Chaps and Chapsess,
What do you think of this:
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earthhour/
Printable View
Chaps and Chapsess,
What do you think of this:
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earthhour/
Cool. I'll do it.
I'll give it a whirl.
Hmmmm... Pakistan should be given some award concerning electricity conservation. In some areas here, twelve-hours per-day of electricity break-down have been announced....
I had my lights off!:D
My mam thinks its such a great idea, shes threatening to make us do it every night.:p
I saw it here in the states. Silly. Very silly. Poor people have to keep the house in the dark. Or people who lived prior to the 20th century. We are consciously lowering our standard of living.
Damn, I forgot about it.
I didn't do it. I didn't forget about it, I just didn't do it. I am hopped up on caffeine (it's the American way) and I had to get to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart doesn't observe Earth Hour, why should anyone else? Gotta stay caffeinated. 24-7. Go go go.
We reduced electricity use in Ireland by 1.5% during earth hour.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And why do you have poor people?Quote:
Poor people have to keep the house in the dark.
1 hour less playstation playing is not lowering living standard!Quote:
Or people who lived prior to the 20th century. We are consciously lowering our standard of living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Well done Niam!!! :D
You have staved off Ireland being under water for an hour ;-)
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...citygrikf0.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
This is a picture at night from a satallite of North and South Korea. The dark half is North Korea. The lit up half is South Korea. North Korea is not in the dark because it wishes to "save" the environment. It's in the dark because it can't afford to be in the light. I've seen such pictures of the entire world at night and the places that are similarly in the dark are also third world nations. I choose to live in the modern world. To live in the dark when one doesn't have to, is not just silly, it's asinine.
My first reaction is that it's just another gimmick, like Live Earth was. Yes people might turn their lights off for an hour a year, but won't walk or use a bike for short journeys, give up their 24/7 365 days a year availability of seasonal foodstuffs and foodstuffs not available in their locality, cheap clothes imported from the far east, or their annual foreign holiday, etc, etc. So what difference does it make, really, other than make people feel they have been socially responsible when in fact they've done very little? Neither does Earth hour increase the availability of environmentally friendly technology, or make it cheap enough to be used in the average home - for example availability of wind turbines/solar panels/heat exchangers for home use (at a reasonable price or, here's a thought, perhaps the Government could pay for them to be fitted to homes out of the extortionate tax on fuel (shock horror!)).
If people believe in climate change, and if they want to make a difference, then the difference is going to come from big lifestyle change, possibly a lifestyle change beyond that which most people would accept or, and this seems the more likely avenue, the development of better technology. Switching the lights off for an hour does nothing but turn us back to the 'dark ages'. It doesn't seem to me that moving backwards is the answer.
[QUOTE=Virgil;548909]http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...citygrikf0.jpg
This is a picture at night from a satallite of North and South Korea. The dark half is North Korea. The lit up half is South Korea.
Lighted areas shows the amount of pollution!
I choose to live in the Real World where every action has consequences. And Standard of living is not measured by amount of electricity you have to play your wii consoles.Quote:
I choose to live in the modern world.
To live in the light while destroying everything else is stupid.Quote:
To live in the dark when one doesn't have to, is not just silly, it's asinine.
Lote, Virgil doesn't play computer games, remember! I guess that makes him more environmentally friendly than you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
But you should know well by now...my remarks are never directed at anyone personally ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
:lol: :lol: Thanks for the support.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
And what is one supposed to do in the dark, sit by the hearth and watch the embers glow? Oh, wait a second, a hearth implies firewood and that requires cutting down a tree. I guess you can't do that either Lote. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't think the point of this thing was to either make a move toward forcing us all to live in the dark or to effect dramatic environmental change simply because people turn their lights off for an hour. Surely the point is to get people talking about the issue of the environment with an aim to hopefully get people to do something somewhere in between living in the dark like cave men and wantonly wasting electricity. The stunt seems to have at least acheived the goal of getting the people around here talking some.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Erm wear a jumper and cuddle upto your fellow man/woman (whatever way you are inclined)! not only you are saving energy you are also sharing your humanity :D Brotherhood of man (and women - lets not be sexist anymore)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
[/quote]Quote:
I guess you can't do that either Lote. :p
We have lived in the light too much and forgotten the beauty of darkness ;-)
As if people aren't talking it to death??? All i hear is this nonsense about global warming. It's taken on a myth of its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
In my opinion this is a political stunt orienting people to act in a particular way.Quote:
with an aim to hopefully get people to do something somewhere in between living in the dark like cave men and wantonly wasting electricity. The stunt seems to have at least acheived the goal of getting the people around here talking some.
Actually this will cause more global warming. Power outages, it has been shown, result in little mini spikes in conceptions, and therefore the poulation will increase. :D I'm one that actually believes in increasing the human poulation (without getting into it, it's a good thing; population increases across time have resulted in increased standards of living) so perhaps we should have this hour of darkness afterall. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I ignored it. I found the whole idea fundamentally stupid. The idea that people switching off a 60W bulb for an hour will make the slightest bit of difference is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Lights went off, lamps went on. TV's, radio's, all other consumers of electricity stayed on. It was a pointless escapade designed to make people feel less guilty for a while.
The other thing is the main drawers off electrical power for lighting are things like streetlights. Municipalities are not going to be switching them off & they shouldn't either.
The other thing is that if everyone actually DID switch off all electrical consumers for an hour, the switch back on point would likely cause such a huge surge of energy that you would have transformers blowing all over the place. Yeah, great idea:idea:
Thank you and amen!Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Stupid would be to assume that was the purpose of the Earth Hour!Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
It was meant to raise awareness - that is all!
Sometimes people's arrogance and ego blinds them.
Use a condom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I find you sometimes bafflingly bizzare!Quote:
:D I'm one that actually believes in increasing the human poulation (without getting into it, it's a good thing;
And admire the heavens in it's glory just like our ancestors did;-)Quote:
so perhaps we should have this hour of darkness afterall. :D
Come on lassie - you are smarter than Kilty ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
They did here, copenhagen went dark. And i agree with Lote, it's a raise awareness issue, and it's about getting people to talk about it. And no it's not talked to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Global warming or not, we are going through natural resources faster than they are being replenished, and enough funding isn't going into alternative energy yet to replace it. It's about making people conserve as much as it's about reducing CO2 emissions.
Heck, it could even be a financial pointed finger! If you switch off all those standby appliances and turn off the lights when you leave a room, you're saving yourself on the electricity bill.
I don't see why so many find this a dissagreeable idea?
That's because you accept conventional thinking and I don't. I've seen enough conventional thinking proved wrong, both in general and professionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Just because it's in the newspapers doesn't make it true.
Which resources? The oil in the earth we have used since the beinning of the industrial revolution is only 18%. That's in over 150 years. 82% still remains untapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
Oh please. Lots and lots of money is being spent, mostly wasted because they keep seaching for a panacea that doesn't exist. The only real alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. And many of the environmentalist whackos are against that too. They don't want to use oil. They don't want to use coal, they don't want nuclear, they don't even want to cut down a tree for wood. They want us to live like cave people.Quote:
and enough funding isn't going into alternative energy yet to replace it. It's about making people conserve as much as it's about reducing CO2 emissions.
What are you talking about? I see mostly people agreeing with you. In fact the people who have disagreed here, myself, Kilt, and Manolia all have scientific backgrounds.Quote:
I don't see why so many find this a dissagreeable idea?
Don't mince your words Virgil ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Count me in, though I'm not from a scientific background, and my objections are perhaps different to yours. Earth Hour = gimmick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I speak from Experience as oppose to Conventional Thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Have you ever been to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Virgil?
I don't read CNNs and Foxes of this world!Quote:
Just because it's in the newspapers doesn't make it true.
You don't have to read any of that to see the changes that are happening.
In my own city I can vouch for the levels of pollution with 20 years of my living there!
edit: Yes I am from a scientific background.
Those reseources aren't available to us yet, they're working on methods of extraction, but aren't there yet. And if you want to get into details, the coal that is being extracted is done so under horiffic and unsafe conditions, thousands die trying to provide you with energy, just check up the amount of accidents and deaths related to diseases as a result of mining for coal.Quote:
Which resources? The oil in the earth we have used since the beinning of the industrial revolution is only 18%. That's in over 150 years. 82% still remains untapped.
Nuclear power is not the only sustainable source of energy, Norway gets most of it's energy from hydro electric power; waterfalls and rivers. Denmark is reknown around the world for it's windmill parks, and is even now working on exporting them to China, I'd hate to seem presumptive, but please do some research.
Secondly the problem of nuclear waste is still relevant as no one has found a safe means of destroying it.
I didn't do it though I had heard of it because I live with 3 morons and as long as there are people like them the world won't be a better place. Let me have a point before I explain why.
To me the point of this is remembering that electricity is not always NECESSARY. It's not about living in the 3rd world, it's about remembering that sometimes you don't need that bloody light on if you can actually see anyway, that you don't need a TV to be constantly on, that you can do laundry less often and if you forgot to wash something wait for next time...
And now, concrete example, my housemates. They NEVER switch lights off, to the point that if on a weekend I'm the first one to wake up at stupid times like 11am, I have to turn off the light in the kitchen. Chances are someone went there to get a drink in the night, what's the point of not switching the light back off? And what enrages me more is that they leave the TV on and go back to their rooms, or even OUT. I could kill for that. Once one of them washed ONE t-shirt in the washing machine... I swear, there was only that poor lonely t-shirt. (I should add that our bills are included in the rent, otherwise I would have already killed them)
I'm appalled. If they are like that I bet their families are too? And how many more people I've never met are like that too? I find waste to be disgusting. I don't want to refrain from my shameful privileges for being born on the lucky side of the planet, but I hate the idea of abusing them. Talks of global warming aside, it's just disrespectful, how many useful things could have been done with the energy used to keep a light on all night when no one is in the room? Maybe even simple useful things like being in that room and needing that light, or watching that TV instead of leaving it babbling to itself out loud for hours... (on a couple of occasions I got home and NO ONE was in, but the TV was on).
Wow, love to rant.
My arrogance & ego are blinding me to nothing. My study of the subject however does blind me to pointless gimmicks & personal interest groups which distract from the issue at hand and prevent a real, frank discussion of the subject from taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
The idea of this stunt raising awareness is ridiculous, anyone who heard about "earth hour" I am quite sure has also heard the phrase "global warming". I would imagine the % who were enlightened by this gimmick would be under 10%.
If we actually want to do something concrete & purposeful we have to start investing real money in research & development of technology. The time for gimmicks is over, all it does is bring the debate back to the oversimplified & sophomoric "energy use is bad" - which the GP pigs have daubed all over the wall of the farm house, I'm just waiting for the addition to go up.
That really made my day :) You're a darling kiltedQuote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
GP?
:confused:
I'm sure people plan on it, but the statistics show that conceptions increase when people are stuck in the dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
:lol: I take that as a compliment. An individual doesn't follow the herd. I'm living proof that one can be an individual without having tattoos or piercings.Quote:
I find you sometimes bafflingly bizzare!
What does going to those countries that have to do with global warming? All I know is that I want those countries to live in a decent standard of living. It's not my position on environmentalism that condemns people to poverty. I want them to have cars and air conditioning and whatever else makes their lives better. And the same goes for the far east and for Africa and for everywhere else in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
What changes??? At worst case the claim is that we have increase a degree? How can you see that? It's imperceptable.Quote:
You don't have to read any of that to see the changes that are happening.
Well, that's different issue completely. I'm for reducing pollution. We had a grave pollution problem in the US and the 1970s legislation has made an incredible difference. I have heard that European cities are more polluted than the US. I don't know if that's true or not, but yes if you got a pollution problem do something about it.Quote:
In my own city I can vouch for the levels of pollution with 20 years of my living there!
Ok, good. :) But we disagree on this. ;)Quote:
edit: Yes I am from a scientific background.
Great, I have nothing against that, but Norway's population is under 5 million for a huge land mass. In New York we have eight million people in one city alone. We derive hydro power too, most notably Niagara Falls. I'm not against that. It helps, but it isn't suficient. You made the claim back there that not enough was being done for alternative sources. I disagree. Where electric companies can save money by not buying oil, it's done. You seem to have this impression that we can do without fossil fuels. That's a pipe dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
I've passed these windmill parks (we have them too) and frankly they are as ugly as can be to the landscape. Talk about anti-Romanticism. Be that as it may I have heard that windmills are not that efficient and that they cause a lot of deaths of birds. And if you take energy out of natural air flow, aren't you altering the environment? Aren't you changing the pattern of airflow? Same thing with hydraulic power. Aren't you changing the waterflow and the biology of those river? Yes you are.Quote:
Denmark is reknown around the world for it's windmill parks, and is even now working on exporting them to China, I'd hate to seem presumptive, but please do some research.
I'm not concerned about the waste, that gets buried deep into the earth. What I'm concerned about are risks (like Chernoble). But Chernoble seems to be an isolated episode. You Europeans have lots of nucear plants and seem safe enough.Quote:
Secondly the problem of nuclear waste is still relevant as no one has found a safe means of destroying it.
No. Conception increases when people have sex. It's nothing to do with the dark ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Off course. All bizzare people do because they don't know anything better ;-)Quote:
:lol: I take that as a compliment.
It's not about one's Ego. It's about our future!Quote:
An individual doesn't follow the herd.
Individual Dinosaurs died out a long time ago ;-)Quote:
I'm living proof that one can be an individual without having tattoos or piercings.
If they are drowned, their land and air poisoned - air conditioning and cars will not make no difference to their lives!Quote:
I want them to have cars and air conditioning and whatever else makes their lives better.
And if you have not visited India, Pakistan or Bangladesh - how would know about what a massive increase in population does to a society? How would you know what global warming effect is having on them?
In far as away as China - Buddha statues that stood for 2000 years are now being eaten away by acid rain!
No. Destroying everything else so that people can own and drive cars and have air conditiong - is so stupid!
R e m i n d e r
Please discuss the issue, not each other.
Posts with personal remarks will be deleted without any further warning.
Oh well, a little dim lighting helps the mood you know. Unless you're a porn star and likes to do it under bright camera lights.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I guess it depends what you consider bizzare. I'm not the one running around like a chicken without a head yelling the sky is falling. :DQuote:
Off course. All bizzare people do because they don't know anything better ;-)
Huh?Quote:
It's not about one's Ego. It's about our future!
Lote, whatever may be, the sky is not falling. Please. The apocolypse is not imminent.Quote:
If they are drowned, their land and air poisoned - air conditioning and cars will not make no difference to their lives!
I believe that India had a massive population well before anyone even thought of global warming. What effect is it having on them? Their economy has never been better. Their standard of living has dramatically improved. Or do you want them to them to live in poverty? And may I ask who appointed you dictator of India (or should I call you Raj) to tell their citizens you can't have cars or modern transportation or modern conveniences, while you live in your 21st century world?Quote:
And if you have not visited India, Pakistan or Bangladesh - how would know about what a massive increase in population does to a society? How would you know what global warming effect is having on them?
That's not global warming. You're confusing subjects.Quote:
In far as away as China - Buddha statues that stood for 2000 years are now being eaten away by acid rain!
I assume you don't have a car. Or air conditioning or electricity or a washer machine or a dish washer or an oven or whatever. I assume your clothes aren't made by modern technology and your food isn't harvested by modern farm equipment. Bueno. Then you must be a monk praying to mother earth in complete fear of the apocolyspe in some sparten four walled room.Quote:
No. Destroying everything else so that people can own and drive cars and have air conditiong - is so stupid!
Virgil, you've raised a lot of interesting comments, but I have to disagree with this one:
Aesthetics isn't a reason not to have windmill parks, personally I think they are beautiful, graceful. The problem most people have with the aesthetics is that they see these plants as a 'blot' on the landscape, but if you put a convention powerplant in the same location it wouldn't be so pleasing on the eye either, in fact I think most people would say less so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But you also raise an interesting point, though theoretical I also have some concerns about the 'butterfly' effect. I guess there is probably no way, not with current technologies at least, of meeting our power needs without those needs having any consequence; but perhaps we need to use our energy a bit smarter. There are lots of technologies around which combined would significantly reduce power consumption in the average home, i.e. use of heat exchange technology, solar panels, wind turbines, under floor heating, but the problem is that these technologies are still too expensive for the average family to use in the home. What it needs is for the Govt's to push for the technology to be more widely available, and better education for the home owner or how to use these technologies to their benefit, and ultimately the benefit of the environment. I think that any approach will have to be a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear technology, and 'green' technologies. None of them in isolation is a solution.
and Lote:
where do you live? Pollution levels are going down in UK - when was the last time you saw smog (and I mean real smog!)? Don't confuse 'scruffy' with 'polluted'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
True, but a power plant is one building. These things stretch for miles. What about the forest you have to cut down? We have them in desert areas where there isn't too much of an impact to the landscape. I don't have a problem with them really. They're not in my back yard so i don't have to see them. I can see how in a generation or two people will despise them and use them as a symbol in literature. ;) If they are a net financial plus economically, then sure let's build them. But I've heard mixed things. I guess power companies will determine whether they are economically feasible. What I don't want is politicians forcing inefficient things down our throats to satisfy a whining constituency.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Right. I agree. I'm stingy. If something saves me money, I'm for it. If we can reduce the cost of electricity with windmills supplementing power generation, great. It's just these environmentalists who just think there are no other consequences with alternatives. Like if we go electric cars, what about the battery disposal? The chemicals in batteries are very environmentally hazardous. If you have billions of cars with huge batteries, what happens to those batteries when you scrap the car?Quote:
But you also raise an interesting point, though theoretical I also have some concerns about the 'butterfly' effect. I guess there is probably no way, not with current technologies at least, of meeting our power needs without those needs having any consequence; but perhaps we need to use our energy a bit smarter.
Hey I'm an engineer. I love new technology. I do think we can design houses better on heat savings, but some of those ideas just don't pay for themselves. I've always felt that solar power is free energy and we should take advantage of it. But I've seen articles where people have spent over 50thousand dollars to equip their homes with solar panels. And it was calculated that they would break even in costs in something like (I don't remember the exact numbers) in something like 50 years. They're going to be dead and gone, so why would anyone do it? It doesn't make economic sense. I would think if things made economic sense, they would be on the market and everyone would be rushing to save money.Quote:
There are lots of technologies around which combined would significantly reduce power consumption in the average home, i.e. use of heat exchange technology, solar panels, wind turbines, under floor heating, but the problem is that these technologies are still too expensive for the average family to use in the home. What it needs is for the Govt's to push for the technology to be more widely available, and better education for the home owner or how to use these technologies to their benefit, and ultimately the benefit of the environment. I think that any approach will have to be a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear technology, and 'green' technologies. None of them in isolation is a solution.
Population control is an issue in itself, different from global warming. We have awarness programs that are helping control the situation, the change will not come overnight, it takes time. This we are doing it not because of global warming, we do it so that people can have better lives at the basic level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
The concern for global warming is for societies that are saturated in terms for development (I think) and are looking for things to save the world. This is not our primary concern. The issues like education, population, health care etc are very important, and in a country like India, these issues take precedence over global warming, things are not as dismal, eventhough, we are a deveoping nation.
I will not go for any power cuts, because as it is that happens without us wanting it to happen. There are power cuts for a few mins, few hours (could be even 10-12 hrs a day), no big deal. So whatever time I am getting electricity, I would like to be in light and not darkness.
If at all because of global warming India is in water, then it will not be the only country that will see the consequence. It will happen all over the world. So, it does not mean that people should be concerned about the issue of global warming so that countries like India, Pak, or Bangladesh can be saved.
I think the approach perhaps differs from country to country. In UK windfarms are generally coastal or on the moors, there's no land clearance or cutting down of trees. Power plants are more than one building. On balance I'd rather have a windfarm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d...delabolewf.jpg
than a coal fired power plant:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d...werStation.jpg
or a nuclear powerplant:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d...sellafield.jpg
in my backyard.
I agree with you, but your argument is based on current pricing levels. I agree that the Governments need to act to assist to reduce the cost of these types of technologies if they're really serious about reducing carbon emissions. Solar panels are a good example, they do eventually pay for themselves, and if you were to combine them with other energy saving methods then they'd pay for themselves quicker. The thing is, it'll be a variety of technologies that help this happen, reduced energy lightbulbs (which will be compulsory in EU from 2010), improvements in in-home technology specifically designed to lower the wattage consumption, improved heating systems, etc, etc. The thing with renewable energy sources in the home such as solar panels, wind turbines, is that eventually they will pay for themselves, and then you start to make savings. If you rely on conventional electricity supplies alone then you'll never make a saving. In addition it has been shown that adding energy efficiencies to a home can increase the value of the home by up to 10%, so that needs to be factored in too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Bear in mind that technology does get cheaper, especially where it's in widespread consumer use. For example, when I bought my first DVD player 8 years ago it cost £800, now I can get an equivalent quality DVD player for less than £50!
Certainly in UK (can't really speak for anywhere else) if the Government were truly serious about reducing carbon footprints then they would plough some of the significant tax income they get from fuel into 'green' energy initiatives, specifically by helping the average guy get the best energy efficiency from their home. Without a viable alternative to petrol powered transport the savings aren't going to be made by reducing car journeys (again, because there's not much of a viable alternative to that either), but considering that currently the price of petrol in UK is roughly £1.10 per litre, 72% of the price of which is tax, there's a significant pot of money there which at least some of which could go towards developing more cost effective solutions.
How did you know? I am Randy Organ. Have we met? But alas I am not gay! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Low lands of India and Bangladesh already flooded - what else do you need? Whether patterns have changed and changing.Quote:
I guess it depends what you consider bizzare. I'm not the one running around like a chicken without a head yelling the sky is falling. :D
Huh?
Lote, whatever may be, the sky is not falling. Please. The apocolypse is not imminent.
Pollution made in America have washed up and landed on far away places like outer mongolia!
See above.Quote:
What effect is it having on them?
Yes for the few. Millions still live in Shanti towns!Quote:
Their economy has never been better. Their standard of living has dramatically improved.
No. But you do don't you?Quote:
Or do you want them to them to live in poverty?
If not why don't you give away your wealth and resources?
That would remove the poverty?
Not of India but whole whole world by virtue of Superior Morality.Quote:
And may I ask who appointed you dictator of India
Not morality of the Ego!
Modern convienices like chemically preserved Frozen Meals at Tesco's?Quote:
(or should I call you Raj) to tell their citizens you can't have cars or modern transportation or modern conveniences, while you live in your 21st century world?
Wow so much for modernity!
I don't think they are craving for such things!
Come on Virgil are you for real!?
It's not want of cars and air-conditioning that blights the lives of these people. It is poverty. And poverty is caused by what?
No. I don't need one. I give my money to a poor village india so that they start to cultivate their land.Quote:
I assume you don't have a car.
No. I prefer the clean air!Quote:
Or air conditioning
Yes. Generated by non polluting renewable sources.Quote:
or electricity
No. I can wash my own clothes. I am not lazy.Quote:
or a washer machine
No. I am not lazy.Quote:
or a dish washer
No. I go about naked. I am closet nudist!Quote:
I assume your clothes aren't made by modern technology
Quote:
and your food isn't harvested by modern farm equipment.
Not a Monk but strive to live an Ego-less life.Quote:
Then you must be a monk praying to mother earth in complete fear of the apocolyspe in some sparten four walled room.
And no I have no fear.
But I can see and experiennce. And I see and experience that our actions is having consequences around the world...
Yes. Mads but Virgil and I are talking about two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madhuri
He thinks population increase is not a problem.
I say it is when there is not enough resources availbe to support them all.
And the second is global warming. But the consequecences of global warming to countries like bangladesh and lowlands of india is bad. Areas around sunderbands for example have already been flooded.