"
with the atmosphere and such)...
Granted, it's more "illustrative" than any concrete case...but
these two certainly should make Annie and anyone else completely
reconsider that "infinite capacity to self-correct"
notion...although, anyone with a mathematical / scientific mind
probably also cringed at the word "infinite" being used so
casually...oh, sorry..._if only_ it were true then we would have
nothing to worry about...but "infinite" just doesn't
happen..._EVERYTHING_ has its limitations...
NTFS "self-corrects"...but if I took a large axe and put it
straight through my hard drive, then it would be miraculous to
see it "self-correct" its way out of that one...and could, even
in more "normal" conditions, NTFS "self-correct" when another
process is delibrately ruining it at exactly the same time? As I
say, there's no doubt about the "self-correction" but _IS_ it
capable of handling being constantly attacked on multiple
fronts? It's only had to cope with "natural variations" before
humans came along...we _know_ it can handle "natural variations"
because it's being doing so for billions of years...but,
basically, are we damaging the system faster than it can
"self-correct"...if we are, we may _EXCEED_ the unfortuantely
very _FINITE_ capacity of the "self-correcting" mechanism that
we may _BREAK_ the "toy" beyond all means to fix it...
But, indeed, the planet won't blow up or anything because of
this stuff...it's not "save the planet" in quite so literal a
sense...it's "save _our_ world"...indeed, look over to Mars and
there he is, floating around space just like us...he also has a
form of "Nature" (would it be "Father Nature" on Mars, as it's
usual to feminise everything regarding Venus - all the
geographical figures are named after women on Venus (except for
a mountain, named after the pioneer of radar...this one slipped
through, presumably, before it was fully agreed to make the
planet "female only" ;) - and emasculate everything regarding
Mars...in fact, the male and female signs are directly taken
from Mars and Venus...originally, astrological but astronomy
"borrows" much of the useful astrological symbols...well, they
"re-invented" the "mumbo jumbo" into a true science but no need
to completely "re-invent" the wheel that all the symbols and
names that are still useful to have are maintained...for
example, the stars in the "constellations" have absolutely no
physical relationship but that they appear - from Earth - to be
in the same part of the sky...nevertheless, they still have
names like "Alpha Centauri" (first - that is, brightest - star
of the constellation Centaurus ;), just because this is still a
convenient thing for locating stars ;)...because Mars has its
"summer winds" and other various things that make up its own
particular "laws of Nature"...
So, yes, the _literal_, _physical_ "world" - the actual planet
Earth - would continue around...but our metaphorical "world"
upon it - our to-ing and fro-ing - wouldn't...in a sense, when
"save the planet" is said like this, it's kind of like saying
"save Canada" and meaning "save the _PEOPLE_ of Canda", not the
literal landmass..."save the planet" as in: "save the
_occupants_ of the planet (not only humans but plants and
animals and such ;)"...
It's a linguistical thing: When you say "America", you could
mean the literal land itself ("(North) America is to the South
of Canada" ;), the American _people_ who live on that land ("We,
America, want a peaceful world" / "America didn't actuallly vote
for Bush and Cheney in the 2000 elections by the popular vote
but they still succeeded, due to the electoral college system"
;) or even just the handful of people in governance or military
who's actions "represent" America ("Haven't you heard? America's
invaded Iraq!")...
English is that kind of language with the odd "built-in
ambiguity" or two...there's also another often amusing one of
the "multiple adjectives", which always legitimately have two
potential meanings...for example, "the blind snail eater" could
be "(blind snail) eater" (someone who eats blind snails) or
"blind (snail eater)" (someone who eats snails and who is also
blind)...whenever adjectives are "stacked" like this in English,
there is actually no grammatical way to tell the
difference...it's a "built-in ambiguity" to the language
itself...and that's before things get "metaphorical" and
"idiomatic" and what-not, where you say things you don't
literally mean...this has to be taken into account: "Save the
planet" isn't trying to imply that the Earth will suddenly
explode into a million pieces because of what humankind is
doing...it's us..._we_ - and all its other plant and animal
occupants - who are "the planet" in this particular
context..."the planet" just shorthand for "(life on) the
planet"...
Actually, this song quote captures it all quite poetically, I
think:
"Her Love rains down on me
Easy as the breeze
I listen to Her breathing
It sounds like the waves on the sea
I was thinking all about Her,
Burning with rage and desire
We were spinning into darkness
The Earth was on fire
She could take it back
She might take it back...some day...
So I spy on Her, I lie to Her
I make promises I cannot keep
Then I hear Her laughter rising
Rising from the deep
And I make Her prove Her Love for me
I take all that I can take
And I push Her to the limit
To see if She will break
She might take it back
She could take it back...some day...
Now I have seen the warnings
_SCREAMING_ from all sides
It's easy to ignore them
And God knows I've tried
All of this temptation
It turned my Faith to lies
Until I couldn't see the danger
Or hear the rising tide
She _CAN_ take it back
She _WILL_ take it back, some day...
She _CAN_ take it back
She _WILL_ take it back, some day...
She _CAN_ take it back
She _WILL_ take it back...
Some day..."
[ "Take It Back", Pink Floyd, "Division Bell" ]
Lots of nice wordplay in this to note: The title "Take It Back"
can be read in the imperative tone (as a command to take what
we've done back) or as an abbreviation of "She will take it
back"...I've captialised "The Earth was on fire" here (and a
touch "metaphorical") but it could also be "The earth was on
fire" (see my earlier capitalisation notes, if you don't quite
get it :) and quite literal...
But, yes, the line: "Then I hear Her laughter rising" captures
the part I think you wanted to capture...we can test Her all we
like, She _WILL_ always win...as She _WILL_ take it back, some
day...the question is do we "take it back" (imperative tone, as
in "retract our actions") and hand it back to Her, to work
_with_ Her, sharing it...or do we continue to arrogantly think
we could "tame" Her, in which case She'll "take it back" from
us, like it or not...just snatch it all straight out of our
hands, leaving us with nothing, as punishment for our greed and
stupidity?
The first option really isn't at all "painful" or "problematic"
when you consider the ramifications of sitting around for the
second option to happen...the first option is simply to be
_sustainable_ and to maintain the balance...just that...to
strive to work out a way to do what we do that's "in
balance"...note that you _CAN_ have your "fast cars" and your
"loud music" and your internet or whatever else you want, so to
speak, as long as it's a _sustainable_ way...it's backing the
second horse - the "do nothing" horse - that ignores it and then
ends up _LOSING_ it all...because "sustainable" also means that
_you_ can keep on doing for as long as you like...because it's
all "in balance" so you're now no longer doing any damage (or,
at least, "sustainable" implies this "balance"...so if you do
knock down a tree then another one is put in its place, so to
speak :)...
It's insane, really...because, in the end, what we're talking
about is only "line of least resistance"...good options to begin
already exist...everyone knows there's a problem with just doing
nothing...but "do nothing" is easy...it's lazy...it's sit back
on the sofa and let it be someone else's problem...
There was an experiment once where they put kids in a room with
a plate of sweets in front of them...and then the instructions
were simple: "I'll be back in five minutes...however many sweets
are still on your plate when I come back, I'll double"...so,
say, there are 12 sweets on the plate...you can eat all twelve
now but you get nothing when the researcher comes back five
minutes later...or, just by waiting five minutes without
touching the sweets, the researcher comes back and you get 24
sweets...eat 6 now, only get 6 (total 12) when the researcher
comes back into the room...
Basically, if you can resist the sweets for five minutes, then
you get loads more sweets to gobble up...then they left the
room, so the kids could do whatever they liked...and the
_majority_ immediately started eating the sweets...repeatedly,
instinct - grab the sweets!! - won out over intellect to simply
have five minutes' worth of discipline...
And the thing is that when people become adults, they might be
able to work out a simple problem like that and resist the
sweets (but how many - even as adults - would fail the test?
;)...but even adults effectively fail this test...because
something similar is being presented and the head just dives
into the sand...
Mind you, I suppose environmentalists are often half the
problem...because it's all "doom and gloom" scenarios from the
environmentalists...dwelling on the negative, failing to mention
the positive things that could be done...which rather than
"shocking" people into action to do something (as is intended),
it ends up depressing everyone and we get the _opposite_ of what
was intended: "Oh, all that doom and gloom...end of the world's
nigh, eh? Ah, well...if it's so big and inevitable, there can't
be much anyone can do about it...so, no sense in me trying to do
anything"...but this isn't correct from the perspective that if
_everybody_ made positive steps at the same time then those
miracles can happen...a bit like how Kennedy just said "right,
we're going to the Moon" and once everyone was focussed on that
objective, it happened...
Note that the "doom and gloom" is more about the inaction than
the situation...if people started taking up Solar panels where
they can, then they create a "demand" in that market...with a
good known "demand" for the things, then economies of scale will
conspire to drop the prices (though, they have come down very
sharply and really are sitting on the edge, even now...that in
some special conditions, it's _already_ the cost effective
solution)...also, the profits from selling all this stuff can be
ploughed back into R&D to better improve their
efficiencies...soon, something like solar then becomes _the_
option for many reasons, not only the environment...with prices
down and efficiencies higher, it starts to become _THE_ option
for a whole lot more reasons than only the environment, as it
simply adds up as the _cheapest_ method for the majority
case...when it puts the power into your hands (they are your
panels: once bought, whatever energy they produce is free of
charge...the Sun isn't in it for the money and doesn't send any
quarterly bills ;)...this also puts the power and control in the
hands of _individuals_, not large companies (this is why I also
talk little about wind farms while all the big companies talk a
lot about it...they _AREN'T_ that good, you know...oh, true
enough, it's renewable so I won't knock the actual
technology...but the _REAL_ reason behind why they'll push wind
farms but say nothing about the others has more to do with the
fact that wind farms are _BIG_ things...they are out of your
hands...only big companies can build such monsters...and then
they can _CHARGE_ you for the privilege of using its
energy...the push towards this when they do consider renewables
has a lot to do with staying in business as a big company that
charges people over and over for what is now a _necessity_, not
a luxury...oh, I don't blame them, in the sense that if I was in
their business looking for methods to still make lots of money,
this would be what I'd probably decide to do in the interests of
profits too)...
If there was even simple "baby steps" from everyone in this
direction and they kept going in this direction, then that might
be all that's needed...it's really a case of changing attitudes
and habits, then the "doom and gloom" really can evaporate away
rather quickly...there's no need to "save the world"
overnight...just buy one solar panel...just as a "toy"...hook it
up to take the burden off something...just as an
"experiment"...see what you can do with it...a number of people
do this and you get a "trickle"...the trickle becomes a
stream...the stream becomes a river...the river becomes an
ocean...with a "market", real "economies of scale" can kick in
driving the prices down, the qualities up and feeding a steady
stream of profit into the R&D department who can get bigger and
have more resources at their disposal...and so on and so
forth...then with tons of these things everywhere, the "burden"
is drastically eased...we buy more time for something lasting at
the very least...that is, presuming that this doesn't go on to
do a mighty spectacular job of things (as the potential is
certainly there...there _is_ many times more energy "hanging in
the air", so to speak, than we currently use...but it sits there
mostly untapped...with panels on roofs and walls everywhere -
they can be made to look much like ordinary roofing tiles now,
the shiney "CD" look isn't the only option - and a good
efficiency from the panels, it's actually remarkable how good
they already could be...we had the figures here before - someone
else calculated them so it wasn't biased from me - that even in
hardly-known-for-its-sunshine Britain with panels on every roof,
the magic efficiency figure seemed to be around 20%...and,
remember, Britain usually has crap weather and this percentage
reflects _completely covering_ all the domestic use...it's the
"problem solved" figure...the "tall order" there...even if the
efficiency isn't high enough, not everyone has the panels and so
on, then let's say it only manages to cover half...this still,
loosely speaking, slows things down that where an estimate says
"30 years" now, it becomes "60 years" or whatever, as the
"demand" gets cut in half...it buys more time to do an even
better job...as we've not factored in here that there's nothing
"mutually exclusive" about running this alongside hydro power
(already contributing a large amount) or those wind farms...or,
even, yes, alongside fossil fuels...we add this on _in addition_
to "phase out" the fossil fuels...we want them to go eventually
but it doesn't have to happen overnight necessarily...or, at
least, it's better to "phase" it from one to the other and at
least move in the right direction rather than just sit around
doing nothing...or, more accurately, it's not realistic to see
everyone change overnight...so, better reduced use that's only
reducing more and more all the time than some "all or nothing"
approach that fossil fuels just keep getting eaten through like
there's no tomorrow (pardon the pun ;), while everyone's waiting
for the "someone else" to drop a miracle in our laps...
And all this "I don't mind if we're all wiped out" stuff...well,
that be as it may...but the little point that's being missed is
that we _NEEDN'T_ actually be wiped out at all...the fossil
fuels running out is the "inevitable" bit, not being wiped out
(in fact, humans managed already one Ice Age way back...again,
it's NOT "end of the world" but "end of the world as we know it"
;)...if, indeed, we're no longer dependent on them but are using
"sustainable" means instead that aren't causing problems (at
least, not on the massive, massive scales we are now) then they
give Nature some time to weave that "self-correcting"
spell...forests _re-grow_, if they are only given a chance to do
so...those forests convert the CO2 into oxygen, if given some
time to do so...many materials just thrown away can actually be
reclaimed and re-used...as we do more of that, we get better at
it that we can re-use a lot more...just the change in attitude
and direction gives a chance for the "self-correcting" to kick
in and, indeed, things head towards _re-balancing_ rather than
away from it...
It's like someone standing in the middle of the road saying "oh,
well...if I'm killed then I can accept that"...but, like,
hello?!? Just get out of the road, as there's no actual reason
for you to be standing there and there's no particular reason
why you need to be killed...however "prepared to meet thy Maker"
you may or may not be...indeed, when thou meets thy Maker, He's
going to ask: "Ummm, why exactly were you committing suicide in
the middle of the road when there was no reason at all to do
so?"...coming up with an answer that doesn't sound completely
dumb would be a sight to see...let's leave the pointless
martyrdom that achieves absolutely nothing useful at all to
Osama and Arafat, shall we? As "woe needn't be me" in this
particular case and such self-absorbed moaning isn't all that
attractive...
Beth ;)
- Next message: J.Mo: "Re: ASM vs HLL : absurd war"
- Previous message: Herman Dullink: "Re: Prime number in assembly?"
- In reply to: Dunny: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- Next in thread: Randall Hyde: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
