Environmental Crisis: The Sky is Falling!

[Maia]

By Urban experience I do mean the burning man visit itself. We drove the perimeter last year at dawn one morning (nearly running over folk sleeping out beyond the fenceline with no more protection from pass vehicles in the dark than a blanket..) the perimeter was a bit less than 8 miles around..

Call it 2 miles on a side, four square miles withing the bright orange snow fence. 30,000 participants, a bit of math tells us that there were 7,500 people per square mile. Compare that with the following cities: Los Angeles, 7,400; Houston 3,000; Philadelphia, 11,700; Detroit, 7,400; Dallas, 2,900; San Jose, 4600; Baltimore 9,100; San Francisco, 15,500; Milwaukee, 6,500 per square mile.. Based on that it appears that the burning man experience is indeed and Urban experience, without trees or parks... Dragon Jade,, there are places of unutterable beauty beyond the playa.. I wish,,, that those who attend for the works of man, could rise above themselves and see what lies beyond,, their souls for one small thing.

[Bob]

....there are places of unutterable beauty beyond the playa....

If there's one thing I hate, it's nature writing.

Tends to anthropomorphicate the unutterable animus.

[dragonfly Jafe]

By Urban experience I do mean the burning man visit itself.

<snip>

Based on that it appears that the burning man experience is indeed and Urban experience, without trees or parks... Dragon Jade,, there are places of unutterable beauty beyond the playa..

Aaaahh. My bad. I agree with you fully that Burningman is an Urban, not a wilderness, experience. The "beauty" of Burningman is not in the natural, but the unnatural. Just as Nature has scenes of unutterable beauty, Burningman has scenes of unimaginable creativity. I by no means am equating the two - if I had to chose between Nature or Burningman, I would without hesitation chose Nature. Fortunately, I do not have to chose - I can have both. For 1 week a year I do the un-Nature thing, because Burningman speaks to neglected corners of my soul. The rest of the year I rely on the Nature thing to sooth the soul. I do not see a conflict.

I think you will find many people that attend Burningman that understand Nature fine - they are just not fortunate enough to be able to immerse themselves in it as you are.

regards, Jafe

[Bob]

It's still described as "wilderness camping" on the web site.

I think they meant intellectual, not administrative.

[dragonfly Jafe]

It's still described as "wilderness camping" on the web site.

Yes, but we all know how the llc is forced to spin things to avoid certain issues with the powers that be.

I would call it post-apocalyptic camping. Wilderness has far fewer petro-chemicals drifting about.

regards, Jafe

[stuart]

Heard the term 'disco camping' at Xara Dulzura

[KellY]

(in fact, global warming is a good thing.

Okay RG, going back over posts, I see that my guess that "environmental crisis" means different things to you and me was spot on.You're obviously a big-free-market globalization fan, and this is influencing your view of environmental priorites.

"Global warming is cool" is a point of view being put forth by think tanks and scientific groups funded by energy companies and the like. It's only started to be suggested as more and more data that indicates global warming is occuring pours in. And as for your idea that scientists are spinning the facts about global warming to get more funding, would you please wake the fuck up? How do you think the dollar amounts match up: the billions and billions earned by oil companies, auto companies, etc vs. the amounts given to scientists by universities and governments to do research? Do you really think climatological scientists are getting chauffered around in limos and drinking three-hundred bottles of champagne because of the grants they get by scaring people?!

Let me remind you of the history of the tobacco companies. For years, they disputed any claims that smoking was a health risk. They produced research by scientists on their payroll saying that smoking was just fine. They kept denying it was dangerous long after the mainstream medical establishment was warning people of the risks of smoking. And then guess what? It was discovered that the tobacco industry's own research did show that smoking was dangerous. They just LIED about it. Get it RG? They lied even though they knew millions of people would get sick and die from their product.

Now, what makes you think that the heads of the oil industry have any more moral fiber than the heads of the tobacco industry, RG? Couldn't the arguement have been made that researchers who said smoking was dangerous just using scare tactics? Just trying to drum up hysteria to get attention and make money? Or maybe unbiased researchers not beholden to any industry were actually telling the truth?

By the way, your point about the Pentagon using it's own report to get more funding is also full of shit. First, the Pentagon is already swimming in money. Second, the Pentagon was descibing an undesirable situation in the future and the security problems it would cause. Obviously, to avoid that situation the solution is to fund things like the EPA and reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, none of which benefit the military budget.

Earlier in this thread I pointed out the fallacies of your "only 1% of the planet's species are endeangered claim", and you decided not to respond to that. No surprise, because the only answer that you could say and still hold on to your position is "I don't care about species going extinct". I, and I think many people on this board, believe that all forms of life on earth have a right to continued existence. And the changes we cause have tremendous impacts.

Here's an example (it's a bit complex, try to pay attention). We brought mosquitos to Hawaii. The birds there had no resistance to avian malaria, which is carried by mosquitos. Huge tracts of rainforest were depopulated of birds as a result. Birds survived in the upper elevations, where the tempatures were cold enough to keep the mosquitos from spreading. Now that the planet is heating up, the mosquitos are able to reach higher and higher elevations, reducing the livable area for the native birds. If things continue this way, there won't be enough forest left to support a sustainable population for the birds. Almost ALL native Hawaiian birds will go extinct- some are already on the verge of disappearing. Of course, this will have a huge impact on the rest of the forest ecosystem.

One last thing: even referring to humans, the whole "global warming is good" thing pretty much applies only to humans living on the continents in the Northern Hemishpere, who just so happen to be mostly white. If you're in South America or Africa, or in the islands of the Phillipenes, Malaysia, Micronesia, whatever: you're fucked. But I doubt those people count much to the brainiacs at the CATO institue anyway.

[Ranger Genius]

It's more like a premeditated riot where people create things and THEN destroy them, rather than just destroy things that are already laying around. I guess we're similar to those people who set up monstrously complicated domino arrangements to break world records, in that respect.

Regarding the previous question:

we have recorded a three degree rise over the last 80years here in Montana.

Three degree...max temperature? Average temperature? mean temperature? max min temperature? min max temperature? It's easy to stand by a fact which is unverifiable and undefined.

Further, climates change. It happens. The atlantic goes in two overlapping 12-14 and 100-year climate change cycles, which affects temperatures all over (not to mention El Niño). I'm not denying that any of it is due to human activity, but it's a pretty complicated issue which has been over-simplified and over-stated by certain groups of scientists.

Just an interesting fact: In the parts of Utah not located right along the wasatch front (Such as Grantsville, UT, near where we hold Synorgy), the annual rainfall is less than that of the Playa, at around 5 inches, compared to 8 inches in the black rock desert.

Global warming killed tha Anasazi! and if you don't pay attention, it will kill you too! You don't have to resort to dodgy science to explain regional or global climate changes. Sure, we can show that it's happening, but we haven't seen so far that it's such a big deal.

[Rob the Wop]

Or maybe unbiased researchers not beholden to any industry were actually telling the truth?

I'm in the middle of this argument in terms of my stance. I believe that there is some global warming, but I have a feeling that some of the 'unbiased' research is not exactly that.

My contention is the 'unbiased' portion. An example would be religious anti-abortionist doctors versus 'next-day pill' medical manufactorers. The drug companies have all the money, but why do you think that not being beholden to an industry equates with being unbiased? Environmental scientists might start with a bias based on their profession. The statement is simply not logical, not industry based does not automattically equal unbiased.

Plus RG has posted cites. I haven't seen too many from the other side. Show'em if you got 'em. A simple 'there are too many examples to cite' is also a nonsense statement, as you could say that about anything ("Elvis is an alien. Proof? I don't need to as there is too much out there.") Find a nice straight forward article that underlines your assertions. Believe me, I'll read it- I like good readings.

In the meantime, here's a Website I found today that had me wondering. I knew there was a report about the ozone hole pointing to the possibility that the shrinking and growing was cyclic, rather than chemical based. Not being a chemical engineer, I can only view it in layman's terms and say "I still have no fucking clue. But maybe more info will paint me a better picture."

[Ranger Genius]

There you go with the af populum, ad hominem, and ad misericordiam again. It doesn't change the fact that the climate models are flawed, nor that the strongest statements of the IPCC report were added unilaterally by one man, or that members of the peer review panel for that same report doubt its value.

The pentagon's suggestions for combatting the problem were all military solutions, not ecological ones.

And dragging the anti-smoking thing in doesn't help your argument at all, especially since the anti-tobacco movement is STILL lying. (just in case you were wondering, according abstract of the World Health Organization's study on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, also known as Second-hand smoke), Childhood ETS exposure has absolutely no corrolation to adult Lung Cancer. Further, the EPA study on the same subject showed a 25% chance increase; remember that? Changes your chances from 1/100,000 to 1/80,000. If you put those to a nice round common denominator, you get 10/1,000,000 vs 12.5/1,000,000. Increased chance of 2.5/1,000,000? That's what we call NSS, or Not Statistically Significant. So if social activists are willing deliberately twist and distort the data here, "for the sake of the public interest," why should we believe they won't do the same thing on other issues (like GE foods? or Global Warming? Or species extinction?).

Don't couch your anti-globalist or anti-corporate views in environmentalism. They're perfectly valid points of view without tying them up in apocolyptic arguments about environmentalism. Just because you don't agree with the politics of someone doesn't mean you can dismiss their arguments out-of-hand. You're still not addressing the actual arguments.

[Ranger Genius]

Addendum:

Thank you, RtheW, it makes me feel great that I've managed to make someone think about the issue. That was all I set out to do. Some of the citations to which I've referred make more radical statements than I would, but my whole point has been that this is not a one-sided issue..there is plenty of room for reasonable debate about it when you manage to cut through all the emotional bullshit that seems to follow this (and other) subjects.

[samtzu]

Rob the Wop wrote:

In the meantime, here's a Website I found today that had me wondering.

Dunno', Rob... I get a little nervous about a group that has an article on their English Language Home Page titled "The Significant Health Benefits of Nuclear Radiation".

I'll take the glow sticks over that one...

Sam

[theCryptofishist]

Moore’s clients [8] - though the list has not been updated since 2000 - have included:

B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-92); Moore established the B.C. Carbon Project – ‘working to achieve a common understanding of the carbon budget and the implications of global climate change for B.C’ - which received a $C145,000 grant in May 1991. Moores involvement ended in 1994; on retainer to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to tour European countries to counter advocacy by environmental groups for a boycott of British Columbian forest products (1992-96); Westcoast Energy and BC Gas 1993-1994 “to design a public consultation process to address greenhouse gas emissions for the natural gas sector in B.C”; BHP Minerals to facilitate a round table on proposals to use the abandoned Island Copper mine as a landfill site (1993-94); Director and Vice-President, Environment and Government Affairs for Waterfurnace International 1995-1998 to “build awareness of the benefits of renewable earth energy technology”. According to his website, Moore remains a member of the Board of Directors. Consultant to the National Association of Forest Industries in Australia for a national tour defending the logging of native forests (1996); consultant to the Canadian Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada “on the role of biodiversity in environmental policy in the mining industry” (1996); consultant to BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd. to author a paper on the environmental impact of submarine tailings disposal over the 23-year life of the Island Copper Mine on Vancouver Island (1996); speaker for numerous timber industry associations including the American Forest and Paper Association, the Council of European Paper Industries, State Forestry Associations in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, Maine, and Florida, the National Hardwood Lumber Association (1998-1999); gave evidence in support of bio-technology before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and undertook at tour of Southeast Asia, hosted by the International Service for Assistance with Agri-Biotech Applications. “Led seminars in Bangkok and Jakarta on the benefits of biotechnology for farmers in developing countries”, Moore’s website states (2000); speaker for groups including the Filipino Society of Foresters and the Agri-Food Canada (2000); and consultant to the largest manufacturer of PVC in Canada, IPEX, to “intervene in the environmental policy of the Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid”. The environmental guidelines adopted for the Sydney Olympics recommended against the use of PVC wherever possible

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml? ... rick_Moore[/quote]

[theCryptofishist]

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/index.html

http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/moore.htm

[KellY]

Endangered birds in Hawaii:

http://www.forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=31433
"Deforestation was also a factor in bird declines. By 1890, 80 percent of all native forest had been logged. Even more ominously, global warming is pushing mosquito populations into the higher elevations, threatening native bird populations with avian malaria."

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/ind ... eport/2002
"With climate warming, both the mosquito and malarial parasite will fare better at upper elevations. The increase in range of the mosquito also will increase transmission of avian pox virus at upper elevations. This disease causes inflammation of toes, feet, ankles, and bills, with frequent loss of these parts, and it is potentially deadly. Hawaiian birds evolved in the absence of mosquito-transmitted diseases for 5 million years; their immune systems may not deal effectively with diseases that have suddenly appeared.
"The second stressor is habitat degradation that operates at upper elevations. Old-growth forests at upper elevations have been disturbed by cattle ranching for over 150 years. This has resulted in the replacement of much of the forest floor with introduced grasses that form a pasture. In addition, many trees were cleared to make room for expansive pasture. Strong winds during winter storms and hurricanes permeate the habitat with less interference by intermediate size trees. The result is that large trees with cavities are falling at a rate of approximately 2 percent per year. Tree growth is so slow that it is likely that cavity trees are falling faster than they can be replaced."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081840.htm
"Global warming and changing climatic conditions are triggering disease epidemics in wildlife around the world, reports a renowned team of ecologists and epidemiologists in the Friday June 21st issue of Science. The outbreaks are occurring in habitats ranging from coral reefs to rainforests. "

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/qrsumme ... mmer02.pdf
"In the Hawaiin Islands, mosquitoes are now spreading avian malaria into the last populations of honeycreepers, songbirds that evolved only in Hawaii. In the 1960's, mosquitoes were restricted to elevations below 2,500 feet, but warmer temperatures have allowed them to move higher up the mountainside. The honeycreepers are now only found in the highest forests; there are no longer any native birds below 4,500 feet.

You want more references? I'll get 'em.

By the way, I'm not an environmentalist because I have this anti-globalization agenda. I'm anti-capitalist/globalist because I care about the fate of the planet.

Also, I brought up the tobacco companies because they deliberately lied about the fact that smoking can kill you. All the arguments about the dangers of secondhand smoke you're trying to cloud the issue with (ahem) don't change that fact.

[Maia]

The remark about Ric having climbed and knowing the founder of a Chico brewery was an attempt to connect with you on a human level.

Your paranoid urbanite approached by a panhandler response was startling..

Or like the New Yorker approached by a lost tourist, who says, Excuse me sir, I am lost."
New Yorker/Kelly?, "Glad I ain't you!"

As a side note your complicated exchanges with Ranger Genius could be edited and a bit of humor tossed in, as they sit they are a sort of scientific navel lint picking... In fact most of the posters could use a class in humor as a vituperative weapon.. So many of the attempts at humor are a uniquely cyber/21st century/techno/wishingtobecounterculture/obscure,

'Course Rics,, cowboy redneck intellectual humor flies over the head of most here too...

[Ranger Genius]

Is it just me, or is "Cowboy Redneck Intellectual" an oxymoron? as I understand it, being a self-professed "redneck" is antithetical to intellectualism.

I guess that's the rally cry of failures everywhere: "They just didn't understand me."

[Rob the Wop]

As a side note your complicated exchanges with Ranger Genius could be edited and a bit of humor tossed in, as they sit they are a sort of scientific navel lint picking... In fact most of the posters could use a class in humor as a vituperative weapon.. So many of the attempts at humor are a uniquely cyber/21st century/techno/wishingtobecounterculture/obscure,

'Course Rics,, cowboy redneck intellectual humor flies over the head of most here too...

Sorry, I find your dialog neither intellectual nor humorous mostly. If you must add abusive and arrogant into the mix to top it off, by all means, have fun.

But if you really must have the confirmation you seek, <sigh>

"You are far more intelligent than I. You humor is so complex that it passes me by, like the poor retarded urban dweller that I am. You are now fully vindicated in your conceit. Please go away, you make my head hurt."

The good thing about being a 'redneck' is that you can always retreat into a rural cliche personae when a discussion is not going your way.

[theCryptofishist]

The remark about Ric having climbed and knowing the founder of a Chico brewery was an attempt to connect with you on a human level.

IT came across as a pointless boast about knowing a celebrity. As did the reference to John Krakaur. (Although I did have a few moments wondering if JK used his experiences with the Grinch as a lever to understand the young man in Into the Wild. So in the spirit of totally useless showing off of celebrity connections: 1) I met Hawking when he still talked with his own voice. 2) My father worked with Kaczinski before he killed anyone. How much moral authority does this give me?

















Absolutely none!

[Ranger Genius]

Kelly: Was that pun premeditated? If so, I believe it may have been a capital offense. Simply capital, old chap.

I agree that the loss of some native species is a shame, but it's hardly a catastrophe. It's also hardly irrefutable that it's all due to human activity. Ecological balances shift back and forth all the time. The atmosphere cools and warms, dominant species battle over territory, and some animals die. Someone mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that there have been (I believe) five massive species extinctions in biological history. We didn't kill them all. By asserting that humans have caused the current warming trends simply because the trends started to become evident after humans began industrial activities is like saying that serving coffee on an airplane causes turbulence. We call this the "Frogs with no legs are deaf" syndrome, though I can't pass up the opportunity to share my favorite informal fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or "After this, therefore because of this."

I don't understand how someone can be anti-globalist (read as: nationalist) out of environmental concern. Wouldn't globalized business and government be good for environmental concerns? As it is, businesses can move their operations to countries with lax environmental standards and operate much more cheaply. (I don't know if this still includes Mexico or not, my research is a little out of date.) The more we grow to depend on global business, the more power we will see begin to develop in global governments. Developments like the EU (and potentially, if it happens, the FTAA) are a huge step toward strong international enforcement of environmental laws. But in order to make them practicable, there must first be an incentive for countries to join such Trade Unions: global business. People in third-world countries (which, coincidentally, have the most lenient environmental laws) have to feed themselves. And corporations have to make money. It's what they do. They are driven by the only source of motivation that can be counted upon: Self-interest. Now, I don't believe in pure capitalism; there has to be a moderating force to make sure that competition is maintained, but socialism and other schools of thought depend on people to be more concerned about someone else's welfare than their own, and that's just naiive and stupid. If, however, we can establish a global economy and a global government with some teeth to go with it, we could really make a change where it is needed most: in the third world. That's where the deforestation is happening. That's the source of most of the egregious polluting, and that's where the people need the most help. Saying that we need to prevent business from spreading to these countries is just racist.

My point re: the tobacco "debate" is that both sides lied about the effects of tobacco smoke, and both sides had a strong bias. Simply because one side has (seemingly) little or nothing to gain, doesn't make them unbiased. The difference is, one of them is still lying. I saw the WHO report released by a local anti-tobacco advocacy group under the headline "Second-hand smoke does cause cancer, do not let them fool you." This was of course the study that found "no corrolation..." et cetera.

My post is a bit rambling, I know. Sorry if I missed anything, folks, or if I didn't make any sense. I keep having to alt+tab when people walk into my office.

[samtzu]

Sometimes these posts remind me of tribes of primates clinging to branches in trees, hurling excrement at each other. Maybe some are higher in the trees than others... maybe some have more complex howls... and maybe some have slimier excrement... but in the end it's still just a bunch of semi-articulate fur-bearers throwing shit at each other.

Sam

[Bob]

That's a brilliant approach for your First Time at Burning Man. Have fun tiptoeing around all the imaginary cages.

[Maia]

Ranger Genius? Having known a few Rangers, Park Service, BLM USFS, that is nearly an oxymoron..

"I guess that's the rally cry of failures everywhere: "They just didn't understand me."

This is your quote, can you define failure in regard to your usage?

Looking out our front window, we can see fifty miles, we grow our vegies, kill our meat, raise our children (happy little buggers), ride our horses, motorcycles, jeep, Thing, climb mountains ski down them. We know clear cool ponds to swim in, isolated warm pools to soak in, we follow the wild horses, pronghorn, deer, bighorn, lions, chukar, sage grouse, slickers pay us $300 a day to take them with us.. We read good books, friends visit us from all over the world, sometimes we slip off to Mexico to sail our boat.. Everyday is an adventure,, how is yours? Dragonfly Jade said she could not do what we do,, she can, you can. You will be dead one of these days, you look back and what have you done for your soul?

[Ranger Genius]

How about we limit that to failed standup comedians and nature writers?

Looking out our front window, we can see fifty miles, we grow our vegies, kill our meat, raise our children (happy little buggers), ride our horses, motorcycles, jeep, Thing, climb mountains ski down them. We know clear cool ponds to swim in, isolated warm pools to soak in, we follow the wild horses, pronghorn, deer, bighorn, lions, chukar, sage grouse, slickers pay us $300 a day to take them with us.. We read good books, friends visit us from all over the world, sometimes we slip off to Mexico to sail our boat.. Everyday is an adventure,, how is yours?

I don't know where you get this ridiculous idea that your lifestyle is the only one worth living. My wife and I lead an exciting, enjoyable, and fulfilling life. We enjoy the company of friends who don't have to travel far to see us, we go to the theater (for films and plays), and we sit at home with our cats and a gourmet meal. It's very chauvinistic of you to think that if you're not wasting your time tilling the earth or murdering wildlife, you're not really living. I respect the fact that you have carved out an existence which you enjoy, and a few of those things are also things I enjoy. However, I resent the repeated implication that those who lead lifestyles different from yours are soulless minions of orthodoxy. I enjoy my urban lifestyle. I like buying my food from a grocery store, or having a waiter bring it to my table, ready to eat. I enjoy going out and interacting with my fellow human beings, and have found sage brush a poor conversationalist. Someone who is truly content in their life would not be as compelled as you seem to be to shit upon the joys of others.

[stuart]

Developments like the EU (and potentially, if it happens, the FTAA) are a huge step toward strong international enforcement of environmental laws.

Actually, NAFTO and the WTO subvert sovereign nations abilities to enact environmental protection legislation. Canada has been dinged several times trying to enact protections. The state of Ma. was also dinged. They attempted a unilateral boycott of, dammit I can't remember the name of the country, bacause of HR abuses. The legislature decided the state would no longer do business with the nation. WTO stepped in on nations behalf and filed an unfair trade practices lawsuit. FTAA, as written, erodes environmental protections. It allows international business to point to a lowest common denominator, in terms of protective legislation, and demand that those rules be applied to all signatories to the trade agreement.

[blyslv]

Saturday morning, Ric has to wire up a new irrigation pump and install it. We need to make a run for hay. Then this afternoon a long mtn bike ride up into the hills to a secret meadow with a pool of clear water. And finally a barbecue this evening, ribs,,, cooked over red oak coals brought in from Santa Maria CA, early greens from the garden, homemade icecream. How is the city this fine morning? Tomorrow we have to help Jack move cows from one allotment to another (that must be the wannabe cowboy some slicker whined about many posts ago)

Would be good to take a laser level to the playa and check the divot, see if a measurable degree of difference to the surrounding playa can be found, and if so, what does it mean?

Without the city, you couldn't a quarter of the stuff you do. why bite the hand that feeds you?

[blyslv]

Aaaahh. My bad. I agree with you fully that Burningman is an Urban, not a wilderness, experience. The "beauty" of Burningman is not in the natural, but the unnatural. Just as Nature has scenes of unutterable beauty, Burningman has scenes of unimaginable creativity. I by no means am equating the two - if I had to chose between Nature or Burningman, I would without hesitation chose Nature. Fortunately, I do not have to chose - I can have both. For 1 week a year I do the un-Nature thing, because Burningman speaks to neglected corners of my soul. The rest of the year I rely on the Nature thing to sooth the soul. I do not see a conflict.

I think you will find many people that attend Burningman that understand Nature fine - they are just not fortunate enough to be able to immerse themselves in it as you are.

regards, Jafe

Why do you create this uneccesary dualism. Are you not an animal? You have instincts, you shit, you breath. Man is an animal and part of nature. Have you ever seen a termite mound? Talk about urban blight. But it is part of nature and therefore holy, whereas the Sears Tower is unclean because it was mad by man. Stop hating yourself and let the love in.

[theCryptofishist]

Without the city, you couldn't a quarter of the stuff you do. why bite the hand that feeds you?

My hypothesis, as stated over and over and over, and never much evidence to the contrary from the Grinch in any of his incarnations is: just a hand biter, incapable of getting along with his fellow human beings and making philosophical "virtue" out of nessessity--a sort of sour grapes world view.

[dragonfly Jafe]

Dragonfly Jade said she could not do what we do,, she can, you can. You will be dead one of these days, you look back and what have you done for your soul?

Actually It's Dragonfly Jafe (Jafe is my name, and Dragonfly refers to last year's mutant vehicle), and I's a He, not a she, although I sometimes wear a dress in BRC so the confusion is understandable.

I could do what you do, and someday likely will (and until then I will envy you). I agree it would be more spiritually fulfilling than being a corporate shill (and less stressful). But I have reasons (totally selfish) for doing what I do. Everyday I re-evaluate my situation. At some point the pluses will no longer balance the minuses, and I will move on.

Are you suggesting that everyone should move from the Urban setting to the Wilderness setting? What would happen to the Wilderness if they did? And if this is not what you are suggesting, then what are you suggesting?

regards, Jafe

[dragonfly Jafe]

[quote="blyslv
Why do you create this uneccesary dualism. Are you not an animal? You have instincts, you shit, you breath. Man is an animal and part of nature. Have you ever seen a termite mound? Talk about urban blight. But it is part of nature and therefore holy, whereas the Sears Tower is unclean because it was mad by man. Stop hating yourself and let the love in.[/quote]

Do you wear clothes? Live in a house? Drink water from a well? Use electricity in any form? Use the internet?

These are all unnatural things. Stop hating yourself and let the love in. And, oh yeah - stop using the evil internet, it is not natural, and will surely corrupt your otherwise pristine soul....

regards from Urbania, Jafe