On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Leo [email protected] wrote:
Thanks in part to Ruby I rarely even need to commute.
Just because the Internet doesn’t move, doesn’t mean its maintenance
doesn’t require energy.
We really should be aware of that I agree, maybe I should not have
posted :(, maybe we should know how much a post pollutes, etc.etc.?
R.
On 10 avr. 09, at 12:21, Leo wrote:
Thanks in part to Ruby I rarely even need to commute.
Just because the Internet doesn’t move, doesn’t mean its maintenance
doesn’t require energy.
It’s a classic example of premature optimization. You need to
measure energy use and then focus on the major issues.
Otherwise you’re wasting your time and you’ll never make a
difference.
From: “Robert D.” [email protected]
In any case, my thanks to Christophe for posting, caring and taking action.
Thanks for the encouragement. I have said it in a private post to Bill
Kelly before, Christophe indeed has become one of the most valuable
contributors to this list with his goodbye message, IMHO. He indicated
some keywords which are part of answering my questions. I am
particularly fascinated with this one
Permaculture - Wikipedia.
Christophe mentioned patterns interesting for programming too (as they
are general design patterns).
While I share, to a degree, the concerns Christophe mentioned,
such as peak oil, overpopulation, and pollution/climate change,
I am also concerned when I see statements to the effect that
computers should be abandoned because they are contributing
to the annihilation of the planet.
I’m similarly concerned when I see language on the Permaculture
page like, “Earthcare - recognising that Earth is the source of
all life (and is possibly itself a living entity - see Gaia
theory), that Earth is our valuable home, and that we are a part
of Earth, not apart from it.”
My concern is that the facts about the impending demise of all
life on this planet are not being faced squarely.
A billion years may seem like a long way off, but consider the
numbers:
If life has been around on Earth for about 3.6 billion years,
and only has 1 billion left to go, then we are at about the
78% mark. In geologic time, the possibility of life on this
planet is nearly 4/5ths over.
This does not mean that I’m anti-conservation. The part of
the Earthcare ethic that I do agree with is that Earth is our
valuable home. For now.
But i don’t find romantic notions about saving the planet
from annihilation to be helpful.
To me, the question is better framed in terms of how long
homo sapiens are planning to be around. Less than a billion
years? Or more than a billion years?
If less, well, then we can solve ALL of the problems
mentioned by Christophe in one generation. Stop having kids.
But that still won’t save the planet from annihilation.
If we’re planning to be around more than a billion years,
then at some point we’ll be deciding which (remaining)
species to bring with us as we colonize the galaxy.
In the meantime, I agree there are strong indicators we
need to become better custodians of our planet’s environment
and resources than we have been recently. Or we won’t last
long enough to build the space ships.
Regards,
Bill
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 07:25:44AM +0900, Christophe M. wrote:
Some of you will have a very strong and angry reaction
to this email. Please try to reflect on why you might be
quite so angry.
I’m not angry. I’m exasperated that people think adopting a
nontechnical
agrarian existence where we lack decent medicine, open and easy
communications with more than a few dozen people, and a means to protect
ourselves from natural disasters will somehow “save” the human race.
News flash: nothing short of the end of the human race will completely
eliminate the “negative” (according to agrarian reformers) effects the
human race has on the environment. I’m not much of a “burn the village
to save it” kind of guy.
I think that, if the human race is in as much trouble due to damage to
the environment as some people think, our best chance to save ourselves
will come from technological advancements. Trying to reverse thousands
of years of advancement is not only doomed to failure, but doomed to
counterproductivity even if someone could magically wish it into
existence.
In any case, please take my word that this is
a sincere and heartfelt farewell. If any of you
who are watching the world unfold and are experiencing
similar feelings, or are starting to feel cracks in
your shells, please feel free to contact me privately,
and I will be glad to speak with you. I am not a
psychotherapist but I may have something to contribute,
besides we have Ruby at least in common.
I’d like to exhort anyone thinking along these lines to rethink. A
brain
drain isn’t going to improve things.
I guess all I can hope for is that, when people remove themselves from
technological fields because they’re trying to “save” the human race
getting everyone to become dirt farmers, they also remove themselves
from
effective means of advocacy and the pool of voters. I don’t want
technological progress – our best hope for a brighter future – to be
outlawed any time soon. Congress has already stood in the way of
technological progress (some of which could actually help with
environmental issues) in the name of environmentalism far more often
than
I’d like for decades.
Christophe M. wrote:
It’s life or death now, but the problem is that humans, even the
smartest humans do not react to threats unless they are directly in
front of them in plain view. We have our own evolutionary
psychology to blame for this.
We need all the brains of the earth on this one.
Simple fact: it’s always life and death. It has been since the first
primordial cell ran smack bang into the second law of thermodynamics
and was no more. Evolutionary theory is supposed to have given us a
sense of perspective on this. Yes we all die, our cultures die, our
species die and one day even our planet dies. But along the way the
very struggle for survival offers new opportunities for our offspring
to exploit changed conditions.
What has always worried me about the green movement is that instead of
embracing environmental change for what it is, an intrinsic dynamic of
the biosphere, they instead frame it as an enemy to be defeated. Such
a war by its very nature cannot be won and each battle is a waste of
resources that could better be channelled into learning to live with
the changed conditions: the strategy nature itself adopts.
There is also an implicit assumption that humanity stands separate
from nature when in actual fact all the traits we hate about our
species are the consequence of the environmental conditions which
faced our ancestors. If those prove to no longer be useful then I’m
confident the same processes which encouraged them will curb them ;p
But I guess if there’s one thing three decades of coding has taught
me, it’s that most people are petrified of change and will in leap
through the most incredible hoops to avoid it…
Ellie
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:25:08PM +0900, Phlip wrote:
Our worst general global problem is lobbyists and corruption, and the
second worst is the oil companies.
I wouldn’t say the oil companies, specifically, are second worst. I’d
say that the aberration of market economics, created by government
interference in free exchange of value, known as a “public corporation”
is really the problem. Oil companies are just financially and
politically powerful examples of that problem.
On that subject, corporate responsibility:
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=444
The concept of a corporation, created out of nothing by acts of law with
no direct relation to concepts of individual property rights, is
inherently contradictory to the ideas of ethical business practice and
individual rights in general.
Oil companies, as visible examples of corporations that behave
unethically, are just favorite whipping-boys. Don’t let the fact these
gigantic corporations deal in oil distract you from the real problem,
which has nothing to do with their actual stock in trade.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:48:05AM +0900, Jared Nance wrote:
Even the things we love most have a dark side… in my opinion if you
feel like what you’re doing cannot contribute positively (and you care
about that) then yes, you should probably leave it. But if you really
love it, shouldn’t you try to find a way to make it work?
Yes, you should.
I know I’m a lot more effective at making the world a better place when
I
use the activities I love for their own sakes as tools toward that end
than when I ignore those activities and do things I dislike, nominally
to
make the world a better place, instead.
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:35:30PM +0900, john maclean wrote:
Too much of anything is bad. You probably needed a balance between
your job/career and other stuff. As far as health is concerned, I
think that most of us on this list are screwed. Little or late sleep,
poor diet, hours in front of monitors. RSI and back pain…
Yeah – and if you live a more active, “healthy” life, you could get
eaten by a cougar or run over by a car or have a coronary, too.
As for me, I manage to pursue healthy activities about as often as I
could motivate myself to do so regardless of working with computers.
Working with computers, though, helps me with mental health in ways that
jogging or dirt farming can’t.
… but I love it!
To a nontrivial degree, happiness is health, and happiness should
generally be the point of health anyway. Health, after all, is a means
to an end; it should not be the end in itself.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:42:06AM +0900, Bill K. wrote:
But that still won’t save the planet from annihilation.
If we’re planning to be around more than a billion years,
then at some point we’ll be deciding which (remaining)
species to bring with us as we colonize the galaxy.In the meantime, I agree there are strong indicators we
need to become better custodians of our planet’s environment
and resources than we have been recently. Or we won’t last
long enough to build the space ships.
Attempts to “save” the planet might actually be successful past a
billion
years. The technological singularity is predicted within the next
thirty
or forty years, roughly (estimates vary). Who knows what we might learn
in a post-singularity world? We might even be able to weather the Sun’s
senility without having to go anywhere. Maybe we’ll find a way to make
life better, thanks to the abundant energy arriving from that nuclear
furnace in the sky.
. . . but we won’t be able to do so if we abandon computers in favor of
highly systematized dirt farming.
Whether we save the planet or emigrate, we’re going to need computers to
get there.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:49:07AM +0900, Juan Z. wrote:
measure energy use and then focus on the major issues.
Otherwise you’re wasting your time and you’ll never make a
difference.
Good luck measuring the comparative levels of energy use for different
activities in any kind of reasonable time without the use of computers.
The piddling energy usage of my computers is eclipsed by the good I can
do with them.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:15:27PM +0900, Robert D. wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Jeff S. [email protected] wrote:
Christophe M. wrote:
That you do not agree with Christophe I understand, that some of the
ideas make you afraid I understand.
That you do not investigate further or ask questions that I am surprised about.
I don’t remember any evidence that he didn’t investigate further before
responding. Please point me at such evidence.
We need all the brains of the earth on this one.
So you’re “leaving.” Â Thanks.
That you insult him comes as a big shock to me!
That wasn’t an insult, as far as I can tell. That was him saying “Wow,
I
don’t see how you taking your brain and leaving helps if we need all the
brains of the earth.” Maybe you missed the sarcasm tags around
“Thanks.”
I’m sadly not at all surprised to see that someone immediately assumed
bad faith and accused someone else of being insulting when insulting
intent wasn’t really evident.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 02:22:09AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
sense of perspective on this. Yes we all die, our cultures die, our
species die and one day even our planet dies. But along the way the
very struggle for survival offers new opportunities for our offspring
to exploit changed conditions.What has always worried me about the green movement is that instead of
embracing environmental change for what it is, an intrinsic dynamic of
the biosphere, they instead frame it as an enemy to be defeated. Such
a war by its very nature cannot be won and each battle is a waste of
resources that could better be channelled into learning to live with
the changed conditions: the strategy nature itself adopts.
More to the point, we could learn to guide climate change in a positive
direction, rather than just trying to avoid having any effect on the
changes at all until the day they kill us and scour the Earth’s
biosphere
clean.
There is also an implicit assumption that humanity stands separate
from nature when in actual fact all the traits we hate about our
species are the consequence of the environmental conditions which
faced our ancestors. If those prove to no longer be useful then I’m
confident the same processes which encouraged them will curb them ;pBut I guess if there’s one thing three decades of coding has taught
me, it’s that most people are petrified of change and will in leap
through the most incredible hoops to avoid it…
Bring on the singularity, I say. Either it’ll kill us (thus the radical
environmentalists get their way) or it’ll elevate us to the point where
we will better understand ourselves and our circumstances so that we can
build a brighter future. Hell, we might cure old age. I’m all about
the
nanocyte networks repairing telomeres and so on, giving us much more
time
to work on the problem of fixing any dangerous environmental conditions
and/or emigrating into the cosmos. I’d rather like to live to see that.
I won’t if we all become dirt farmers concerned with “saving” the planet
from ourselves, though.
On 11 Apr 2009, at 02:12, Chad P. wrote:
More to the point, we could learn to guide climate change in a
positive
direction, rather than just trying to avoid having any effect on the
changes at all until the day they kill us and scour the Earth’s
biosphere
clean.
Our very existence does that anyway, regardless of any conscious
motivation
Ellie
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:05:10PM +0900, Jeff S. wrote:
Christophe M. wrote:
Agriculture is entirely dependent on petrochemicals.
For some definition of “entirely” that means something completely
different from “entirely.” See The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael
Pollan, for a quick tour of the American food supply system.
Indeed.
People talk about how without petrochemicals we’d have significant food
shortages – but the truth is that the real danger we face in terms of
agricultural production is government. The only reason the loss of
petrochemicals in agriculture would lead to worldwide famines, using the
numbers on which people base this argument, is because they’re only
measuring the food we don’t waste the moment we harvest it. The
government:
creates least-efficient alternative fuel programs that actually use
up food crops when more efficient alternatives using inedible crops
that grow on land not as useful for food crops
actually pays corporate farms to burn, or otherwise destroy,
mind-boggling amounts of harvested food crops every year
uses regulatory powers to prevent more efficient, safer food
production by smaller agricultural concerns because such food
production might actually compete with huge, subsidized corporate
farms
that have their own lobbyists
and so on
The problem wouldn’t be the loss of petrochemicals as part of
agricultural “state of the art”, really, but the way government sticks
its nose into the business of making food. Even if all the
petrochemicals did suddenly dry up, and we were reduced to using
manure
for fertilizer, and oxen to pull plows, we could absorb the drop in
productivity easily if government would just stop investing so much
time,
effort, and money in making food production less efficient.
to tap them yet. As demand for energy goes up, and the oil supply goes
down, we’ll turn to alternative sources. (Actually, I suspect this has
already started.)
One might make the argument that agitation by environmentalists has
caused government to step in and make it happen. After all,
government
interfering with the efficiency and affordability of petroleum
production, distribution, and purchase at the consumer end has helped to
spur research, as has funding from government programs. So people might
argue.
Of course, government basically put us in this position in the first
place, by regulating industries so that they are able (even encouraged)
to become dominated by huge, unimaginably powerful corporate entities
that toy with the market and resist change from below. At best, we get
the equivalent of what we’d have if individual economic sovereignty were
repsected in the first place, but at great cost, and that’s ignoring the
fact that a lot of government supported programs are political choices
rather than efficient and effective choices, leaving us with less
advancement in the energy production state of the art than we really
should be experiencing by now.
But… I found permaculture which was designed by scientists
So were the A-bomb, GMO foods, and most of those petrochemicals you’ve
already condemned. Not to mention digital watches (shiver).
you += 1 # for the Adams reference
not really safe either, lacking oxygen, warmth, and broadband internet
access.)
No . . . I think that’s why he’s “leaving” Ruby. I don’t really see how
that helps, though.
It’s life or death now, but the problem is that humans, even the
smartest humans do not react to threats unless they are directly in
front of them in plain view. We have our own evolutionary psychology to
blame for this.We need all the brains of the earth on this one.
So you’re “leaving.” Thanks.
I guess he thinks his brain is put to better use behind a plow in an
agrarian commune.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Eleanor McHugh
[email protected] wrote:
On 11 Apr 2009, at 02:12, Chad P. wrote:
Eleanor, Chad
why do you assume that green means without technology? Of course that
kind of life would scare the hell out of me too.
I am amazed that Eleanor “accused” the green movement to be afraid of
change, it is them who embrace change.
I do not want to be patronizing at all, and please be aware that I am
not a native speaker, however I want to express that I just see things
the other way around than you do.
What intrigues me most in your reasoning scheme is that you somehow
postulate that we are evolved enough to adapt to the radical changes
our species has caused. I could not agree more with you. But it seems
that you think that the “green” movement does not do that. I however
feel that is exactly what they want to do.
The difference between “them” and some other movements is rather
political as they see ( as I do BTW, but that really is open to
discussion ) our political and economical system as a primary cause
and want therefore to change it. Only very small groups want to refute
technology as such.
It is strange to read reasoning that accuses people who react to well
established problems that have been analyzed in a scientific way of
being anti-technology or do not want to advance. Anticipating problems
is treating problems in the natural way for our species. It is our
mind that has brought our species at the board of distinction and it
has to be our mind that gets us out of this mess again.
Now if you think that we are not in a mess than that is ok, but most
of us seem to think the contrary nowadays.
But I know lots of highly intelligent and visionary people, who have
brilliant ideas to get us out of this mess, and getting us out of this
mess cannot mean refuting technology (1) because we have become as a
matter of fact dependent on our technology. Some think that all it
needs is to refute ideas of exponential growth which seem to me as
something completely ridicule in a finite universe anyway.
Si tu veux construire un bateau …
Ne rassemble pas des hommes pour aller chercher du bois, préparer des
outils, répartir les tâches, alléger le travail… mais enseigne aux
gens la nostalgie de l’infini de la mer.
If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect
wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to
long for the endless immensity of the sea.
I am amazed that Eleanor “accused” the green movement to be afraid of
change, it is them who embrace change.
I think it depends on your viewpoint.
For example, I do not eat animals for several reasons - one is that I
dislike the treatment and handling of animals in factories. Also, I
believe that animals rather prefer to stay alive than to be killed.
Human is surrounded by life which wants to live (as do most other
humans). I have no problem with “natural” human populations, but I
disagree with the industrialized and commercialized aspect of producing
meat (and food, for that matter, like subsidizing agro-food via
petroleum… it feels strange that a lot of the food we eat was
supported with fertilizers from oil … )
However, I never lecture other people about my point of view therein.
So I strongly disagree with what Eleanor wrote about “the green
movement”. There are people with different points of view, and it does
no good to unify these.
For example - I am very much for technology, social improvements, and
very high ethical standards. It makes me furious to hear when a
“democracy” like the USA refuses to put their war criminals on charge or
attempt to establish torture as possible methods against humans.
The thread starter here is a confused guy. He says goodbye to
technology, via the www, and this is so incredibly stupid that I have no
words to describe for it. The best would be he would just shut up
instead. If he wants to be forest dweller running around naked in
rivers, then be it, but I see no point in attempting to push on an
agenda which is higly controversial.
“Green” movement can at best be realized via solid arguments, good
reasoning, a calm hand, and the knowledge that big parts of industry is
afraid of change because it means they have no pay more or lose control.
(They already control way too much anyway.)
This will slowly change though. The whole “green movement” is stronger
than years ago, and the current trend for governments seems to be to
infiltrate it.
“Need a new car? Buy one! We give you money if you destroy your old car”
is one example for the latter happening in ~Germany and a few other
countries, and being marketed as “good for the environment” if the old
cars disappear (which is a lie if you look at the cost to produce
current cars anyway)
I am amazed that Eleanor “accused” the green movement to be afraid of
change, it is them who embrace change.
I think there are certain national/cultural differences in what is
considered the “Green movement”. In Germany and Austria, the Green
party is in parliament/government. In other countries, IIRC it still
is mostly a conservationist movement.
Leo wrote:
I am amazed that Eleanor “accused” the green movement to be afraid of
change, it is them who embrace change.I think there are certain national/cultural differences in what is
considered the “Green movement”. In Germany and Austria, the Green
party is in parliament/government. In other countries, IIRC it still
is mostly a conservationist movement.
Further, returning to the earth is not “green”, or “ecologically
correct” -
unless if you volunteer to get eaten up by bears, tigers, and all kind
of germs.
Humans in the wild burn too much wood to offset any other carbon
emissions.
The best way to assume stewardship of Garden Earth is warehousing all
the humans
in clean, efficient, isolated cities. That doesn’t sound very romantic -
and
it’s the backdrop to a thousand literary /1984/ clones - but it keeps
all our
infrastructure in one place for easy tuning.
Oil the machine!
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
I apologise if this offends anyone, but it’s my honest opinion and
it’s not been reached without many years of consideration. If I’m
wrong, well big deal - most of us are about most things most of the
time.
Waving the banner of “evolution is natural and good” would apply if
human
intervention occurred on evolutionary timescales. Yet gardening is not
evolutionary either; in an old Thurber fable, the gardener indeed said
to the
weed “tu pass!” That was biodiversity, too!
The remarkable result of the huge experiment we now call “the 20th
century” is
it demonstrated we humans indeed have our hands on the knobs…
Robert, from where I’m sat the green movement desires to lock our
ecosystem into some ‘acceptable’ state, effectively destroying the
evolutionary pressures which give rise to new species and in the
process defining boundaries within which human science, technology and
culture should progress. I consider both goal and consequences to be
immoral, driven by fear and ideology rather than any interest in the
actual underlying dynamics of nature or the betterment of the human
condition.
They are also fundamentally naive and unrealistic, requiring that
mankind achieve some virtuous enlightenment that has proven to be
elusive throughout our history and then maintain it for an indefinite
period of time. This is nothing more or less than the orthogonal
application of the same inflexible mindset that’s made our societies
unjust since the beginning of recorded history, and as ever it’s
dressed up in clothes that suggest it’s all for our own good.
Does this mean we should all go out and waste resources willy nilly?
Don’t ask me. But regardless of which way we choose to go as
individuals our choice is fundamentally natural because humans are
buried as deeply in the feedback mechanisms of life as whales or
tigers or mantis shrimp. Our nuclear power and biological weapons are
natural, as are our arrogance, our tribalism and our need for power
structures.
Indeed what is the green movement if not a tribalism more or less
loosely aligned with a desire for certain kinds of economic power
structures and justified by the arrogant belief that two hundred years
of industrial manufacturing are sufficient to put life at risk. That’s
the same life that emerged within a few million years of our molten
ball of rock developing a solid crust and which has survived
cataclysmic events on a cosmic scale.
I apologise if this offends anyone, but it’s my honest opinion and
it’s not been reached without many years of consideration. If I’m
wrong, well big deal - most of us are about most things most of the
time.
Ellie
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs