Towards a Holistic Lifestyle

[swanny]

Towards A Holistic Lifestyle

It seems with each passing day, we are beginning to hear more and more about how the planet can no longer tolerate or process, what seems to amount to our abuse or ignorance of it. Our desires for instant gratification and addictive natures seem to have accumulated to the point where, if we do not become conscious of and change some of these destructive patterns and now, the consequences to the future will be compounded and dire. It is interesting to realize that hey, we puny human beings as a whole, can have an impact on this planet, which when thought about is quite extraordinary given its vastness and scope. Yet wouldn't it be more logical and better to have an impact that is perhaps beneficial, constructive, and advantageous rather than negative or destructive.
What though, could be considered in a nutshell, to be our most destructive behavior pattern? It is difficult to say and to nail it down to one predominant behavior. I think the effects are cumulative and habitual and the problem lies in the area of "behaviors" or lifestyles. I suspect then that it is the "consumptive" lifestyles that have allowed the problem to propagate and fester. They say for instance, that there are now more cars in North America than people. An indication that something is rather skewed. It would seem then that this consumptive lifestyle is somewhat inconsistent, problematic, and incompatible with the planets design constraints or at least the design constraints of the existing and current "biosphere."
Now over time perhaps, the planet could possibly "evolve" to accommodate this human error but evolution does not happen overnight or not usually and I think humanity has to kick a little cash and effort and contribute something to the equation. How? What can be done? What can we do?
Well in my own opinion and estimation, I think part of the answer perhaps lies in making and adopting a more conscious, committed and holistic lifestyle and thusly living in a more holistic manner or what could be called, adopting a more holistic outlook to life rather that the consumptive one. What would a more holistic lifestyle or outlook involve or be? Being holistic perhaps is about thinking logically but also living a little more out of ones own box and on a global scale or sense and being conscious and aware of how ones behaviors, actions and even thoughts effect, affect and impact the well being and health of the planet as a whole. And it means not simply paying lip service to such but actually doing, living and embodying it. It means accommodating and following the process and path through to its natural, logical and cumulative outcome and outputs, in the that way things work on this Earth, which to my understanding, is in a sense, in a whole systems and cyclic manner.
Is this the answer then? Ah alas if only life were so simple but If we can at least begin and do this and perhaps a little more and then if we can pass this knowledge and wisdom on to the future generations then humanity could stand a better chance of being more than just a minor blip on the universe's timetable.

A.G.J. / swanny
2004 Earth (c)

[broken_keyboard]

What a load of worthless fluff.

[swanny]

What a load of worthless fluff.

Why thankyou Mr Keyboard

sir

[swanny]

Sorry I don't mean to always be political....
But everything seems to come out that way
I think the concern has gone beyond mere politics...
into everyday life
Anywho....
Are there any "happy campers" out there
and heres a good reference link

Link = http://www.niaes.affrc.go.jp/annual/r2000/html/lp2.html
sir

[swanny]

Re: Towards a Holistic Lifestyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another excellant Reference Link
Link = www.nyas.org/programs/har...unting.asp

[Mr. Anderson]

I like to think of it as a lack of racial foresight (human race in general). No one today really thinks much on what their great grandchildren will inherit - mostly the worse for wear.

There is no solution right now and in the end, the knee-jerk reaction will most likely lead to conflict of some sort when resources start getting scarce and impact everyone's daily routine.

Once that period of transition is complete and things settle down we might se a change for the better in the human relationship towards the earth, but by then will it have been too late? Who knows...

Too much thinking early on a Saturday....

D

[wdlove]

"20/20" did an interview with Michael Crichton last evening. He's the creator of "ER" and many famous films. He discussed DNA and cloning with "Jurassic Park" prior to it becoming well known. A brilliant man that worked he way through Harvard Medical School writing his thrillers.

Now he is taking on global warming in his latest novel, "State of Fear." He is skeptical about of all the fear and imminence of global warming. His is bringing out the fact that not all scientists agree that there is a problem or that humans are responsible.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1

[Mr. Anderson]

Global warming is just one of many issues...even if it never comes about over population and natural resource availability will be an even greater concern.

When a large population starts worrying about where their next meal is going to come from, the poop is going to hit the fan. And this might not even happen in our lifetimes, but most likely for our descendants at some point. The thing is, right now we can do things to make it easier for everybody, but we basically choose not to.

D

[jayscheuerle]

What's enough? I'm sure that some hut-dweller would look at the device you created this thread on as one more unrecycleable chunk in a land-fill and be more than happy to give you hell about it if he was the least bit self-righteous.

About the best we can do is to try to do a little bit better ourselves and pass the reasons why we're doing that onto our children.

One man's unrecycleable chunk is another man's lifesaving MRI machine. We all make our own calls..

[broken_keyboard]

"20/20" did an interview with Michael Crichton last evening. He's the creator of "ER" and many famous films. He discussed DNA and cloning with "Jurassic Park" prior to it becoming well known. A brilliant man that worked he way through Harvard Medical School writing his thrillers.

Now he is taking on global warming in his latest novel, "State of Fear." He is skeptical about of all the fear and imminence of global warming. His is bringing out the fact that not all scientists agree that there is a problem or that humans are responsible.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1

The Earth has cooled down and warmed up many times before humans came along. It is natural. Depending on where we are in the galaxy, there is more or less radiation. To think we have enough impact to change the temperature of the whole planet is just silly.

[jayscheuerle]

The Earth has cooled down and warmed up many times before humans came along. It is natural. Depending on where we are in the galaxy, there is more or less radiation. To think we have enough impact to change the temperature of the whole planet is just silly.

To wait until it's too late to know if we're affecting the earth in adverse ways before we try to be less destructive is arrogant folly.

Do you KNOW we're not affecting the climate? Of course not, but what is the proper side to err on?

It's already a known fact that our overfishing of the North Atlantic salmon has depleted the main food source for some species of sharks. To make up for the loss of the salmon, these sharks are now attacking some species of seals, driving them to the brink of extinction.

We know not what we do, yet we do things anyways. Press onward. Explore.

We're a reckless lot and will make things much worse before they get better..

[Mr. Anderson]

To think we have enough impact to change the temperature of the whole planet is just silly.

That's too simplistic a point of view, though. Sure, over geologic time there have been many occasions where there were no ice caps on either pole - but just because that's the case it doesn't mean humans can't affect the planet.

What has been shown is that the change in temperature over the past century has climbed faster than anything discovered in the paleoclimate. Why? It might be a number of reasons, but to say man has absolutely nothing to do with it would be a mistake. Its a balanced system, in most cases...and we really don't know what or how much upsets the balance. But if you look at the quantities of greenhouse gasses being generated annually its pretty scary - it has to go somewhere...

D

[swanny]

Actually balance is part of the problem
According James Lovelock the founder of the Gaia
theory the fact that there is even any life on Earth is
due to its atmosphere being an unbalanced system. It would be simple if
it were balanced like it is on Mars and Vensus according
to his research with Nasa. The reason there is no life on these planets
though is that the balance of atmospheric elements is in equilibrium.
Now I know they say there may well be life on Mars due to
the detection of Methane there (whether organic or mineral)
but it is by far not as complex as Earths biosphere. The fact seems to be
that what we have here on Earth
is a large, complex and dynamic balance if it could be called that
which throws many more variables into the mix.
Can we as mere humans effect something
that complex yet somewhat stable? Well I agree with an earlier post it would
be better to err on the side of caution. The planet itself is
not at any risk. It could probably redevelop some forms
of life in another million years or so. Humans though and most
mammals are somewhat in jeopoardy by wanton disregard
of cause, reason, and effect of global actions. And true it is difficult to say in
terms of time scales what really is causing this current global warming
but the Inuit of Northern Canada who may have inhabited the area
for some 5 to 10 thousand years don't even have words
for some of the animals that are now making their way
northward because of warming. Also even their ancient legends
have not told of the thunder storms that are now occurring
in their area. But global warming and such is not really the
issue. The issue I suppose is living within our environmental
means, considerations and budget. As one professor put it "we are slowly
beginning to grasp the idea that the Earth if a finite resource
or piece of real estate."

[frescies]

Actually balance is part of the problem
According James Lovelock the founder of the Gaia
theory the fact that there is even any life on Earth is
due to its atmosphere being an unbalanced system. It would be simple if
it were balanced like it is on Mars and Vensus according
to his research with Nasa. The reason there is no life on these planets
though is that the balance of atmospheric elements is in equilibrium.
Now I know they say there may well be life on Mars due to
the detection of Methane there (whether organic or mineral)
but it is by far not as complex as Earths biosphere. The fact seems to be
that what we have here on Earth
is a large, complex and dynamic balance if it could be called that
which throws many more variables into the mix.
Can we as mere humans effect something
that complex yet somewhat stable? Well I agree with an earlier post it would
be better to err on the side of caution. The planet itself is
not at any risk. It could probably redevelop some forms
of life in another million years or so. Humans though and most
mammals are somewhat in jeopoardy by wanton disregard
of cause, reason, and effect of global actions. And true it is difficult to say in
terms of time scales what really is causing this current global warming
but the Inuit of Northern Canada who may have inhabited the area
for some 5 to 10 thousand years don't even have words
for some of the animals that are now making their way
northward because of warming. Also even their ancient legends
have not told of the thunder storms that are now occurring
in their area. But global warming and such is not really the
issue. The issue I suppose is living within our environmental
means, considerations and budget. As one professor put it "we are slowly
beginning to grasp the idea that the Earth if a finite resource
or piece of real estate."


Hah... Gaia...

Yeah... I'm gonna throw chemistry, physics, biology, and every other empirical source of reason out the window for that one.

[palusami]

About the best we can do is to try to do a little bit better ourselves and pass the reasons why we're doing that onto our children.



exactly. can't turn into cane from kung fu overnight but you try to do as much good as you can and pass it onto the little ones who can hopefully build and grow from it.

[pseudobrit]

The Earth has cooled down and warmed up many times before humans came along. It is natural.

True. And it's believed that living organisms' byproducts were responsible for global environmental changes. And we're seeing that again. Nature has a way of violently correcting for its mistakes. The idea is that we don't want to become the mistake that needs violently fixed.

Depending on where we are in the galaxy, there is more or less radiation.

BS and totally irrelevant. The Solar System doesn't fluctuate enough for this to be an issue. We don't "move" unless you're dealing with time measures in epochs.

To think we have enough impact to change the temperature of the whole planet is just silly.

Really? The lead in the air during Roman and leaded gasoline eras says we can change the environment quite noticably.

What's silly is thinking we shouldn't worry about creating an environment that is poisoned with our excess because nature will absorb anything thrown at it. It won't; we are the architects of our own demise.

[broken_keyboard]

BS and totally irrelevant. The Solar System doesn't fluctuate enough for this to be an issue. We don't "move" unless you're dealing with time measures in epochs.

I'm refering to Shaviv and Veizer's paper in the July 03 GSA.

"We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages
through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term "equilibrium" warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models."

Everything is controversial in this field, but this hypothesis is as good as any.

CO2 is not the only theory. And these environmentalists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off asking people to close down factories they have spent their whole lives building up. It's evil and wrong.

Edit: web link http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsatoday2003.htm

[swanny]

Well listen up pilgrams
were trying to run a clean thread here
Iffen you wantin to play those axes
in the kitchen
you'll have to take your business to
the wasteland saloon down younder way

yo..... didn't ya hear mez boys
get them wagons in a square
the borg will be here shortly

John W.

[swanny]

I'm refering to Shaviv and Veizer's paper in the July 03 GSA.

"We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages
through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term "equilibrium" warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models."

Everything is controversial in this field, but this hypothesis is as good as any.

CO2 is not the only theory. And these environmentalists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off asking people to close down factories they have spent their whole lives building up. It's evil and wrong.

Edit: web link http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsatoday2003.htm

Actually I think humanity has to admit defeat on this one
Its seem to complex to solve by mere logic alone
Even the best super computers in the world can still only forecast
the weather with a 50/50 accuracy....
We going to have to "smell" our way out of this one.....

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm refering to Shaviv and Veizer's paper in the July 03 GSA.

"We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages
through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term "equilibrium" warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models."

Everything is controversial in this field, but this hypothesis is as good as any.

CO2 is not the only theory. And these environmentalists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off asking people to close down factories they have spent their whole lives building up. It's evil and wrong.

Edit: web link http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsatoday2003.htm

Its a very interesting article - and I could see some relevance, but one thing you need to realize is that there has been no recorded cosmic event currently going on that can be attributed to what we're seeing now.

www.spaceweather.com :D

Also, in the article, they're talking about geologic time scales - not 1 century but millions of years here. Temperature has risen significantly in recent history and extremely more so in the poles. There is a correlation to human activity and global temperature - its not about tree huggers running around yelling "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

What's your background, by the way. Are you a geologist or in a like field? Do you know something we all don't or are you basing your opinion on what you've read or chosen to accept?

This isn't a personal attack, I'm in disagreement with you, and that's fine. Accept that others have different opinions and play nice. Chance are we'll all be dead before any of this ever really comes to a head anyway...

D

[swanny]

I think Mr. A understanding is valid because the rate of change
is to rapid to be a galactic or even perhaps a solar system event.
Whether it is presumptuous to consider ourselves the cause is not
outside the limits of science in that it is a relative and semi-
reasonable hypothesis. It may not just be CO2 levels but a cumulative
effects of industrialized and nuclear and possibly electomagnetic
energies. I myself postulated that the current specturm energy we
are emitting into the atmosphere by broadcast methods rather than
point to point transmissions might have a microscopic excitation
effect on the atmosphere air particles.....bizarre perhaps but ...?? well....
All this cumulative energetic human activity has to go some where.....
and some scientists have likened it to doing and "uncontrolled"
experiment on ourselves. As far as statistic go if I recall correctly it is said as well that the three high or highest global mean temperature increases on record have occurred within the last twenty or so years. Now don't quote me
on that but it was not normal to say the least. The most reliable evidence
though that we have is coming from earth monitioring space satellites
which we don't have much of a history on as yet true but they indicate
that we are having some sort of effect on the planet. Whether warm or
cold or good or bad isn't clear and isn't quite the point as much as that
if and yes it is a big if, shouldn't we at least try to understand it a little
better. New fields are immerging despite the critics like industrial ecology
and earth systems science which hopefully will help to give us some
reasoned answers. I afraid the chicken littles are right in part at least
that maybe the sky isn't falling but humanity has arrived.

[asphalt-proof]

Actually balance is part of the problem
According James Lovelock the founder of the Gaia
theory the fact that there is even any life on Earth is
due to its atmosphere being an unbalanced system. It would be simple if
it were balanced like it is on Mars and Vensus according
to his research with Nasa. The reason there is no life on these planets
though is that the balance of atmospheric elements is in equilibrium.
Now I know they say there may well be life on Mars due to
the detection of Methane there (whether organic or mineral)
but it is by far not as complex as Earths biosphere. The fact seems to be
that what we have here on Earth
is a large, complex and dynamic balance if it could be called that
which throws many more variables into the mix.
Can we as mere humans effect something
that complex yet somewhat stable? Well I agree with an earlier post it would
be better to err on the side of caution. The planet itself is
not at any risk. It could probably redevelop some forms
of life in another million years or so. Humans though and most
mammals are somewhat in jeopoardy by wanton disregard
of cause, reason, and effect of global actions. And true it is difficult to say in
terms of time scales what really is causing this current global warming
but the Inuit of Northern Canada who may have inhabited the area
for some 5 to 10 thousand years don't even have words
for some of the animals that are now making their way
northward because of warming. Also even their ancient legends
have not told of the thunder storms that are now occurring
in their area. But global warming and such is not really the
issue. The issue I suppose is living within our environmental
means, considerations and budget. As one professor put it "we are slowly
beginning to grasp the idea that the Earth if a finite resource
or piece of real estate."

I recently read Bill Bryson's book "A short history of nearly everything." A great read by the way. Anyway, one of the underlying messages I got from the book was that we can't kill the planet... just ourselves. At that point does it really mattter which entity dies? We lose either way. I think that its pure hubris to think that our industrial actions have no affect on our health. It probably is hubris to think that we can kill a planet. But I defer to those in the environmental sciences. The argument on both sides has merit and its good that we are even having that argument. It shows that people are concerned.
Industrial and other human activity may not be killing our planet, but it does kill us. Ask anyone who lived in LA during the 80's or in Denver, or in the Research Triangle in NC. A more personal example is when I used to live in Provo, Utah. This college town sits in a valley surrounded by mtns. ranges. During the winertime you have an affect called the inversion. One winter I got so sick I was coughing up black stuff. I could'tt breathe. When I went to the drs. he said that black stuff was from all the pollution in the air that the inversion kept at gound level. It was like smoking for 10 years at a pack a day. That stuff did some major damage to my lungs. Probably took some years off my life.
I think that environmentalist are focusing on the wrong victim. Peolpe have a hard time imagining a planet dying. But we all know someone who has died from cigarette smoking ot other ill-living causes.

[broken_keyboard]

What's your background, by the way. Are you a geologist or in a like field? Do you know something we all don't or are you basing your opinion on what you've read or chosen to accept?


I'm not a Geologist, but I actually regard this as more of an epistemological issue. How do we know when an hypothesis is true or false? What is evidence and what isn't? How much evidence is enough? Is it rational to act on the unproven or not?

My answer is that it is not rational to act on the unproven, and we definitely shouldn't be closing down people's livelihoods on that basis.

[skunk]

What would you regard as proof?

[pseudobrit]

I'm not a Geologist, but I actually regard this as more of an epistemological issue. How do we know when an hypothesis is true or false? What is evidence and what isn't? How much evidence is enough? Is it rational to act on the unproven or not?

My answer is that it is not rational to act on the unproven, and we definitely shouldn't be closing down people's livelihoods on that basis.

You're talking about warming trends seen over half a million years, and what we're seeing is warming trends over half a century.

You know, the folks at the DDT factory, the asbestos mines and the lead additive plants lost their jobs too. I suppose you consider that as "evil and wrong" too?

[pseudobrit]

What would you regard as proof?

It doesn't matter; it'll be too late by then.

[skunk]

Yeah, but at least we'll know...

[Mr. Anderson]

My answer is that it is not rational to act on the unproven, and we definitely shouldn't be closing down people's livelihoods on that basis.

This is the second mention of closing down you've mentioned, maybe you've had first hand dealings with this. But you don't really need to close down a factory because its adding to the global warming or polluting. There are ways to clean things up and make more efficient the manufacturing/processes, etc. that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses.

I worked for the Byrd Polar Research Center (they're in the news often regarding global climate change, btw) and NASA doing work with ice sheet change over recent history. I've been on a NASA expedition to the Greenland to do an annual survey of the ice sheet. So I don't base my understanding of these things by what I might see on the Discovery Channel. I've been there first hand. And conditions have change dramatically in the 10 years since I was there. Lonnie Thompson was recently interviewed for National Geographic on his work with paleoclimate and ice cores. So much is melting so fast, they have samples from just a few years ago that were taken from ice that no longer exists.

Its a big problem and there's not an easy solution - but to just discount the whole thing as an act of nature and something we can't do anything about is negligent behavior as far as I'm concerned.

D

[asphalt-proof]

I'm not a Geologist, but I actually regard this as more of an epistemological issue. How do we know when an hypothesis is true or false? What is evidence and what isn't? How much evidence is enough? Is it rational to act on the unproven or not?

My answer is that it is not rational to act on the unproven, and we definitely shouldn't be closing down people's livelihoods on that basis.

Change is an inevitable part of life and the business world. Many more people have lost their job to corporate incompetence and greed, or just market forces. Anyway, there are many ways to clean up old coal burners, car emissions, etc that may cost some jobs but won't eliminate a whole industry like the introduction of the car did.
Shifting the argument to a broader discussion of "Truth" is not very helpful either. We can't become stymied into inaction when we are faced with these kinds of challenges. Pragmatically speaking its important to take information from credible sources, compare that information with observation and research, replicate, and determine what theory best fits the evidence. Its seems to me that that evidence supports the idea that we are not living in a healthy environment.
By the way, we do this all the time without really knowing the "truth". Buy a car, a computer, forming a relationship with a significant other, etc.

[asphalt-proof]

This is the second mention of closing down you've mentioned, maybe you've had first hand dealings with this. But you don't really need to close down a factory because its adding to the global warming or polluting. There are ways to clean things up and make more efficient the manufacturing/processes, etc. that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses.

I worked for the Byrd Polar Research Center (they're in the news often regarding global climate change, btw) and NASA doing work with ice sheet change over recent history. I've been on a NASA expedition to the Greenland to do an annual survey of the ice sheet. So I don't base my understanding of these things by what I might see on the Discovery Channel. I've been there first hand. And conditions have change dramatically in the 10 years since I was there. Lonnie Thompson was recently interviewed for National Geographic on his work with paleoclimate and ice cores. So much is melting so fast, they have samples from just a few years ago that were taken from ice that no longer exists.

Its a big problem and there's not an easy solution - but to just discount the whole thing as an act of nature and something we can't do anything about is negligent behavior as far as I'm concerned.

D

Your job sounds much cooler than mine! :)
What is it you now?

[Mr. Anderson]

Your job sounds much cooler than mine! :)
What is it you now?

I worked there when I was in school - I was developing a 3D animation program that would incorporate remote sensing data (satellite imagery) and take time series images and make movies out of them. Even with the limited data back then you could see trends in ice sheet dynamics, it was quite interesting.

Now I'm a freelance multi-media artist, 3D illustration and Animation. I do a lot of hi-tech visualization mostly, concepts of prototypes, etc. Not as much fun as being in the field, but its interesting and satisfies my need for technologically cutting edge weird science...:D

D

[zimv20]

Your job sounds much cooler than mine! :)

but not as cool as it once was...

[Mr. Anderson]

but not as cool as it once was...

that I have to agree with. Although for my previous company I got to do a lot of travel to Alaska and Alberta for field experiments, so that wasn't too bad.

One thing I sometimes wonder about is whether I should have taken the 3 month trip to Antarctica or not. I passed on going since it would have delayed my graduation by a year and I felt as though having just come back from Greenland that summer it would have been fun, but not something I could justify - especially since I wasn't going any further with the remote sensing or geophysics at that point.

D

[zimv20]

i think my joke was too subtle. by "too cool," i was making a sly association w/ the global warming trend.

[Mr. Anderson]

i think my joke was too subtle. by "too cool," i was making a sly association w/ the global warming trend.

ha, didn't get that :D

But Alaska was cold, especially in January one year I was there.....;)

D