Original Sin and the Clovis People

Originally posted by e4chris
regarding the findhorn ecovillage, to be honest i dispair when i see things like that, its quaint, they have 4 wind turbines, how green, i bet they can't power there washing machine, let alone the central heating. they love wind turbines in scotland. I thought of an invention after seeing that, the eco-hat, a hat with a wind turbine on it, that charges your laptop or ipod, you could wear it riding a bike.

You bet they can't power their washing machine, or their central heating? In other words, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. A modest bit of research on your part would have revealed that Findhorn's wind turbines make them net exporters of electricity to the grid. But I guess it's easier to just toss out uninformed opinions than do any actual research.

Originally posted by rwingett
You bet they can't power their washing machine, or their central heating? In other words, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. A modest bit of research on your part would have revealed that Findhorn's wind turbines make them net exporters of electricity to the grid. But I guess it's easier to just toss out uninformed opinions than do any actual research.

OK maybe they are big enough to power a washing machine, sorry. I like the idea of having homes that generate there own power and its catching on. Its just sometimes the green movement can seem a bit bourgeois. before the french revelotion some of the aristocrats took to living in little country villages, like a mock peasant existance. You do meet 'green' people like that.

re reaserch, did you here about Donald Trumps argument over wind turbines being built near his new scottish hotel? I'm guessing you wouldn't agree...

Originally posted by e4chris
OK maybe they are big enough to power a washing machine, sorry. I like the idea of having homes that generate there own power and its catching on. Its just sometimes the green movement can seem a bit bourgeois. before the french revelotion some of the aristocrats took to living in little country villages, like a mock peasant existance. You do meet 'green' pe ...[text shortened]... er wind turbines being built near his new scottish hotel? I'm guessing you wouldn't agree...

Findhorn is the real deal. If mankind is to save itself it will be through initiatives like it.

As for Donald Trump, does anyone care what he has to say about anything?

Originally posted by rwingett
Findhorn is the real deal. If mankind is to save itself it will be through initiatives like it.

As for Donald Trump, does anyone care what he has to say about anything?

Only if you want to kill of 9 out of every 10 people so that we can all live in your
little self sustaining communities.

There is not even close to enough space to do it with present population levels.

Cites are far far far more efficient and thus green.

Your utopian ideal is not possible, let alone practical.


EDIT: I do agree about trump though.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Only if you want to kill of 9 out of every 10 people so that we can all live in your
little self sustaining communities.

There is not even close to enough space to do it with present population levels.

Cites are far far far more efficient and thus green.

Your utopian ideal is not possible, let alone practical.


EDIT: I do agree about trump though.

I think the danger of places like Findhorn is the notion we have to go backwards, get closer to nature to preserve the environment, we need the opposite, to be as hi tec as possible. That includes solar pannels and turbines but we need more.

Originally posted by e4chris
I think the danger of places like Findhorn is the notion we have to go backwards, get closer to nature to preserve the environment, we need the opposite, to be as hi tec as possible. That includes solar pannels and turbines but we need more.

We need nuclear power.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Only if you want to kill of 9 out of every 10 people so that we can all live in your
little self sustaining communities.

There is not even close to enough space to do it with present population levels.

Cites are far far far more efficient and thus green.

Your utopian ideal is not possible, let alone practical.


EDIT: I do agree about trump though.

The lessons of Findhorn can be applied to cities to make them more sustainable and less ecologically damaging. It's not an either/or proposition.

Originally posted by rwingett
The lessons of Findhorn can be applied to cities to make them more sustainable and less ecologically damaging. It's not an either/or proposition.

I don't disagree... However you do often propose that we should all live in nice little sustainable communities and that would be a better more desirable future.

Something I find unsupportable and unappealing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't disagree... However you do often propose that we should all live in nice little sustainable communities and that would be a better more desirable future.

Something I find unsupportable and unappealing.

Nice little sustainable communities are the vanguard for the future. By bringing the best of ecological thinking and green technology under one roof they can demonstrate its viability (a la Findhorn). Those lessons and practices can then be circulated back out to the "real world", with the nice little sustainable communities acting as consultants in their broader application.

Originally posted by rwingett
Nice little sustainable communities are the vanguard for the future. By bringing the best of ecological thinking and green technology under one roof they can demonstrate its viability (a la Findhorn). Those lessons and practices can then be circulated back out to the "real world", with the nice little sustainable communities acting as consultants in their broader application.

Except that they don't bring "the best ecological thinking and green technology" under one roof.

I mean sure if we were colonising the "Long Earth" then maybe your little communities would be the way to go.

But in reality we have a very limited amount of space on the earth and we need to maximise the amount left
for sustaining it's various ecosystems and minimise the amount used for housing industry and farming.

That means high density housing and industry, economies of scale, industrialised farming, skyscrapers,
high efficiency transport and data networks, genetics... Cities.

And the technologies for making green high efficiency cities isn't being developed in little tree hugging self
sustaining developments.

As nice as they might be to live in, and as good as they are for those people who do need to live in the
countryside and not in the cities (farmers for one) they are not and never will be the answer.

What we need are green city projects, technologies designed for mass habitation, that are green and
nice to live in. And to develop those you need a bigger setting than a little community.
And to power them you need nuclear reactors next door not wind turbines 50~100 miles away.

We need all these technologies, but the most important ones are the ones that make the majority green
not the minority.

And the majority do, and must, live in cities.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Except that they don't bring "the best ecological thinking and green technology" under one roof.

I mean sure if we were colonising the "Long Earth" then maybe your little communities would be the way to go.

But in reality we have a very limited amount of space on the earth and we need to maximise the amount left
for sustaining it's various ecosys ...[text shortened]... the majority green
not the minority.

And the majority do, and must, live in cities.

Well, good luck with that.

Originally posted by e4chris
I think the danger of places like Findhorn is the notion we have to go backwards, get closer to nature to preserve the environment, we need the opposite, to be as hi tec as possible. That includes solar pannels and turbines but we need more.

As long as you continue with the same failed approach, no amount of technology is going to save you.

Originally posted by rwingett
As long as you continue with the same failed approach, no amount of technology is going to save you.

what do you mean?

Originally posted by e4chris
what do you mean?

A consumerist culture with an economy based on the concept of permanent growth. Unless we change those things, no amount of technology is going to help you. Any system which clings to the unmitigated disaster of big, industrial agriculture is likewise doomed to failure. Half of what googlefudge advocates is specifically what put us into the predicament we currently find ourselves in. Doing even more of those particular things is only going to make things worse.

What is needed is not necessarily new technology (although that helps), but different ways of organizing and managing our societies. New technologies within the same failed framework isn't going to make things any better. People like googlefudge and twhitehead (being the good technocrats they are) can only conceptualize approaches which fit within the top heavy, capital intensive, hierarchical, corporate framework. They are all doomed to failure.

Originally posted by rwingett
A consumerist culture with an economy based on the concept of permanent growth. Unless we change those things, no amount of technology is going to help you. Any system which clings to the unmitigated disaster of big, industrial agriculture is likewise doomed to failure. Half of what googlefudge advocates is specifically what put us into the predicament we c op heavy, capital intensive, hierarchical, corporate framework. They are all doomed to failure.

This is where Rwingett likes to miss-characterise mine, and others, positions because our actual
positions aren't easily assailable and so he likes to create strawmen to back up his own deeply
flawed world view.

I rail against the idiotic idea of permanent growth, and don't advocate for consumerist culture.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about my position and and deal with what I actually
say/believe and not what your fetid imagination thinks I believe.

I have told you this enough times.