In HR, we have a saying...

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Isard

We cannot be at the mercy of nature for our power generation. We can't wait for a sunny or windy day to use energy, it has to be available, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We can't center our days on when we're going to run the dishwasher, that would be idiotic.
[...]
The power-grid will always be here, and always be necessary.

Originally Posted by Isard

We control our environment. Our environment does not control us.

Originally Posted by Isard

Not really. Anything nature can dish out, we can take. In stride.
[...]
We are the most powerful force on Earth, capable of wiping out anything on a whim.

Wow, someone has a god-delusion here... "We are the masters, Nature bow down before us, you are at our mercy, behold or we will destroy you and cover the planet in a city of billions of humans and all that will be left of you will be hydroponic plants and cell cultures with meat of animals that long ago ceased to exist."
I cannot even begin to express the multitude of aspects thatare wrong with that!

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Apparently not the dinosaurs, the dodo bird, the mammoth...

Civilized humans still have to face an asteroid impact the size of the one on the KT boundary (or whatever else has caused rock layers indicating devastation worldwide) like the dinosaurs did. Civilized humans still have to face an alien species that has superior weapons and hunts them down like the Dodo. Civilized humans still have to face climate change on the scale of the passing of the last ice age like the Mammoths did. Humans actually did face the change of the ice age. Sea levels rising some hundreds of feet, Climate zones shifting - they could adapt, they were flexible, hunting, gathering, travelling to new regions. Nowadays just a measly 2 meters of sea level rise would devastate most of the coastal cities and thereby bring civilization to the brink. An asteroid? We would not have a clue how to deal with that one either - there are no viable ideas how to avoid an impact and if an impact happens, civilized life would end as well. Maybe some people could survive by living on the life that still exists in the aftermath, but without large numbers of people and an extensive infrastructure, civilization would go away.

Originally Posted by Isard

Cancer is the only illness we can't prevent, and we can't cure (yet).

Ironically Cancer is the disease that for the most part was created by civilization. It barely existed in prehistoric times.

Our lifespans are on the rise, living standards rise by the decade (everywhere, even the third world is catching up with some help).

our lifespans yes, the quality - that is doubtful. Depression is on the rise, people running around shooting others at random do this almost daily now and it is on the rise, Cancer is on the rise. Mental health is getting worse, people are unhappy, don't like their jobs mostly, family trouble, abuse, rape - all of this is rampant in civilization - this is not the glorious new tomorrow. But yeah - we can have internet debates and friends on facebook and if we are bored of them we can just unfriend them and throw that into the trash like all the other stuff that is consumed.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It's still a false dichotomy to believe that we are a seperate entity from the natural world, that there is an "us" and a "them." ... In my opinion it is this false dichotomy that is really the problem with the mainstream environmental movement. The idea that we can save the environment by walling ourselves off "in here," and letting the natural world be "out there."

Yes I agree on that. There is a deep rift in the environmental movement with one side going for "bright green", embracing all kinds of technologies that presumably will save nature. Move people even more into cities, grow hydroponic food with nuclear power, shut ourselves off from nature in everyday lives so we do not have an impact and then build some nice nature trails we can go on for recreation "out there". And there is the "deep green" direction that believes strongly that such a seperation is not desireable and cannot work to the aims set. By seperating from what we want to preserve, we do not experience it. It becomes a set of numbers and images and concepts - something that is looked at rationally. How can then compassion develop towards this "nature out there". By walking along some path that has signs to warn not to leave the path at any time? No, humans have to be a part of Nature, are a part of Nature, have to be a part again in the sense that we need to find a proper place and a proper way of living that is on concert with the rest of the natural world. A culture that is not opressive and extorsive and based on slavery (of humans and nonhumans) and occupation. Only then can sustainability be reached - and without that, we and maybe many many other species are f*cked.


P.S.: Oh an I found it amazingly unimaginative for a techno enthusiast like Isard to not even consider that automated, computer controlled dishwashers and washing machines could use the timeframe of energy surplus to get active. That concept is even in the making as we speak in Germany. Remote controlled, to balance the supply/demand ratio of power generation and reduce fluctuations. But I guess the control urge here is too pathological to allow the idea that a dishwasher might "decide on its own" when to start the program...