Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Sea turtle- Bows with frogs made of sea turtle coming from China?


GMM22
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:


Originally posted by:
bean_fidhleir
Capitalism as

practiced is based on the belief that the world is both an

inexaustible garden and an uncloggable sewer.

Nah, Capitalism as practiced is based on the belief (of the CEO,

etc) that they will die before the garden runs out and the sewer

backs up. OR:

Capitalism as practiced is based on the belief that someone else

will fix the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF
quote:


Originally posted by:
miles

. Take the US for example, it is no doubt in such a capitalism country, and from I gathered, the social status is more or less based upon ones earning power or the size of ones bank account. If my perception is correct, then let's see just how many well-established intellectuals have the ability to commanded higher earning power than so-called stars? Let alone these "unknown" intellectuals. How many violins does Sam Z. have to make in order to match Kidman's Chanel commercial or Zeta-Jones's T-mobile commercial? We are not even talking about their earnings from movies they participate(d).

]

If Miles is trying to imply, by example, that Americans are stupid he has provided some very bad examples. Nicole Kidman is Australian, and Chanel is a French company. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Welsh and T-Mobile is a German company. The only American is Sam Z.

I guess that anyone that we want to ridicule becomes American by default.

Social status is a composite measure even here in American society. Some people who carry enormous earning power may carry very little in terms of prestige. Some folks even believe that movie stars are no better than say, hookers, in terms of prestige.

Nevertheless, it is often culturally justified in a capitalistic society that those who eat better cuts of beef (say filet mignone) have every right to ridicule those who eat chopped steak (or even worse, pork and beans, macaroni and cheese dinner, etc...).

If Americans are stupid in that regard, then so are others.

ym

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I just emailed Yita music and asked them about the sea turtle products.

They emailed back saying that the turtle is home raised for commercial purposes.

I also read that China has recently increased the sea turtle preserve along Chinas coast. It's currently the only area sea turtles lay eggs in China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

">http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/w..._sea_turtles.html

They have been farmed in Cayman islands since the 60's. China has farming as well but I'm sure the conditions are even worse than the Caymans.

It sounds like a funky deal. The turtles are over crowded and get diseases and parasites which could spread to the wild turtles when some are released.

They die slow because their metabolism is so slow when the shell are split off the turtle. Some farms throw them in boiling water while alive to get the shell off. Farmed or not I don't think I would want the shell products. One other fact is they take protected egg from the wild preseve areas to start and maintain the farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
ymkim

Social status is a composite measure even here in American society. Some people who carry enormous earning power may carry very little in terms of prestige. Some folks even believe that movie stars are no better than say, hookers, in terms of prestige.

Nevertheless, it is often culturally justified in a capitalistic society that those who eat better cuts of beef (say filet mignone) have every right to ridicule those who eat chopped steak (or even worse, pork and beans, macaroni and cheese dinner, etc...).

If Americans are stupid in that regard, then so are others.

ym


In Chinese culture, social status is quite expicit. Living in the US, I have heard for almost two decades, social status has much more to do with money and power.

"Some folks even believe that movie stars are no better than say, hookers, in terms of prestige."

I would not go that far to say that. But let's face it: When the so-called mega-star speaks, how many people listen? In Chicago, you can often hear people say that when Oprah touches something, that something will turn into gold. That statement is quite true even though one can find people with disagreement. Why does an entertainer have so much power if not prestige? I personally found/find it has little to no merits nor intelligence. This is my personal view, and anyone is welcome to enlighten me with substantial facts.

And yes, I totally agree with you that "If Americans are stupid in that regard, then so are others." Absolutely! Intelligence is not a monoply. Neither is stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
miles

quote:


Originally posted by:
ymkim

Social status is a composite measure even here in American society. Some people who carry enormous earning power may carry very little in terms of prestige. Some folks even believe that movie stars are no better than say, hookers, in terms of prestige.

Nevertheless, it is often culturally justified in a capitalistic society that those who eat better cuts of beef (say filet mignone) have every right to ridicule those who eat chopped steak (or even worse, pork and beans, macaroni and cheese dinner, etc...).

If Americans are stupid in that regard, then so are others.

ym


In Chinese culture, social status is quite expicit. Living in the US, I have heard for almost two decades, social status has much more to do with money and power.

"Some folks even believe that movie stars are no better than say, hookers, in terms of prestige."

I would not go that far to say that. But let's face it: When the so-called mega-star speaks, how many people listen? In Chicago, you can often hear people say that when Oprah touches something, that something will turn into gold. That statement is quite true even though one can find people with disagreement. Why does an entertainer have so much power if not prestige? I personally found/find it has little to no merits nor intelligence. This is my personal view, and anyone is welcome to enlighten me with substantial facts.

And yes, I totally agree with you that "If Americans are stupid in that regard, then so are others." Absolutely! Intelligence is not a monoply. Neither is stupidity.

miles,

I agree. Entertainers are often "idolized" by the mass. But it doesn't induce deferene entitlements. What they have is notoriety, not prestige. No wonder they are often called celebrities, something that come and go, transient...

Isn't that a part of Chinese culture that intellectuals are intentionally trying to dissociate themselves from money matters? After all, as Max Weber once said, money power is vulgar.

ym

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
ymkim

I agree. Entertainers are often "idolized" by the mass. But it doesn't induce deferene entitlements. What they have is notoriety, not prestige. No wonder they are often called celebrities, something that come and go, transient...


Well, I am willing to agree with/accept your explanation. But how does one rationalize "I want to be Mike [Michael Jordan]?" My understanding is Britney Spears was also a role model for a lot of girls. It will be very difficult to defend such phenomenon...

quote:


Originally posted by:
ymkim

Isn't that a part of Chinese culture that intellectuals are intentionally trying to dissociate themselves from money matters? After all, as Max Weber once said, money power is vulgar.


That is not the whole story if you are familiar with Th Analects, which governs, by and large, Chinese philosophy of life. Confucius does not condemn, as far as I remember, money and/or power itself, but the means and circumstances one acquires wealth and power. More importantly, how does one utilize wealth and power [with the implication that the intellectuals bear higher social responsibilities and should uphold higher moral standars of themselves].

Higher social status comes with greater social responsibilities.

However, people may misunderstand/misinterpret, misuse unintentionally or intentionally deploy benign ideology as pretex for manipulation/control. For instance, liberty in French revolution, and most likely democracy in the invasion of Iraq. History has not concluded our time; therefore, I stand to be corrected for my view on the war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
bean_fidhleir

FinProf, Miles can speak for herself of course, but my impression was that she was criticising capitalism wherever it's located, and the US only because it is the "apex (capitalist) predator".

Capitalism as practiced is based on the belief that the world is both an inexaustible garden and an uncloggable sewer. As Paul Hawken among others has illuminated, capitalism refuses to account for all its costs. The costs expressed as pollution are ignored, but pollution cleanup is considered a positive value, which is crazy!

But Earth tallies up the costs accurately even if the accountants don't, and she's made it increasingly obvious that she's going to get rid of us completely unless we get our act together SOON. Yet we show every sign of
still
not listening. We have intelligent, mentally healthy professionals like yourself, with kids and grandkids who will bear the brunt of Earth's displeasure, still apparently not tuned in.

Paul Ehrlich remarked in an interview that every scientist he knows is "scared sh****ss" right now, and it's not hard to see why.


Ah, even I cannot summarize my posts better than yours, bean_fidhleir! Thank you very much, indeed!

Allan,

As always, your insight commends plauding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by: bean_fidhleir

Capitalism as practiced is based on the belief that the world is both an inexaustible garden and an uncloggable sewer. As Paul Hawken among others has illuminated, capitalism refuses to account for all its costs. The costs expressed as pollution are ignored, but pollution cleanup is considered a positive value, which is crazy! q]

Thank you for clearing up the confusion on the original post. As Miles indicates, the intent was to criticize capitalism generally rather than the US specifically. We live in a very global economy and a very global environment that has eliminated many of the sharp distinctions in economics and/or culture that might have been present at one time. As Tom Friedman indicates, the world has become flat.

There is still some confusion, however, in the quote from Paul Hawken. It is not capitalism, per se, that refuses to account for all of its costs but rather the standard system of national income accounting practiced by capitalist and socialist countries alike. GDP is calculated using exactly the same metrics in the US and Russia and China and Sweden and India and Venezuela. The means of calculating GDP does not imply that leaders in any of these countries completely ignore pollution effects in decision making, since the President, or dictator, or Prime Minister or House of Commons, or whatever is not charged solely with maximizing GDP.

Furthermore it would be difficult to develop any clear relationship between pollution levels and the form of governance or ownership of production. It would be intereststing to find such a study. Anecdotally it is easy to find socialist dictatorships that are very polluting and that are very "green" and democratic capitalist countries that are very polluting and that are very "green".

Prohibition of importation of sea turtle shell and of ivory is shared by capitalist and socialist countries. I believe that the US and most of the European countries have banned importation of these items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

Prohibition of importation of sea turtle shell and of ivory is shared by capitalist and socialist countries. I believe that the US and most of the European countries have banned importation of these items.


FINPROF,

Agreed, but the point is still missing. Putting species on the protection list is only a band-aid, not a solution. I wonder whether you checked out the links bean_fidhleir and I put up in this thread.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...0,2628678,print.story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared.../html/environment.stm

Furthermore, these prohibitions taken by any government might be doing more harm than good; it in a way exonerates the corporates and politicians from bearing due responsibilities by diverting attention to over-killing, which is less devil in this regard.

Over-killing can be corrected when humans stop, but how about environemntal issues, which alter the chemical properties of the waters and climate? Bombs don't just kill lives; they also kill the environment most suitable for human dwelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
rutherford

But alas overkilling cannot always be corrected when we stop. Our dear cod was overfished and the niche left empty by declining cod stocks became filled by all sorts of creatures that in took over that niche, shouldering remaining cod out. There are not always more fish in the sea..


"But alas overkilling cannot always be corrected when we stop."

Yes, if the situation is beyond correction and no humans take any interest in that species. However, if humans are interested enough, the cod will be "rescued" in an artificial way, such as what the Japanese has done with blue-fin tuna or other animals by humanity/scientific groups. I am not familiar with lives outside humans', but I don't recall that cod is on the endangered species list, is it? If it is not, only one small ruined habitat is unlikely to cause a stir given it a larger scope.

Regardless, overkilling is unlike to cause drastic change in chemical properties of environment, such as industrial wastes and bombs. In your given example, if the "all sorts of creatures took over that niche [of the disappeared cod]" becomes overwhelming, new balance will again formed. It is also hard to say whether the good old cod will once again appear if the environment is suitable/optimal for its survival or other better fit species will emerge. But the little old cod niche will not be turned into a "primeval soup" like what was described in the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...,0,2628678,print.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric,

The source you cited is from wsj. Who has more interest in corporate profits than those wall street guys?

And yes, I'd say Ehrilich's predictions are scarily accurate even though he was not a prophet nor a psychic:

For their part Paul Ehrlich and Steven Schneider offered a series of 15 items "pertaining to material human welfare" they were willing to bet would worsen over the next decade. Simon declined to accept the wager. The criteria included:

* The three years 2002-2004 will on average be warmer than 1992-1994. (Rapid climate change associated with global warming could pose a major threat of increasing droughts and floods.

* There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994. (Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas driving global warming).

* There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994. (Nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas that is increasing due to human disruption of the nitrogen cycle).

* The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994. (Trophospheric ozone is a component of smog that has important deleterious effects on human health and crop production).

* Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994. (Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere becomes sulfuric acid, the principal component of acid rain, and it is associated with direct damage to human health, forests, and crops.)

* There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004 than in 1994. (Much of Earth's best farmland is paved over, but even if it weren't, population will reduce per-capita acreage).

* There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004 than 1994. (Erosion virtually everywhere far exceeds rates of soil generation).

* There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per person in 2002-2004 than in 1992-1994. (Rice and wheat are the two most important crops consumed by people).

* In developing nations there will be less firewood available per person in 2004 than in 1994. (More than a billion people today depend on fuelwood to meet their energy needs).

* The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994. (Those forests are the repositories of some of humanity's most precious living resources, including the basis for many modern pharmaceuticals worldwide).

* The oceanic fisheries harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994. (Overfishing, ocean pollution, and coastal wetlands will continue to take their toll.)

* There will be fewer plant and animal species still extant in 2004 than in 1994. (Other organisms are the working parts of humanity's life-support systems).

* More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than in 1994 (as the disease takes its toll of already infected individuals, continues to spread in Africa, and takes off in Asia).

* Between 1994 and 2004, sperm counts of human males will continue to decline and reproductive disorders will continue to increase. (Over the past fifty years, sperm counts worldwide may have declined by as much as 40 percent. Paul and Steve bet this trend will continue due to the widespread use and environmental persistence of hormone-disrupting synthetic organic chemical compounds).

* The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994. (10)

The items offered by Ehrlich and Schneider dramatically highlight the different approach between them and Simon. The first five items, for example, don't even pretend to measure human welfare. Simon wants to bet on things like human life expectancy, while Ehrlich and Schneider respond that they want to bet on the composition of the atmosphere.

Some of their suggestion are even odder. The proposed bet on income inequality, for example, seems strange. Income inequality between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10% will be much higher on Jan. 1, 2000 than it was on Jan. 1, 1900, yet by every measure the bottom 10% is much better off today than 100 years ago. Ehrlich and Schneider apparently believe this improvement is not as important as achieving more equal income distribution.

Similarly the claim that sperm counts have declined worldwide is specious and relies on data that is highly controversial. Recent studies claiming that sperm rates in the United States had declined were found to be flawed because they were comparing different geographical regions and, for reasons still unknown, sperm counts vary by region (contrary to what one would expect if Ehrlich's fear of chemicals were accurate, sperm counts are actually higher in urban areas than in rural areas in the United States).

Simon illustrated the difference with an analogy involving the Olympics,

Let me characterize their [Ehrlich and Schneider's] offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure. (11)

Simon said he was willing to bet on the items in Ehrlich and Schneider's proposal that directly measures human welfare -- such as the per capita rice and wheat crops -- but that Ehrlich and Schneider insisted on betting on all fifteen propositions as a package deal. (12)

Source:

http://www.overpopulation.com/...ple/julian_simon.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by: miles

[

Agreed, but the point is still missing. Putting species on the protection list is only a band-aid, not a solution. I wonder whether you checked out the links bean_fidhleir and I put up in this thread. q}

After reading both articles I must be still missing the point because I still fail to see any linkage between capitalism and the environmental problems discussed in either article. The LA Times article is pretty explicit about the problems caused by over-fishing and by fertilizer runoff into the oceans. However, the fishing industry and the agricultural industry are Karl Marx's idea of economic justice, where the workers own the factors of production. Fishing is primarily done by an individual who owns a single boat and works on that boat hauling in the nets. Likewise farming is primarily done by someone who owns a piece of land and works that land every day. Both the fisherman and the farmer are in a very dangerous business that is not highly profitable, so it isn't too surprising that they are more concerned about survival than their contribution to fertilizer runoff or overfishing. But blaming their actions on capitalism, or greedy CEOs is entirely incorrect. In their business the worker and the owner are the same - Karl Marx's dream come true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

After reading both articles I must be still missing the point because I still fail to see any linkage between capitalism and the environmental problems discussed in either article. The LA Times article is pretty explicit about the problems caused by over-fishing and by fertilizer runoff into the oceans. However, the fishing industry and the agricultural industry are Karl Marx's idea of economic justice, where the workers own the factors of production. Fishing is primarily done by an individual who owns a single boat and works on that boat hauling in the nets. Likewise farming is primarily done by someone who owns a piece of land and works that land every day. Both the fisherman and the farmer are in a very dangerous business that is not highly profitable, so it isn't too surprising that they are more concerned about survival than their contribution to fertilizer runoff or overfishing. But blaming their actions on capitalism, or greedy CEOs is entirely incorrect. In their business the worker and the owner are the same - Karl Marx's dream come true.


"But blaming their actions on capitalism, or greedy CEOs is entirely incorrect. In their business the worker and the owner are the same - Karl Marx's dream come true."

Karl Marx's dream come true? This is truly shocking. I hope only I was missing your point somewhere.

I'd suggest that you re-read the LA Times article regarding the change in chemical properties change in the sea(shore), and think about how the changed was induced. Capitalism might not be directly linked to the root cause SEEMINGLY...

Here's an article from Timesonline. The title gives it away how big corporates and politicans might work together when money is at stake...

Illicit artefacts sold as eBay turns blind eye

Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent

# 3,500 items for sale in two months

# Sellers claim to have obeyed the law

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a...e/0,,2-2510018,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
mamawelder

They emailed back saying that the turtle is home raised for commercial purposes.


Going back briefly to the original topic, it doesn't matter whether the turtles are farm-raised or not (although I doubt they are). Unless the facility is registered as a legal CITES captive-breeding facility, it's illegal to import the products into the U.S. For example, the well-known turtle farm in the Cayman Islands tried and failed to be recognized as a CITES captive-breeding facility; consequently, it's illegal for them to sell turtle products internationally.

eBay also has an official policy against sea turtle products, although clearly they don't police individual listings: http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/wildlife.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Erika

quote:


Originally posted by:
mamawelder

They emailed back saying that the turtle is home raised for commercial purposes.


Going back briefly to the original topic, it doesn't matter whether the turtles are farm-raised or not (although I doubt they are). Unless the facility is registered as a legal CITES captive-breeding facility, it's illegal to import the products into the U.S. For example, the well-known turtle farm in the Cayman Islands tried and failed to be recognized as a CITES captive-breeding facility; consequently, it's illegal for them to sell turtle products internationally.

eBay also has an official policy against sea turtle products, although clearly they don't police individual listings:

Hi Erika,

Excellent posting!

Didn't ebay make enough money to hire someone to enforce these policies? I have reported a few listing violations to ebay, but nothing seems to be happening, especially against those "PowerSellers."

ym

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

There is still some confusion, however, in the quote from Paul Hawken. It is not capitalism, per se, that refuses to account for all of its costs but rather the standard system of national income accounting practiced by capitalist and socialist countries alike. GDP is calculated using exactly the same metrics in the US and Russia and China and Sweden and India and Venezuela. The means of calculating GDP does not imply that leaders in any of these countries completely ignore pollution effects in decision making, since the President, or dictator, or Prime Minister or House of Commons, or whatever is not charged solely with maximizing GDP.

aww, FinProf, there are no socialist countries. They're all based on capitalism, and all controlled by a small group of people. China simply has state capitalism, just as the USSR did: nominally owned by the public, but in fact controlled completely by bureaucrats with at most nominal accountability to the public. Credit unions and other co-ops are socialist in their organisation, but as long as the basis of the economy is capitalism, one doesn't have socialism, merely the odd socialist company which is quite different.

quote:


Furthermore it would be difficult to develop any clear relationship between pollution levels and the form of governance or ownership of production. It would be intereststing to find such a study. Anecdotally it is easy to find socialist dictatorships that are very polluting and that are very "green" and democratic capitalist countries that are very polluting and that are very "green".

I don't think it's that difficult, but mainly because as pointed out above, there are no socialist economies. But if you take a look at socialist companies in the US (or Mondragón in Spain), I think you'll find that in general they're more frugal and less polluting. Not necessarily much less, since they cater to customers who grew up not thinking about the degree of waste inherent in capitalism, but less. Or that's been my experience anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
eric1514

quote:


... Paul Ehrlich remarked in an interview that every

scientist he knows is "scared sh****ss" right now, and it's not

hard to see why. Happy New Year (I hope) to all!

Did anything Paul Ehrlich predict ever come true?

<a href=

"
">

</a>

Eric

It did come true. It's just that it's only now manifesting itself in a way visible to everyone. Before it was only visible to those actively looking for it, like Ehrlich Now it's becoming plain to every fool, but it's not a process that started yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
FINPROF

However, the fishing industry and the agricultural industry are Karl Marx's idea of economic justice, where the workers own the factors of production. Fishing is primarily done by an individual who owns a single boat and works on that boat hauling in the nets. Likewise farming is primarily done by someone who owns a piece of land and works that land every day. Both the fisherman and the farmer are in a very dangerous business that is not highly profitable, so it isn't too surprising that they are more concerned about survival than their contribution to fertilizer runoff or overfishing. But blaming their actions on capitalism, or greedy CEOs is entirely incorrect. In their business the worker and the owner are the same - Karl Marx's dream come true.

Oh c'mon FinProf...I know you can't believe that. The connection to capitalism is in the way capitalists structure society to minimise their costs (by socialising them) and maximise their profit. The fisherfolk that remain (most have sold up or been driven out by corporate fishery operators) have few options: they can fish for themselves alone, the way non-capitalist fisherfolk do, but then they have nothing to sell and therefore no way to pay their bills. Capitalism sees to it that people have few choices. Farmers are in even worse straits. As I hope you know, they're an endangered species: farming even more than fishery has been turned into a non-family business. It's agribusiness that's singlecropping and then having to overfertilise because the soil gets depleted (not unlike what happens in trad slash-and-burn agriculture, except in that form the plots are small and the multicropping restoration takes place during reclamation after the s&b farmer moves to a new plot). Trad farmers multicrop because it's cheaper in the long run even though it's skilled-labor intensive, just as trad fishers used to use hand nets that didn't destroy the seabed ecosystems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Evidence of Liquid Methane on Saturn's Moon

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01...3200&pagewanted=print

If the evidence is valid, I wonder whether there is life on Mars system. If there is, then is it new or is the rebounded new equilibrium after the mass destruction done by big bang or species equivalent to Homo sapiens on Earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I've got to chime in here with Bean.  FINPROF, you

must have read the abbreviated or else heavily edited

Marx...because this would more accurately mirror many of the

conditions that he predicted would bring about the very demise of

Capitalism.  

It should be noted, historically, that perhaps the one thing that

"saved" capitalism to continue to exist was the very socialistic

New Deal...and FDR knew that.  He was vehemently opposed to

socialism (a pity) but knew that something had to be done to

stabilize the inherently unsustainable market based system and all

of it's vagaries.  So he "gave" a little, and managed to

largely defuse the Socialists, Populists, and Wobblies, who were

gaining significant momentum.

The fifty years since then has been the effort of the Capitalist

class to manufacture consent...to aspire to legitimacy.  And

the marketing has been largely successful, as you see the publics

willingness to dismantle the New Deal and once again put "faith" in

the "Market"; a being or force that we are extolled to be as

children before, and sing our paens to.

The fact is that we live in an unsustainable system.  And if

we as a species survive long enough, we will be judged (mainly

business) by our grandchildren, for imposing a form of

inter-generational tyranny upon them via the legacy we leave.

 Those we now style as "captains of industry" will be regarded

as criminals.  

To steal mightily from the words of Ray Anderson, it's like the

earliest attempts at flight.  (As a pilot, I'm rather fond of

this metaphor).  You see the contraption, with the people

inside...the arms are flapping, the legs pump the pedals as it

plummets off the cliff.  We know, looking now, that it's

doomed.  Why?  It's not built according to any natural

laws of flight.

We're like that contraption, and the mountain we have hurdled off

of is the vast yet finite bounty of the earth's resources.  It

feels exhilarating, like we're flying.  But we're not, because

our craft, our society, is not built according to any natural laws

for sustaining a civilization or a planet.  But there are some

of us who have looked out and have seen the ground rushing up at us

ever faster.  The more they give warning, the more the

"captains of industry" who pilot this doomed craft work to drown

out those voices.  But the inevitability of that ground

awaits...

The best case is the ultimate crashing of this unsustainable

economic model, with horrible consequences, but hopefully only

economic.

The worst case?  The death of birth...

Extinction.

By the way, I still feel that the killing of sea turtles to make an

attractive little luxury is morally reprehensible, and no shaky

equivocations (i.e. turtles = trees) or weak moral relativism can

make THAT scale balance out for me.

And if it's not illegal, it darn well should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...