Beats me. Snorg

No one's interested in saving the world? Does that mean no one's aware of what's going on? Surely there must be someone out there who has a clue?

How do we save the Headwater redwood grove for starters? (Does anybody know of any recent developments with that?) And, for the larger picture, how can we stop the ongoing devastation of the earth by clearcutting? A recent visit to the Northwest coastal forests revealed a situation beyond the worst imaginings. Defenders of the natural ecology have been chaining themselves to big trees, even spiking them to kick back chainsaws in loggers' faces. What's the answer?

The biggest solution to deforestation is the production of industrial grade hemp. What one also needs to remember about the US forest service is that it is part of the department of agriculture, so that needs to be fixed also. Demographical balance? You mean like One World Race, One World Government, One World Religion? I have to disagree. That would do the same to people and ideas that commercial farming has done to plant differentiation. Gotta run for now, peace, love, and sunshine.

Demographical balance means stabilizing the population of the world so that it doesn't consume and destroy the natural environment which gave birth to it -- and which still sustains it. Balancing the birth/death ratio (otherwise known as ZPG) would at least give the planet a fighting chance. Rather than encouraging world homogeneity, it would encourage cultural diversity and the preservation of native cultures, by lessening the rate of their absorption into a multinational economy of endlessly explosive growth. Industrial-grade hemp to take the load off the forests is a good idea, but one not likely to be realized for years to come, as the silly debate about legalizing cannabis goes on and on. The last of the virgin forests, meanwhile, are falling.

Dismissing an idea because it would take years to achieve is defeatist. ZPG, or better yet, negative population growth will also not be realized in the immediate future because of religion. However, much like decriminalizing industrial-grade hemp, it is worthy of educating yourself and others about. On the topic, are you familiar with the Church of Euthanasia? Sounds like even if you disagree, you might get a kick out of their materials. They are on the web, but their address is lost in my head at the moment. WER

You're mostly right about ZPG�being stymied by religion, but it's worthy of note that the Dalai Lama of Tibet -- our preeminent Buddhist -- has come out in strong support of planetary birth control. In light of Tibet's shrinking population and the forced abortions and sterilizations imposed on Tibetans by the Chinese, one would imagine it would be even harder for the Dalai Lama to throw his weight behind that. But he has -- short of abortion encouragement. Church of Euthanasia is a relevant topic. Buddhists, who believe in infinite future reincarnations, are down on any form of suicide, including by consent (a la Kevorkian), out of concern for messing up one's karma.

What's so great about old-growth forests? How many of them is enough? Does anyone really know that ZPG is necessary? How can you know what technology will be developed in the future? How can you know what population that technology will enable the earth to support?

Good questions. The interesting thing about ecosystems like old-growth forests and rainforests is that they are so rich in diversity. A friend of mine is a biologist at the California Academy of Sciences, and he says that biologists estimate that there are literally millions of unclassified species of plants and animals. Since they're not classified, we have no idea what their role in the biosphere might be, or what beneficial uses they might eventually offer. Since we don't know, there's considerable risk in eliminating them before we find out. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, which suggests that, first, we do no harm. Paul Ehrlich, who wrote *Population Bomb* in the late '60s or so, was a persuasive apologist for ZPG back then. Since then we've added a couple of billion people and watched the planetary ecosystem deteriorate, losing a couple of species a day to extinction, experiencing global warming, hitting the wall on the green revolution, having trouble finding enough drinking water, etc. In order to enjoy the technological benefits that may be developed in the future, it's necessary that we *have* a future; and at the rate we're going, that's actually in question.

Certainly, one approach is to "think globally and act locally." Doing so is necessary and makes a big difference. But in many cases, the greatest damage is being done on global scales through the use of industrial pollutants and industrial-level practic es. This includes our American love affair with (and addiction to) the internal combustion engine, China's ramping up to a coal-powered industrial economy, Brazil's wholesaling of the rainforest and the general political climate that forces most underdev loped countries to rely on subsistence farming practices that result in huge losses of arable land. We cannot reach most of the people who would "act locally" outside of the U.S. and the wealthy developed world. And if we could, they would think us typical arrogant Americans to try and deny them access to what little wealth they could gain in the short term at the expense of their immediate environment. So, we should look at making a huge difference here at home, first, because our lifestyle uses far more resources per capita than do those of Chinese or Brazilian or Ethiopian peasant farmers. I know first-hand the huge gap between what I consumed on the Farm and what I consume now. There is a happy medium level at which I could survive very well here. But how many Americans are willing to reduce their standards of living voluntarily? Not very many, I'll bet. Maybe if we use the media we have access to as a microphone to educate and illustrate, we can begin to get the point across that if we don't change what we have the power to change in our own backyards, those changes will be made for our children in the f uture in a much more brutal manner. Maybe we can use this medium to show how, in just over a century of industrialization, we have changed the course of Nature to a dangerous one for our children and grandchildren.

When I was listening to Helen Caldicott on the radio last week, she said Australia had done a lot of work on photovoltaics, and that the economic factors had changed in the last few years, to the point where photovoltaics were feasible. She said she'd talked to some people at Los Alamos National Labs about using photovoltaics in the desert. She didn't say whether they'd thought it was a good idea. But that's the kind of technological assistance that we could offer to the developing world--of course, you're right that we'd need to adopt it ourselves first. But if we could have China skip the coal-fired and nuclear power plants and go directly to photovoltaics to power their rising standard of living, we could mitigate the negative impact of that many people increasing their demands for goodies. I used to think Al Gore would work in that direction. I'm not so sure any more. I know he understands the science behind energy and population and viability; but I think he figures the politics are against it.

Let's hope ol' Al was just waiting for a second term. (Of course, then, he won't want to ruin his chances to be president. Damn.) Whoever can get China to go along with a sane development plan will be one hell of a diplomat. Orville Schell, a China expert, seems completely pessimistic about the future there as new industry is creating pollution already on a monumental scale. And p ower generation is just a small part of it. The Yellow River and the Yangtse are on fast tracks to being ruined. Capitalist fever has struck bigtime and nobody wants to follow the Gradual School. This is a case of the U.S. getting what it always wanted diplomatically and now realizing how you have to be careful what you wish for. Where have you gone, Confucius and Bodhidharma?

China and India represent, what, 2 billion out of 6 billion people. And each of these people has a yearly income of a couple hundred dollars. I don't know the exact figures. It's about a third of the worlds population and a tiny fraction of the worlds gnp and goods. If you take these massive numbers and add in expectations of a better life, like the one Clif has in Mill Valley or I have in Austin, then these coal plants have to rev up to provide electricity for all the tvs, computers, telephones, answering machines, refridgerators, microwaves, hair dryers, and other goods that have now become basic necessities. The answer is clearly in low voltage appliances (12 V), solar power, and wireless. China and India don't need massive power and telephone grids, they need cellphones and notebooks with wireless packet. And they need household appliances that use direct current powered by rooftop solar panels. This would make much more sense than coal plants everywhere (though boyce, being a nuclear expert, might recommend another alternative). I hope Gore win will in 2000 and come out of the closet. I hope that the "closet", in this case, is a man who cares about the environment as the book he wrote (assisted by Albert Bates) tends to indicate. But I also know that getting elected is the name of the game now and for the next four years he's going to be issuing sound bytes that turn into percentage points in the polls.

What's so great about old-growth forests? What's so great about old people? What's so great about highly evolved species? Or pure water? Or clean air? What's so great about high consciousness or clear light? Some things allow for more life and love, and some things allow for less. "First do no harm." I read occasional pieces in the NYTimes about such things as the prison camps in North Korea and the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre of elephant families in Zaire (? one of those elephant countries in Africa) and wonder if we don't do collective harm as a species by simply existing. China will do nothing to ameliorate the effects of its conversion to fossil-fuel self-indulgence. There's no more recalcitrant a great power on the planet. Our only hope for future environmental preservation is to set so shining an example of how to co-exist wisely and compassionately with the rest of the world that it will be charmed -- yes, charmed and allured and�inexplicably compelled -- into joining us. I think Gore has the capacity to do that, but our capacity to endure the prevailing cynicism of another four years of Clinton is hard to imagine. Gore has had to backtrack so hard from his visionary environmental politics of the late 80s and early 90s in order to co-exist to Clinton that one wonders if he could ever reach up high enough to get it back. I was moved by his story of his sister's death from cancer, but I was also repelled by his political exhibitionism, and his willingness to do or say anythi g to sway the crowd. I'm voting for Ralph Nader and adding another iota of legitimacy to the Green Party.

> The interesting thing about ecosystems like old-growth forests and rainforests > is that they are so rich in diversity. A friend of mine is a biologist at the > California Academy of Sciences, and he says that biologists estimate that > there are literally millions of unclassified species of plants and animals. > Since they're not classified, we have no idea what their role in the biosphere > might be, or what beneficial uses they might eventually offer. I doubt you'll find any biologist who believes that any unclassified species plays a crucial role in the functionality of the biosphere as a whole. As to what uses we may find in the future for these species, you're absolutely right, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating them. But like everything else, you have to weight the potential costs against the potential benefits, otherwise we'd all have to stay in our houses for fear of stepping on the last belgian sand flea. > Since we don't know, there's considerable risk in eliminating them before we > find out. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, which suggests that, first, > we do no harm. Impossible. You can't live your life without doing harm to some other creature and impacting in some way some part of the biosphere. You eat, you breathe, you drink, all of these actions change the planet irreversibly, and make life harder for some species and more difficult for others; there's no way around it. That's why the question of RISK is so important, of each action we take we must ascertain the potential benefits, costs and the probabilities of the potential outcomes, and make an informed dec sion based on this information. > In order to enjoy the technological benefits that may be developed in the > future, it's necessary that we *have* a future; and at the rate we're going, > that's actually in question. Technological benefits will not only be enjoyed in the future, they will ENABLE the future of humans on earth. There's no way the earth, even in its most pristine past could have supported 6 billion hunter/gatherers for a year. Technology (primarily agriculture) has enabled this population growth. Future technology may make the earth capable of sustaining even larger populations. > When I was listening to Helen Caldicott on the radio last week, > she said Australia had done a lot of work on photovoltaics, > and that the economic factors had changed in the last few > years, to the point where photovoltaics were feasible. She said > she'd talked to some people at Los Alamos National Labs about > using photovoltaics in the desert. She didn't say whether > they'd thought it was a good idea. I'm consistently surprised that people who advocate environmentally safe power continue to suggest photovoltaics as an alternative. The fact is, no existing technology even comes close to nuclear power in terms of low environmental impact. They're small and clean. Even with 100% conversion rate, the photovoltaic plant necessary to replace a nuclear power plant would be enormous (tens of square miles). The environmental impact of keeping that large a surface area of the earth from ever again seeing the light of day is unknown, but it would certainly involve wholesale changes in the local biosphere. The plant necessary to build the photovoltaics would be considerably smaller, but the chemical processes therein aren't what you'd call clean, involving large volumes of caustic chemicals and toxic solvents. > What's so great about old-growth forests? What's so great about old people? > What's so great about highly evolved species? Or pure water? Or clean air? > What's so great about high consciousness or clear light? Old forests? I don't know, they're fun to hike through, if they're public land. But as far as substantive benefit to the biosphere goes, new growth might be better... Old people? They're fun to have around, they have all that wisdom and stuff. Plus there's their ability to enter into a social contract, and for that they get protected status, as all sentient beings do, at least in this country. Highly evolved species? In a word: sentience. Pure water? Doesn't exist in appreciable quantities, never has. Clean air? Sentient beings seem to like to breathe it, as do their pets. High consciousness? How high is high? Clear light? What the hell is clear light? > "First do no harm." I read occasional pieces in the NYTimes about such things > as the prison camps in North Korea and the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre > of elephant families in Zaire (? one of those elephant countries in Africa > and wonder if we don't do collective harm as a species by simply existing. Bingo, but I'm disenchanted with the alternative... > I'm voting for Ralph Nader and adding another iota of legitimacy to the Green > Party. I think you'll find a world run by Luddites to be dirtier and more violent than you expected.

Extropian, are you boyce2? Or just a very vocal technocrat? It was hard to tell from your responses and dis-(or just mis-)information. What is your ideal carrying capacity for the earth? How about the maximum sustainable population of humanity? At what point do negative returns start because humanity is too large a percentage of the biomass. There is a finite mass to the earth, therefore a finite amount of building materials for more biomass. Anyway, I gotta run for now, WER

Terry said something about you being a nuclear engineer, boyce2? Do you count the fossil fuels used in mining, transporting, refining, transporting, disposing (oops, we don't really have a place to dispose of the stuff yet) of the nuclear fuel in your calculation that it's the cleanest power source in sight? Tens of square miles isn't such a big deal when you look at the Mojave.

I may have misrepresented boyces calling, he's an ME grad student with a strong focus in nuclear energy. Photovoltaics appeal is the fact that it eliminates the onerous grid of wires that run all over our landscape and localizes energy at the household level. I would be curious about boyces response to the disposal issue.

> Do you count the fossil fuels used in mining, transporting, refining, > transporting, disposing (oops, we don't really have a place to dispose > of the stuff yet) of the nuclear fuel in your calculation that it's the > cleanest power source in sight? In a word: Yes. Pick any other source, and you'll find it has similar associated costs. In general these costs are going to run higher because of the comparatively higher volume of machinery (in the case of wind and solar power) or fuel (in the case of coal, oil and natural gas). The only things that're even close in terms of cleanliness are geothermal and hydroelectric power, both of which are intrinsically limited by location and the amount of power that can be generated over time. The key feature of nuclear power as a low contributor to extraneous pollution (that coming from points in the fuel cycle other than the use stage) is the energy density of nuclear fuel. There is as much retrievable energy in a thimbleful of nuclear fuel as in a couple railroad cars full of coal. Hence mining costs, transportation costs, and refining costs are all proportionately smaller, as is fossil fuel use in each of these processes. > Tens of square miles isn't such a big deal when you look at the Mojave. That's true, unless you're an engineer looking to build what would be the largest engineered system ever designed, or an environmentalist looking to stop the devastation of tens of thousands of acres of pristine desert ecosystem, then it starts looking very big indeed. Oh, and another thing, those tens of square miles could replace ONE nuclear power plant, so you'd need 500 times that to service the electrical needs of the entire US. > Photovoltaics appeal is the fact that it eliminates the onerous grid of > wires that run all over our landscape and localizes energy at the household > level. I agree, the most promising use of photovoltaics, and solar power in general, is in the small capacity end use situation, the home. Industrial power almost certainly has to come from a more concentrated source than solar power, which at the distance of earth's orbit, is woefully diffuse. However, I doubt that we'll ever be free of the grid, it enables dependable electricity from disparate sources: energy security. You don't want to lose your hot water because it's overcast in the dead of winter. > I would be curious about boyces response to the disposal issue. Waste disposal? Sure, I can tell you anything you want to know about it. I submit that Yucca mountain, on the Nevada test site, is the ideal place for civilian high level radioactive waste. The surrounding desert is already so crapped up from decades of subterranean nuclear weapons testing that a couple million extra curies in a highly engineered repository is the pollution equivalent of peeing in Boston harbor. The issue at this point is purely political. Get this, the same Nevada legislators that don't want a waste repository, in the past have gotten bent out of shape at lans to curtail bomb testing on the same soil. Clinton will probably veto the current legislation aiming to establish the repository in Nevada in exchange for political favors from these legislators, as most Americans believe that putting high level waste in one national repository is far safer than keeping it onsite at 100 different facilities across the country. The technical problems are essentially solved, the political ones have proven to be more complex.

Hmm... this is going to be a collected answer to the previous topics, since I've been away for some time... I think the world population isn't the problem at the moment, it is the consuming of goods. By producing the food ecologically, not economically, would enable the world to support at least 10 billion people. There aren't too many people, but too many cars, meat factories and modern fishing vessels. The problem of fresh water is another thing. Theoretically you could clean the water, but in practice it would be impossible. Water is as essential to life as oxygen, but we are wasting both of them carelessly. There's limited amount of both, and actually the amount of oxygen is decreasing, since some molecules gain escape velocity all the time. And, of course, there's the issue of energy. Our culture requires ridiculous amounts of energy in the form of electricity and heat. A Finnish researcher pointed out that using electricity for heating is a great fallacy, since the electricity is at first produced by heat. IT's like re-inventing the wheel. He also said that using fission energy to produce electricity is uneconomical because of the low gain ratio. According to him, the only plausible use of fission is heat production. In our discussion we found it quite strange that many scientist dislike nuclear power, and the situation with engineers is just the opposite... Saving of the world begins from your own head. After all, there are about 5.8 billion of those heads... The main point in the western countries is of course to cut down consumption. I find it strange, that the Chinese or the Africans live in poverty, while some of us have two cars, two houses and surplus of preprocessed food... Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi. When a reporter asked him what was his opinion about the western civilization, he replied: "I think it would be a good idea." Yes, it would.

What a great Ghandi quote.

Indeed. Mika-Petri, do you have any ideas on how to move the "advanced" countries more towards restraint in their consumption? The U.S. made some token efforts under Jimmy Carter - tax credits for solar energy, for example - but I haven't seen anything since then.

What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?

What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?

What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?

What about the news reports of mutated frogs all over the country? For those who missed it, frogs have been showing up with one leg, three legs, or no legs. Other anomolies have been even more groteque. Is this an ecological problem? Is anyone paying attention or are the naysayers still in the ascendance?

(TO mmc) Well, I am growing more and more cynical day by day. I fear that the only thing that really makes the "advanced" countries to cut down their consumption is the to-be invasion of the chinese and indian people. It is a sad vision, but I'm afraid it CAN happen (of course, that wouldn't be a problem in the USA - you are protected by the oceans...) When 3 billion people run out of food, they can get it by simply walking to somewhere where food exists. And they will walk over the previous inhabitants. Scary thought, isn't it?

Not the kind of thing one wants to think about in this day and age. But not necessarily how things are going to happen, either. For one thing, the "advanced" countries have all these lovely weapons to keep the starving multitudes at bay. And who knows, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse may still have their mounts. Or, on a more cheerful note, perhaps China's birth-control policy will bear fruit and their pepole will bear fewer children. And there's always the dream that China will skip some of the unfortunate portions of the Industrial Revolution and move directly into the Information Age. Of course, they'll still have to figure out how to feed all their people, and the more they participate in the Information Age, the more they're going to want chickens instead of rice, which is going to be a problem. Maybe we should all get together and form a venture capital fund and start a company in Guangzhou making solar cookers...

response to Boyce: old growth, new growth, I don't care, take your pick. Plants produce photosynthesis that supply all of us something to breath. Unfortunately, Boyce, has it occured to you that almost all of the logging and forest clearing are to create new land for human expansion, not to plant new trees? Forests also moderates temperature. In hot weather it keeps the surroundig cool, and in cold weather it keeps the surrounding warm. Just spend enough time between forests and a barren land or city and you will know. Forests also keeps our landscape from eroding, provides habitats for other life and creatures. And I believe that most biologist (if not all) think there is an incredible amount of "hidden tresures" in the rain forest, and therefore, do everything to preserve them. To say that we can continue to do whatever as we please because some solution will be developed in the future to sustain more human population is dangerous and fallacious. As one reader puts it, we must do something now to guarantee that we have a future. Who is to promise that a solution will be developed? What we do to remedy the deteriorating environmental situation today, we can see and benefit immediately, and that is what counts in the long run. The advent of industrial revolution had accelerated the rate at which we populate this planet and our consumption of natural resources. This planet has supported human for hundreds of millions of years, so don't sweat, it will "somehow" deal with the problems human created and continue to sustain human (and other life on earth)? Maybe, but I don't think it's a pretty scenario. In fermentation, as in jar of crushed grapes and some yeast, the yeast consumes the sugar and produce (or you can say "excrete") aldehyde, alcohol (and perhaps other things), but when the amount of alcohol becomes to much, it kills the yeast and your fermentation process stops. In a petri dish with agar as food and some bacterial culture, if you have various species of bacteria, some might kill off other, but in the end, those dominant strain still die out (or at least stopped expanding, maybe fall into dormant mode)when the agar is all gone. I am not a biologist (but reasonably good in biology back in school), but that's how I understand the nature world. I am for nuclear enengy, but at the same time, we need to "roll back" our lifestyle, reduce consumption, recycle what we can (including re-using things that are still functional). Save the planet begins in our own home and backyard. There are 6 billion people, if each one re-use or recycle just one item in their household a year, we have 6 billion fewer pieces of junk in our landfill (not counting other resources comsumed to produce the replacement for those 6 billion items). Well, in my book, 6 billio items is quite a lot, no matter how small the items are. On a different note: I think manufactures show be required to recycle what they produce, not just the end product, the the raw material they use to produce the goods, including those chemicals. And I think government should only give company license to produce something when all ingredients can be properly recycled or reclaimed. I cringe everytime I have to throw away those plastic contains with recycle number 3, 4, 5, or 6 because no company reclaim them for recycling. They are labled such supposedly for future use, when the technology (or more economical technology) becomes available. Why in hell are we making it if we don't know how to re-use it or reclaim it? And given the availability of #1 and #2 recyclable plastic, why don't governments just require company to use those two for the time being? Now I try my best to avoi buying things in plastic containers other than #1 and #2. I think it will also do good for most people in developed countries to visit poor countries to see how wasteful we are in our lifestyle. Charles

I lean towards more of the Greenpeace/Edward Abbey school of thought when it comes to this issue. Opinions vary... Even if no direct action is taken at all, the potential for it exists. This, of course, won't change the lifestyles of billions of people. I do believe that we are as a species inherently destructive. I'd like to see widespread negative population growth. This, of course, will likely happen due to our own stupidity. More people=more environmental destruction. So far it's been a valid theory.

I can't help but think that if there were a solution, it would be communism - but that didn't work, unfortunately. On the other hand, the USA is so good at capitalism - perhaps they could make it work?

Actually, there is a force involved beyond the human mind, and it is what is powering the changes towards sanity. Ego based thought is a dead end for solutions. We didn't evolve to fail. We evolved for a purpose, and it is evident if social axioms are reviewed and rejected. First, We are Universe being aware of itself. Locally, we are this planetary ecosystem being aware of itself. We are not designed to destroy it or ourselves. All the stuff going on is much like a birthing. It is very intense and for the child, powerful. The struggle is between artifical and unnatural human GIGO systems and the force that evolved us. We are far more than we can THINK we are and can change in the blink of an eye. I have seen, personally, that force in operation, and to my amazement, saw thousands of human beings with all kinds of personal opinions and convictions change their mind in the face of something invisible but mind and heart changing. The world was at stake, although none of the people at the time knew it, and to save the world, all those people had to change their minds and do the right thing in the face of a life behind bars, and they did it! Observing this changed my life, and years later, as the rest f the story came to me from various sources, I realized what it was that I perceived. The idea that there are greater forces affecting Humanity than individual egos and cultural habits is rejected by almost everyone, but I know it to be true and see it now in a lot of what goes on in the world behind the scenes. It does not show in the media, but it does on the Internet. The Farm was right in there in the effects of that force. Yes, I think the birthing could fail, but it is unlikely. That doesn't mean we can sit back and wait for things to happen, because it still works through human behavior, through us. I am being a bit vague, I know, but I don't want to write a book on here. (g) Peace and Good Health, -Roan

go ahead and write the book... we don't mind

You cannot "save" the world. It *is* and will be. Just different, either way. But you can't "save" it, unless you'd stop time. What would that gain? You would have saved the world from changing. Great. No changes. Just frozen like tha

so our actions are unimportant in the grand scheme of things then?

Who said that? Not me! I was just nitpicking on the phrase "Save The World". You can't do that, unless you'd freeze it in time to stop changes. Somebody else might be able to do that, but I'm surely not. The questions coming out of your question are: (a) Is there a Grand Scheme Of Things ?, and (b) Are our actions important or not? As to (a), I love conspiracy theories for their entertainment value, but I have no answer "YES!" to that question. Only another question: "So what?", or rather "What difference would it make?" Would I lead a different life if there were (or weren't)? Would I stop trying? From this results for (b) that our actions might not have impact on any scheme, but surely impact on our lifes and the lifes of those around us (even in virtuspace). In our social and ecological and economical environments, our actions of course are important (maybe a mikroimportance, but still). But I don't need a scheme to see that, whether or not it exists.

oh, I've always thought to scheme's the theme...

Some people are into that. "Scheming bastards", they're called on tv. I wouldn't want to be called that. How about you? The theme might be: Make it to the end of the day with as little suffering as possible, while creating as little hurt as possible. You'll meet everybody again next morning. And you don't need any karma-story or superior being or the like to understand that concept (though it doesn't collide with that either, if you hold those ideas dear).

This is amazing stuff and a lot of idealism and even a little realism here and there. Right about the industrial hemp, negative population and all that. I think unless we abliterate the place, the ants and roaches will inherit the earth long after human kind has done their worst, if Hawaii is any indication...

See my comments in the Farm Net News topic about Karen Flaherty and what she's dowing these days.

Missed ragweed again, doggone.

Please explain - or is this in code??? *grin*