| Poster and Date |
Post |
UrbanScout
Mon Dec 4th, 2006 at 05:52 PM |
I finally saw "Inconvenient Truth." The only reason I saw it is because there was a free screening of it at a church 1 block from my house, and I had nothing better to do on a sunday night.
I thought it was pretty inconvenient of him to not mention that the increase of CO2 emmisions and the increase in OIL production are hand in hand. Of course, if I had stock in oil companies, like Al Gore, I'd probably not mention that either. I like how he leaves it up to individuals. "You can make a difference!" Even though it's CORPORATIONS who are mass polluting the environment. Al Gore is a total bitch. All that movie is going to accomplish is that thousands of middle class assholes are going to go buy Hybrid cars. Hmm. I wonder if Mr. Gore has stock in Hybrid car companies? |
slumberelegy
Mon Dec 4th, 2006 at 08:27 PM |
Haha! You rock, Petey. This had me laughing out loud. Way to stick it to the man, or something like that. Overall, well said.
I wonder if there's still time to buy hybrid stock?....
- Chuck |
ForbiddenFury
Mon Dec 4th, 2006 at 09:14 PM |
A sidenote that few people know, as I only recently discovered, is that hybrids actually increase air pollution. Its not the cars themselves, but how the government regulates the car companies. Its late and I dont feel like getting into details right now, but what it basically comes down to is that the gas milage of hybrids isn't tallied correctly by govs, making them seem much lower than they are. This, in turn, allows the car companies to produce more gas guzzling vehicles. Its all about some type of gov regulation about average gas mileage a companies total production must come to. |
prometheus235
Mon Dec 4th, 2006 at 09:45 PM |
replying to thread title only: DUH!!!! he's a fucking demonrat, i mean democrat. doesn't that equal stupid?
i kid. only about democrat=stupid |
JCamasto
Mon Dec 4th, 2006 at 11:09 PM |
A sidenote that few people know, as I only recently discovered, is that hybrids actually increase air pollution. Its not the cars themselves, but how the government regulates the car companies. Its late and I dont feel like getting into details right now, but what it basically comes down to is that the gas milage of hybrids isn't tallied correctly by govs, making them seem much lower than they are. This, in turn, allows the car companies to produce more gas guzzling vehicles. Its all about some type of gov regulation about average gas mileage a companies total production must come to. Bring on the extra details. I'd like to understand your assertation. (Unless you're just referring to Jevon's Paradox - which I don't think is the case.)
-Jim |
ProjectPurity
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 08:05 AM |
Bring on the extra details. I'd like to understand your assertation. (Unless you're just referring to Jevon's Paradox - which I don't think is the case.)
I second that! Hybrids and i don't get along (diesel/electric hybrids maybe).
I like how he leaves it up to individuals. "You can make a difference!" Even though it's CORPORATIONS who are mass polluting the environment.
However, it's the gospel of democracy and capitalism that corporations/companies are profit driven, so the decisions made by the companies are filling an interest of the people buying the products. If people didn't buy the products, the companies would be forced to produce a different one. I've only recently realized how much people do believe in that idea, i've always considered it a bit outdated. Companies have grown to such scale that it's nearly impossible to keep up on all of the harmful things that they are doing, and to avoid consuming a product which has caused harm in it's production would involve buying nearly nothing. Plus, even those who keep up on things like that aren't always presented with all of the information about whatever it is the company is doing.
So, what... regulation? pish posh. regulation only makes things less bad... not good (i've finally gotten around to reading Cradle to Cradle). Gore does say (during the boiling frog analogy, which i thought to be a Quinn original before i started hearing it everywhere) that 'someone' would save us before we boiled and died. I guess that's supposed to mean environmentally conscious regulatory legislation and ethical consumer choices, neither of which i see happening on any meaningful scale.
Anyway, what a pity poor Al Gore, who nearly lost his son in that terrible accident, didn't become president. He lost the election, a beaten man with the only thing left to do being to type away on his Apple computer on the plane, hotel, home, and office... but now, he got the slideshow back out.... i thought that all of the commentary (which is ABSENT from the book), was completely unneeded.
Ahhh, i could go on.... but i've lost all structure in this post :lol: |
Huby7
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 09:41 AM |
Yesterday, Annie's grandma called us just to let us know that Al Gore was going to be on Oprah this afternoon. I told her thanks for letting us know but we didn't have the TV hooked up to watch it. She then started trying to figure out a way we could get a television hooked up before Oprah started tonight. I told her we could find some way to tape it perhaps. Anyway, I thought it was a nice gesture.
For some people Al Gore is the man, I guess.
Curt |
memeshredder
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 11:45 AM |
oh boy.
here we go again with the 'everyone who doesn't walkmy path is an idiot'
Let me know when you guys get to the 'hey he may not be perfect, but he's doing more than all of us collectively stage....' so I can say I told you so....
Enjoy your thread! |
UrbanScout
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 01:21 PM |
Tony said:
here we go again with the 'everyone who doesn't walkmy path is an idiot'
...and then:
Let me know when you guys...so I can say I told you so.
I don't agree with your philosophy of, "hey he may not be perfect, but he's doing more than all of us collectively stage...." I think Al Gore is an idiot, and I don't think his movie has done anything except raise the Stock Market Value of Hybrid Cars. I never claimed to have a "path" or that those who don't walk it are idiots. Is my perception NOT one of the "10,000 ways?" Am I not entitled to this opinion? Does everyone who does not agree with you not yet have your percieved deeper level of understanding?
Statements like "...so I can say I told you so...." imply that we are all on the same path, and you happen to be further down that path. Your statement does not imply "10,000 ways."
I am not on your path nor does it look appealing to me, as mine neither to you. I don't understand why you would feel the neccesity to jump into this thread and point your shameful finger at the people who think Al Gore and his movie suck.
Again...
here we go again with the 'everyone who doesn't walkmy path is an idiot'
...and then:
Let me know when you guys...so I can say I told you so.
I see a mirror here, does anyone else? |
TwoRoadsTom
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 01:34 PM |
I have to admit re: paths, I love it when people play comparison to 'where' they are on the path, as if they're all the same length shape and terrain.
My path's up a fucking mountain. That makes it a little harder to get further down along it than say, a straight and narrow. And don't you (generic you) dare say I should choose another path. This is MY path and it leads to MY home.
re: Al Gore, I've seen the movie twice (with different folks). Both times my reaction was: "Gee, he's got some nice visuals." But for myself it was nothing new. The people on either side of me were "Holy Crap! Is that what's happening?" whereupon I'd have to say I'd been talking about it for years.
The end was pretty typical, though. "We can make a difference by being better, smarter, wiser, more conscious people" working within the same paradigm that's been devouring the world for 10,000 years.
Hunh. Yeah. Not sure, Al, but I think that misses the point.
Maybe I should send him a copy of "Endgame"?
:twisted:
Best
Bill Maxwell |
memeshredder
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 01:47 PM |
is returning to natural ways of life not 'smarter'? is ending factory living not 'better'? will we not have 'more' happiness? Is changing minds not 'increasing consciousness'?
Sounds tome like it had a profound impact on your friends, Bill.
Do they value the impact? Do you value that impact?
Is there no value when perfection is absent?
it's not the values themselves, but the way they are employed that make those words seem 'naughty'
speaking of mirrors, may I ask you a question?
Is my perception NOT one of the "10,000 ways?" Am I not entitled to this opinion?
besides, I'm not pointing anything 'shameful'(except for lifting up my manquilt up in the general direction of your women), I'm just giving you a hard time and being a smartass, you wimpy bitch ;) |
Dreamingupstream
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 06:32 PM |
Scout man, you raise some good points. You usually always do and I can smell something fishy around how and what he says.
I just watched it today. It was kind of boring because it was nothing new to me. I showed my ecology class the trailor and they almost shat their pants.
The bottom line is, most people don't have a clue. Gore may be an idiot and so is Bush and every other Taker out there...(except my mommy)
...Motives for the movie?
Self Interest? Good P.R. Move? Financial gain? Probly all dead on...
But considering how many people just wake up, go to work, and then turn on the tv for the evening before bed...I'd like to think their watching documentries on how bad our culture has fucked up. |
foolish_yeti
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 06:41 PM |
Perhaps it could be thought of in increments-
As is sometimes relayed on this board, you are not going to change anyone’s mind who is not ready for change. Ishmael and those like it have had such a profound impact on me since I already knew something was wrong.
I haven’t seen the movie, so any judgement here is based solely on this thread- but wouldn’t getting people to come alongside with a partial truth (a truth with omission) be better than “turning off” their minds with the full thing? What if people are only ready to accept things to a certain point? Perhaps it would be beneficial to get them up to this point, and see if they then (after some time) could go the rest of the way. I know time isn’t something we’re blessed with here, but if the choice is getting somebody on partway and losing them- perhaps a half truth is better.
Is diluting a message selling out? |
UrbanScout
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 06:49 PM |
I'd like to think their watching documentries on how bad our culture has fucked up.
Yeah... I don't know how I feel about this. These are serious issues and people need to know the truth, not the limited version. Al Gore mentions exponential population growth, but not exponontial agriculture production. He mentions exponential CO2 emmitions, but not exponential oil production or peak oil.
What this does is get people to think they know "the truth" and the "solution" to the problem. It might actually be more hurtful to people than helpful. People think they already know what the problem is and what the solution is, when they actually know neither. Some people might say that this is a doorway for people to learn about the problems. That they will go on from there to learn the truth. I don't see that happening. It's like Michael Moores book "Stupid White Men" and how you might think that it's going to be a gateway for people to read Quinn and Jensen. It's not. Maybe to some, but no more than any other liberal type book. In the end, Stupid White Men is just "mythology for already existing liberals." It's like the Documentary "Loose Change" about 9/11. I know it's a contraversy over the truth of their information, but none the less people who didn't know the government is fucked up watch the movie and go, "Oh my god! The Government is fucked up!" Rather than storming the white house and reclaiming the government, they hand out pamphlets for people to vote for new officials. We are all pacified slaves. All of the "Dissent" driven documentaries are, for the most part, Mother Culture taking her claim and wrapping people back in. No where does Al Gore say, we need to get rid of civilization. Instead, he recomends we buy things; that even though we face total anihilation, we continue to buy into civilization. It's Mother Culture saying, "This is a serious problem that people are starting to notice. How can we spin it to keep Civilization going?" Obvious it will get harder and harder for people to not see the destruction going on. So Mother Culture has to continually say, "Everything is okay. Buy a Hybrid." This way, Mother Culture "gets the jump" before people can learn the real truth; Civilization is fucked. |
slumberelegy
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 06:57 PM |
"Don't worry, your government is in control. Shut up, America. Go back to bed. Watch some American Gladiators. Watch these morons bash their heads against each other, and thank God that you live in the land of the free and the home of the brave."
- Chuck |
memeshredder
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 06:58 PM |
I'm sure Al Gore is competing to the best abilty his knowledgebase provides.
Why don't one of YOU fuckers make a delicious documentary that gets played on 2500 screens...
If not just on YouTube...
I think a critic of something should either be a retired professional or someone who could hack the professional world, but still has all the training. Criticism should be in the service of improvement. Without the goal of improvement, why get into the criticism business in the first place?
Is it better to find some value in everything often, or rarely find great value hardly ever?
That's a value we should ponder for ourselves... |
slumberelegy
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 07:00 PM |
Some people just get jealous that Al is married to that fox, Tipper.
- Chuck |
Nene
Tue Dec 5th, 2006 at 07:37 PM |
Hey -
Some people just get jealous that Al is married to that fox, Tipper.
ewww... really? You're being sarcastic right? Please?
Janene |
Dreamingupstream
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 12:48 AM |
Scout said:
Yeah... I don't know how I feel about this. These are serious issues and people need to know the truth, not the limited version. Al Gore mentions exponential population growth, but not exponontial agriculture production. He mentions exponential CO2 emmitions, but not exponential oil production or peak oil.
I hear ya Scout...Loud and clear...but you're a fucking smart dude. The general population can't handle everything at once. Exponential Agcriculture production is definately the underlying route cause of exponential population growth...but do you think the majority of people understand that?
To me, Gore has tackled a very simple and shallow issue. Now, I'm not talking about the solution to the issue being simple, but the issue itself is a no brainer. Of course, we're fucking with the planet! But you and I both know that for every tree hugger that exists, there's another 10 000 people out there who still think everything on this planet is ours to do with what we please...
I agree with you, that he's a douche-bag...but you can't completely undermine what he's done/is doing. |
arkface
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 11:27 AM |
he was on oprah the other day telling everyone to buy lightbulbs..but that's all i saw since TV is boring and oprah scares the shit out of me (sometimes she has lots of hair, sometimes not so much! WHA?). my mum, sadly, is a big oprah fan. i called it: "5 things you can BUY to continue your way of life."
NOTHING IS NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN. we should stop rationalizing this abusive culture, even if it comes in the form of environmentalism. we need to TAKE sides.
Gore has a terrible environmental history from what Ive read. The U'wa once wrote him a letter pleading him to stop an oil company he has lots of stock in from drilling in their land. if nothing was stopped, they said they would all commit suicide. he did nothing. I don't trust the dude. I dont trust anyone anymore :cry: there's other stuff to. |
memeshredder
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 11:32 AM |
so....
did they commit the suicide? |
UrbanScout
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 01:23 PM |
"5 things you can BUY to continue your way of life."
Hahaha. Exactly. Al Gore is a Mother (Culture) Fucker.
did they commit the suicide?
Not quite... http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/U'wa_Overcome_Oxy.html |
memeshredder
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 02:20 PM |
Lessons from the bush
"The money king is only an illusion. Capitalism is blind and barbaric. It buys consciences, governments, peoples and nations. It poisons the water and the air. It destroys everything. And to the U'wa, it says that we are crazy, but we want to continue being crazy if it means we can continue to exist on our dear mother EARTH. U'wa Traditional Authority, May 7, 2002
Fidelity Investment in 2000 divested nearly $400 million in Oxy shares after being the subject of 75 protests in just six months.
Victory?
Not hardly. Sure, it clears thenames of famous investors, like the subject of the thread, but a sellout like that FORCES a company to come up with more cash, which isprobably why they quietly showed back up with the military after the PR war had exhausted.
So This shows why without insiders changing the culture of our human organizations, efforts to 'fight back' and dirty tricks only lead to attrition, insurance payments, and renewed fervor to capture profit. Don't forget these indians were sold out by their government(s) first, and that corporations only act blindy because they serve a blind populace.
We're drilling those lands, we are the money dukes and princes, not a 'company' or an 'economy' or an '****-ism.'
Ideas rationalize behavior, behavior doesn't rationalize ideas. |
surrealswirls
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 08:58 PM |
I'm surprised that so many of you guys hated the film so much. I would think that you'd all be leaping for joy that some awareness about these issues were finally being brought to the mainstream's attention.
That said, I haven't been able to see An Inconvenient Truth yet. I live in a VERY conservative area where Bush is God around these parts, so the film was literally in theaters for 1 week before the local rednecks protested its availibility to the public. They immediately took it down and replaced it with Nacho Libre. |
UrbanScout
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 09:13 PM |
I think that people tend to think that Liberal media is somehow more good than conservative media. Both are two heads of Mother Culture. The destruction is getting worse. People are noticing. Mother Culture cannot avoid the issues, she must work them to her favor. So, she enlists Al Gore to convince everyone that no, Civilization is not the problem (in fact, civilization is not even questioned or mentioned) the problem is that we're not driving Hybrid cars. So buy a product, and support Civilization. Keep it going.
That's why I hated it. I thought it was spreading more "awareness about these issues" but it is not. The issue isn't "Global Warming," the issue is "Civilization." You don't get anywhere by attacking the symptoms. But of course, Mother Culture knows how to keep people submissive. If anything it will make things harder for people trying to explain why global warming is happening, which Al Gore does not do. All he does is say, Global warming is happening because we've released too much CO2 into the atmosphere. That's like saying we have over populated the planet because we had too much sex. It does not explain what makes exponential CO2 emmisions possible. This will make it harder for people like us because, now people think they know it all. If I try to explain to someone global warming, they're like, "Yeah, I know. I saw the movie. I'm buying a Hybrid and better light bulbs."
This will no more stop global warming than condoms have stopped exponential population growth. |
surrealswirls
Wed Dec 6th, 2006 at 10:43 PM |
I think that people tend to think that Liberal media is somehow more good than conservative media. Both are two heads of Mother Culture.
Oh, so you're a Libertarian then. That explains a lot.
haha, just kidding! I totally understand what you're saying. I still want to see the film, but I will probably agree with you because what you're saying makes perfect sense. It's too bad because I was hoping it would be a film that would finally make a real impact.
I agree with Tony that we need more people out there, making better films. The media is the way Americans learn. |
Talvir
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 02:15 PM |
I'm surprised that so many of you guys hated the film so much. I would think that you'd all be leaping for joy that some awareness about these issues were finally being brought to the mainstream's attention. [/b]
Hey Olivia,
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I don't understand the dislike at all, and I've read this thread twice hoping to make sense of it.
I for one am glad to have assistance from someone with his resources and connections. He's pulling in the general direction we are, and I won't fault the guy if he's not shouting "read Ishmael! Civilization is the problem!" That approach will. not. work. And it's patently obvious it won't work.
Frankly, for all we know, he's read Quinn and sees this as the most effective way to get the ball rolling in that direction. It's not usually possible to get large groups of people to shift all the way from "civ = the best" to "civ = biggest problem". His movie is a step in the right direction. A large step for many people.
As for the media, if they were actually informing people about these issues, we wouldn't be needing Gore's movie to do the educating.
That's why I hated it. I thought it was spreading more "awareness about these issues" but it is not. The issue isn't "Global Warming," the issue is "Civilization." You don't get anywhere by attacking the symptoms.
Hey Scout,
The problem is getting people to a point where you can even discuss these issues. Most people are completely unaware of these issues! Many people aren't thinking anywhere near these lines. Can you not see the value of showing people the symptoms...?
This will make it harder for people like us because, now people think they know it all. If I try to explain to someone global warming, they're like, "Yeah, I know. I saw the movie. I'm buying a Hybrid and better light bulbs."
Does this regularly happen to you? If it doesn't, then it isn't much of a problem.
I've never, not once, had this happen to me, and I talk about this stuff all the time. The absolutely biggest problem is for people to even believe there is a problem to begin with, because you need a LOT of evidence, and people's belief systems are tied up tightly on the issue. But once you've gone past that stage, the rest is education.
Like, say, "well, actually hybrids and fluorescent bulbs are just a start. See, we've got these other issues....".
A movie is a great way to "break the ice", because it's got that great combination - it can tell a story, and it's visual. Educators have learned that humans, as a group, learn very well from visuals and stories.
To be blunt, I think you're hate-on for Gore has clouded your judgement.
And while I'm at it: dump the idea that people are submissive. That attitude is a major problem - Us and Them redux. Those "submissive" people are our allies, our families, our friends. Insulting them is both a false stereotype and completely counterproductive.
- Joe |
TwoRoadsTom
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 02:42 PM |
Joe,
The whole "I'm buying a Hybrid and fluorescent bulbs and the world is fixed" thing happens to me all the time. I regularly interact with people, including my parents and in-laws and people in the tech industry, who believe it's all fixable with technology. And that's AFTER I've tried to explain to them the problem AND tried to introduce evidence.
The best quote on this, I believe, comes from my brother.
You can believe whatever you want to. People just write whatever they write and it doesn't make a difference anyway.
That was his way of dismissing everything I say as someone else's propaganda.
It's a problem, and a serious one -- that people assume the tech fix is in and it's going to be okay.
Oh, and fyi, if I do manage to get them to admit the tech thing won't work, they immediately go to "Well, then we're all going to die." Period. End of discussion.
Sigh.
Best
Bill Maxwell |
surrealswirls
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 02:47 PM |
wow Joe. I agree with you too. ahh! This happens every time I get on this site. How can I agree with all you people when you all are always disagreeing?!?! Everyone on here is too good at arguing their cases. It's just too much for my wee little brain to handle!
No, but seriously, I live in "middle America" and like I mentioned earlier, Gore's movie was only in theaters for a week. That tells you something about middle America. If people do not even want to watch a movie saying, "Hey, we are facing this serious environmental problem but hybrid cars and flourescent light bulbs can reduce global warming," then they are certainly not ready to hear that civilization needs to be disbanned if we are to save humanity. I think sometimes we forget how many light years ahead our IshCon thinking is to the average person. We need to slow down and let them catch up, help them catch up. Movies like this at least help people take the baby steps to get to where we are... if only they'd show the film for more than a freakin week! |
Talvir
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 03:20 PM |
Joe,
The whole "I'm buying a Hybrid and fluorescent bulbs and the world is fixed" thing happens to me all the time. I regularly interact with people, including my parents and in-laws and people in the tech industry, who believe it's all fixable with technology. And that's AFTER I've tried to explain to them the problem AND tried to introduce evidence.
Hey Bill,
Well, at a certain level, it is all fixable with technology and a sufficiently authoritative state.
The issue is what we as individuals should be doing (and that should is determined by the individual in question). I'm not even sure how the "tech fixes everything" issues comes up, because it's not really relevant.
If you're trying to persuade someone that their way of life is not working, then I suppose you'll get an answer like that. But I've rarely found that approach to work, so maybe that's the disconnect?
The "the world is getting really fucked up" is useful in the back of the mind. In my experience, people that know the world is fucked up are the easiest people to talk Ishie with. Has anyone else found that?
In the forefront of the mind, I've found using positives to be more beneficial. Such as, "did you know tribal peoples " and "I have a great idea of how you can do all the things you talk about wanting to do but can't do....". Honey instead of vinegar.
The best quote on this, I believe, comes from my brother. You can believe whatever you want to. People just write whatever they write and it doesn't make a difference anyway. That was his way of dismissing everything I say as someone else's propaganda.
Well, that's because it is propaganda, to him. I'm not sure how the conversation went down, but by the time he said that the conversation was a lost cause. The approach one uses is extremely important. Some people found Ishmael works, some hate it but really dug Story of B. Same issue here. We do know that saying, "civ is doomed" to someone that's not an Ishie is pretty much guaranteed to fail.
I think one of the biggest steps after the changed mind happens is learning how to talk with others about it. I'm still learning...but I certainly have found that more information is better than not enough. And someone who knows about some of our problem's is easier to talk to than someone who says, "what do you mean, my car causes pollution!?!" Am I making sense?
Oh, and fyi, if I do manage to get them to admit the tech thing won't work, they immediately go to "Well, then we're all going to die." Period. End of discussion.
Well, they're absolutely right on that. No tech fix means billions of people will die. 99.833% of the human race (assuming for simplicity 10 million* survive out of the 6 billion current people - the % getting worse the larger the population is). I'd say 10 million people is a fair value for sustainability, but I'm willing to admit a factor of 10 error. So let's say only 98.33% of the human race die. Given those odds, it's basically a death sentence, which I don't think should surprise us when it doesn't work.
I hope I'm coming across constructively, I'm not trying to shit on anyone about this. :|
No, but seriously, I live in "middle America" and like I mentioned earlier, Gore's movie was only in theaters for a week. That tells you something about middle America. If people do not even want to watch a movie saying, "Hey, we are facing this serious environmental problem but hybrid cars and flourescent light bulbs can reduce global warming," then they are certainly not ready to hear that civilization needs to be disbanned if we are to save humanity.
LOL, yeah there yah go.
- Joe
_______ * 10 million being a rough guesstimate of the total human population before argiculture |
UrbanScout
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 04:11 PM |
I don't understand the dislike at all, and I've read this thread twice hoping to make sense of it.
Perhaps if you don't understand it now, nothing more I say will influence or add anything to your perspective. But for the hell of it, I will respond to specific things you said.
I for one am glad to have assistance from someone with his resources and connections. He's pulling in the general direction we are, and I won't fault the guy if he's not shouting "read Ishmael! Civilization is the problem!" That approach will. not. work. And it's patently obvious it won't work.
Show me where in the film Al Gore says "walk away" and I will agree that he is assisting me. If you are not a proponent of "walking away," but for continuing civilization, then yes, he is assisting you. Just because a film says, "we're in trouble" does not imply that it in any way is "pulling in the general direction we are." I can imagine you use the words "general direction" because we have some similar "general topics." Themes like "Global Warming, Population Growth, etc." If someone is not saying, "Civilization is the problem" it is in no way part of the movement beyond civilization. Saying that we can still have civilization and not destroy the environment is the voice of Mother Culture, loud and clear. It is not a "gateway" into understanding that civilization is fucked, any more than the threat of Nuclear Warfare was to the people of the 50's, 60's, 70's. Even knowing how fucked up nuclear bombs are, they still get used all over the world all the time. As we have seen time and again, Programs do not work. Programs exist for people to feel like they are accomplishing something when in fact, they are not. Programs placate peole.
Frankly, for all we know, he's read Quinn and sees this as the most effective way to get the ball rolling in that direction. It's not usually possible to get large groups of people to shift all the way from "civ = the best" to "civ = biggest problem". His movie is a step in the right direction. A large step for many people.
Again, there is no "ball rolling in our direction." You're either furthering civilization, whether you're talking about stopping Global Warming, stopping Nuclear Warfare, electing a better president, etc. All you people keep sayinging "big groups would find it hard to understand..." How do you know? Have you spoken with big groups? Have you made a feature length movie about the problems we face? Has anyone tried to do this?
Why do you think this would be hard? Obviously because Mother Culture won't allow it. She won't allow anything that would stop civilization, so obviously Al Gore's movie is not only not a threat, but a great way to make people think that they are helping save the planet, by spending MORE money on lightbulbs. It's rather genious... in a sick kind of way.
As for the media, if they were actually informing people about these issues, we wouldn't be needing Gore's movie to do the educating.
"These issues..." These issues. What issues? The issue Quinn/Jensen/Diamond present and that we face is not Global Warming any more than it was the threat of Nuclear War, or World War or Disease. This is viewed no differently than every other "Global Crisis" Civilization has faced in the past. And the solution is to.... (drum roll)... CONTINUE CIVILIZATIONING! Big suprise.
The issue is civilization, and it's not being addressed at all.
Can you not see the value of showing people the symptoms...?
I see the value in showing people we must walk away. The symptoms are all around us all day long. The only reason Mother Culture would make a movie about the symptoms is to try and comfort people who have already noticed some of them, and especially the "big ones" like Global Warming. The ones no one can ignore. I don't see value in Mother Culture or taker civilization continuing to brainwash people into believing in the system. I don't see the value there.
A movie is a great way to "break the ice", because it's got that great combination - it can tell a story, and it's visual. Educators have learned that humans, as a group, learn very well from visuals and stories.
Yes, obviously movies are effective at showing people new/old myths... what's your point?
To be blunt, I think you're hate-on for Gore has clouded your judgement.
Go on thinking whatever you wish about me.
And while I'm at it: dump the idea that people are submissive.
...Um. No. As we all understand, having read Ishmael and all, people are held as captives to their mythology. The do the bidding of it, which means submitting to it, which means they are submissive. You are the one who claims large audiences would not accept the myth that civilization doesn't work and we need to walk away, yet here you are saying people are not submissive?
Insulting them is both a false stereotype and completely counterproductive.
Who says it's an insult? It's the way people function. We are slaves to our myths. So what? The point is, knowing that, how we can manipulate the myths so that we become slaves to a myth that doesn't fuck up the planet. Unfortuantely for us, Al's movie only reinforces the belief that Civilization is good and will save us. |
prometheus235
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 04:17 PM |
Have you made a feature length movie about the problems we face? Has anyone tried to do this?
not that i know of, but do you want to? i am certain that we could. |
surrealswirls
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 04:33 PM |
Have you made a feature length movie about the problems we face? Has anyone tried to do this?
not that i know of, but do you want to? i am certain that we could.
DO IT!! I HAVE ACTING EXPERIENCE! I'LL BE IN IT!! |
TwoRoadsTom
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 04:46 PM |
This gets into thread hijacking (sorry Scout!) but I'm still working on getting "B" done down here in Hollywood. I will be filming a short to aid in selling it soon.
Best
Bill Maxwell |
Ludi
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 04:53 PM |
(Hijack) I'm amazed Quinn is much interested in having another film made from his work, after the gosh-awful "Instinct." |
Florizel
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 05:09 PM |
Al Gore is a politician, a politician is Al Gore. Past/present, it's like a germ that's next to impossible to shake. He's an instrument of a political agenda - and the politicians of today, with all the guns backing them and the many machinations of their influence, are the most highly efficient mob bosses the human race has ever seen.
So what's the angle?
When people start to notice things falling apart, they will become concerned. The US government knows this, and they want a monopoly on peoples concern. They want the concerned public to operate within their parameters.
I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of people who payed Al Gore to watch him be concerned for a while left thinking they knew everything there was to know about a modern day crisis.
They'll go home, think 'gee, that's terrible', buy a highbird car if they have the cash and if they feel guilty enough, and go back to their routine.
The ones behind this film are throwing scraps of discontent to the starving mongrels wallowing beside the fireplace and choking on the smoke of a burning plastic culture, hoping that the scant pickings sate any possible revolutionary quakings.
At any point does Al Gore say 'find out for yourself, investigate this thoroughly'? or does he market his knowledge as The Most Up to Date and Complete Knowledge of Global Warming TM? Anyone can research and list material causes and their effects all day if that's their desire, but it goes deeper than that -- what ar the causes that keep the causes in motion?
IT's civilization sickness, and it's a phreakin plague of the mind, body and essence. |
slumberelegy
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 06:37 PM |
I was really very relieved when Bush won the elections, both times.
If a Democrat had won, they could have easily swept all the problems under the rug with placating shushing noises, and convinced everyone to go back to sleep. Here, watch this movie, buy a hybrid. Everything will be fine. The Government is in control.
Bush made all the fucked up things so obvious, so undeniable, that an entire generation was awakened into a stark, real world with real problems and real consequences.
And then Gore's movie came along, and a whole lot of them went back to sleep.
If only he hadn't mentioned all the great things we can do to help. If only the film had filled people with a sense of cold dread instead of a sense of warm, soothing hope. And so what if no one would go to see it? Who cares?
Should I accept his contribution to 'the cause' because it convinced a lot of people that there was no problem so difficult that ethical consumerism could not solve it? No, I refuse.
I go back in time to Rome in the fourth century. I show the Christians this great book I wrote called, "Lions: an Unfortunate Truth." In it, I teach that lions are a really serious problem to Christians, but with enough faith in God, we'll beat the lions. They leave the meeting with a sense that through lions are a very real problem, it doesn't matter, because everything will be fine, as long as they just have faith in whoever is REALLY making things happen.
Never once is the Roman Empire mentioned as a problem.
So yeah, I think I pretty roundly agree with Urby on this one.
Good job, Al. You woke them up and then put them back to sleep in the space of two hours. But now their sleep is twice as dangerous, because they've been convinced that they're already awake. I'm clapping, Al, I really am.
- Chuck |
Ludi
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 06:44 PM |
{By the fourth century, neither lions nor the Roman Empire were a threat to Christians...by then, Christians were on their way to becoming a threat to everyone else...} |
surrealswirls
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 06:59 PM |
{By the fourth century, neither lions nor the Roman Empire were a threat to Christians...by then, Christians were on their way to becoming a threat to everyone else...}
haha, lol!
Chuck's post reminded me of the conversation my boyfriend and I had after seeing "Happy Feet," the new animated film about penguins. Afterword, I said, "I like how all these environmentally conscious movies for 5 year olds are coming lately, but if they really wanted to make an impact, they need to make them more realistic. The guru penguin should have suffocated and died from the plastic soda rings, while lying in an icy puddle of oil, while all the other penguins loudly mourned his loss. Then they should have ended the movie with Mumble (the main character) loosing every last sense of sanity while in captivity at the aquarium place. If they'd ended the movie like that, then we'd be looking forward to an influx of 18 year old Green Party voters 8 years from now." |
slumberelegy
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 10:14 PM |
{By the fourth century, neither lions nor the Roman Empire were a threat to Christians...by then, Christians were on their way to becoming a threat to everyone else...}
Bah! You're probably relying on "objective history" and "primary sources." Poor, benighted Ludi. Why can't you just make it up based on a loose abstraction of historic flow, like I do? It all comes out the same color in the end.
- Chuck |
Devin
Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 11:28 PM |
{I think Chuck was mocking himself there, Ludi, and meant it with a smile. I know comments like that piss you off.} |
Ghost
Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 01:44 AM |
Hey.
I haven't really been following this thread but I just saw An Inconvenient Truth and I figure I'd add my two cents (which, when you convert from Canadian dollars actually means I owe you money :? ).
I thought that the film was really well done; both from a filmaking standpoint and from a presenting good information standpoint. I was captivated the whole time; as were my two friends. I never felt lost nor patronised to. I feel like it was thorough and well thought out and most of all, I learned stuff.
The weakest part about it was that it was pretty run of the mill Taker alarm sounding. He did an excellent job of outlining the problem, but his solution was ass because it never occured to him that the system is irredemable and should probably just be abandoned. So he fired out a lot of tired, (puts on Rob Schneider accent) "We can do it. We have the technology. If we just get our polititians to know we care, we can make this happen. All we have to do is be better than we ever have before and make them better than they've ever been before. Now, I know it didn't work last year, or the year before, or the year before that but (puts on best Bullwinkle accent) this time for sure!" It's not a new phenomenon. When it comes to analysis, Al Gore finds himself in the company of great thinkers like Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi and Rachel Carson. When it comes to solutions, Gore finds himself in the company of abject failures like Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi and Rachel Carson.
I think that ultimately it's an important film. It's a lot of information that people, I think, benefit from understanding. While the film may be mega-weak in the solutions department, it primes people. Many people might be looking for an alternative; now that they know there is a problem. But like the hippies before them, they won't have anywhere to go. That's where we come in. If we start getting alternatives worked out and off the ground, the people who were affected by a film like this might decide to make the plunge.
Is Gore an idiot? Dunno. His wife is a useless flap of skin, I know that; the PMRC can "lick my ass and suck on my balls" (anyone who gets chastised in a song by both Megadeath and The Frickin' Ramones should be recycled into Soylent Green). Gore doesn't strike me as the poster boy for anything worthwhile. He's probably done some pretty shady and hypocritical things in his life. Is his film important, or at the very least worthwhile? I'd say so.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
Ludi
Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 11:01 AM |
{even I was able to understand the humor, Devin :D } |
Huby7
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 01:18 PM |
And then Gore's movie came along, and a whole lot of them went back to sleep.
So, I'm sitting on my deer stand this morning watching the sun rise in the east and the words AL GORE IS AN IDIOT pop into my head. I'm like WTF! I'm enjoying listening to the birds greet the sunrise and that pops into my head. Then I thought about what Annie's mom had told me about her experience seeing The Inconvenient Truth.
I got a little story to tell.
The local movie theatre played The Inconvenient Truth for a weekend. I guess there were a lot of people that attended. I didn't go because I figured it would just be a rehashing of things I've read in the past and I had other things to do.
Annie's mom went to it the first day they showed it. She said there was a big turnout. And after the movie was done they all sat around in the theater and made comments about it. Her mom was the first one to comment (If you knew her you would understand why she would be. She is pretty fierce when it comes to this saving the world stuff. She don't fuck around). After the lights came on, she stood up in front of the screen and asked the audience how many of them read Ishmael? About half of them raised their hands, I guess. She then went on to say that Gore's movie is just a start when it comes to understanding the type of problems we face. And if you want to really understand why things are the way they are you need to read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, she said. I guess she had a lot more to say, but that was gist of it.
I've been checking the local library ever since and Quinn's books have been checked out more than usual. I've been watching them like I hawk since I stocked the local libraries full of Quinn's and Jensen's work.
So not all of the The Inconvenient Truth viewers went home and went back to sleep... :D
Take care,
Curt |
TwoRoadsTom
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 02:24 PM |
Great story & glad to hear it!
Best
Bill Maxwell |
odb_fan_1
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 03:12 PM |
i liked inconvenient truth quite a bit. probably for the same reason i liked the ecology of commerce. argument is at least half emotion.
PS: Annie's ma is a bad mamma jamma. |
Talvir
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 03:53 PM |
Perhaps if you don't understand it now, nothing more I say will influence or add anything to your perspective. But for the hell of it, I will respond to specific things you said.
Hey Scout,
Thanks for taking the time to respond :)
Show me where in the film Al Gore says "walk away" and I will agree that he is assisting me. If you are not a proponent of "walking away," but for continuing civilization, then yes, he is assisting you. Just because a film says, "we're in trouble" does not imply that it in any way is "pulling in the general direction we are."
For many years in Canada, the "green movement" distanced itself from hunters and outdoor enthusiasts. They decided against making agreements with forestry and other extraction companies. And so we had the many "Wars in the Forests" between protestors and (primarily) logging companies.
And it didn't work. The logging companies got injunctions and the protestors were dragged off and they went on logging. The public relations war was, by and large, lost by the "greens": they failed to achieve their major objectives.
Not long ago, the "green movement" started making alliances with groups working in a similar direction. Now, these allies didn't necessarily agree on everything - the hunters wanted to protect the forests so they could hunt, the ATV crowd wanted the forests to go ATVing in, etc. But they shared a long term vision (forests not clearcuts), even when they disagreed elsewhere.
The "green movement" also started working together with the extraction companies, hoping to improve extraction practices and win consessions to protect areas that were considered especially important to protect.
And this actually worked. Not perfectly, not always, but some success is better than none.
I don't believe there is a black and white, "us versus them" situation here. Now, this:
"Show me where in the film Al Gore says "walk away" and I will agree that he is assisting me. If you are not a proponent of "walking away," but for continuing civilization, then yes, he is assisting you"
and this:
You're either furthering civilization, whether you're talking about stopping Global Warming, stopping Nuclear Warfare, electing a better president, etc.
Makes me think you see an "us versus them" situation. Is that a fair assessment?
I can imagine you use the words "general direction" because we have some similar "general topics." Themes like "Global Warming, Population Growth, etc." If someone is not saying, "Civilization is the problem" it is in no way part of the movement beyond civilization.
Actually, the general direction I see is that towards sustainable ways of living.
Millions of people are going to see this film and learn something. Maybe not you and I, but we're of a tiny minority of people that know about these problems.
You and I both have had the opportunity to learn about these things - we've had an environment where we could become knowledgeable about the world's problems, and somewhere along the line, we had someone or something introduce us to Quinn. We didn't stumble into the world fully-armed to know what the problem is and what the solution is.
In short, we've taken a journey of discovery. For millions, literally, millions of people, this movie is an opportunity for a first step onto that journey. There are millions of people that this movement we're a part of haven't yet been able to reach - and perhaps could not otherwise reach. I don't see the role of a major movie such as this to convert "full Takers" to "full Ishies". That's our role...that's what Quinn trained us to do.
All you people keep sayinging "big groups would find it hard to understand..." How do you know? Have you spoken with big groups? Have you made a feature length movie about the problems we face? Has anyone tried to do this?
It's been 10 years since Quinn wrote Ishmael. The closest so far that we've got to a motion picture was Instinct. So, yeah, people have tried to make a motion picture. It hasn't worked yet. I believe Gore's movie lays out some groundwork to allow that movie to come about.
I'm not sure who "all you people" is, but I do hear the "us vs. them" message. I don't perceive the world in that way; I used to, but I didn't find it useful. So, we're not going to come to any meeting of the minds there.
As for speaking with big groups, I haven't heard of any individuals coming to a "changed mind" from sitting in the audience of a big group. In my experience, and of the experiences of other people I've talked to, it's generally from one individual to another.
That's part of my point. You can't go from "full Taker" to "full Ishie" in one step. The process is incremental, as I believe each of us here knows, both from our personal experience and from our experiences trying to reach others.
Why do you think this would be hard? Obviously because Mother Culture won't allow it. She won't allow anything that would stop civilization, so obviously Al Gore's movie is not only not a threat, but a great way to make people think that they are helping save the planet, by spending MORE money on lightbulbs. It's rather genious... in a sick kind of way.
At one level, I agree it would be hard because people aren't ready yet, because the myths of Mother Culture are strongly ingrained. But I don't agree with your model, whereby I perceive that you're anthropomorphizing MC. If MC was as you suggest, then not one of us would be here. We would have been destroyed if "she won't allow anything that would stop civilization". There would be no Gaviotas, no Dancing Rabbit, no website listing all the myriad intentional communities scattered across the world. So, I think the evidence suggests this model of MC doesn't work.
MC has vulnerabilities, of which Gore took advantage of at least one - this movie will make a good chunk of money, therefore MC let it through. Gore will reach many more people than many of us have the opportunity to. He's opening a door in people's minds that was completely closed before. It's giving us an opportunity to reach people that were shut to us previously.
Nothing is stopping anyone from making a Quinn movie. The only problem is the fact that the audience would be rather small so you couldn't get Hollywood interested. I "stepping stone" movies like Gore's providing room for an Ishmael-type of movie.
"These issues..." These issues. What issues? The issue Quinn/Jensen/Diamond present and that we face is not Global Warming any more than it was the threat of Nuclear War, or World War or Disease. This is viewed no differently than every other "Global Crisis" Civilization has faced in the past. And the solution is to.... (drum roll)... CONTINUE CIVILIZATIONING! Big suprise. The issue is civilization, and it's not being addressed at all.
Well, to my mind, the core issue is sustainability, ie: what ways do we live such that we don't risk future generations abilities to themselves live (the other side of the coin again). Drawing off of that core issue are the myriad factors influencing sustainability (or unsustainability). As I see it, the issue for Gore is creating a sustainable way of life for +6 billion people. The ways and means of doing that is the main battleground for (at the grossest level) the "doomers" and the "optimists", ie: those who believe that 10 million-100 million people can live sustainably on Earth, and those who believe more (even many more).
[quote:07d153732d="Joe"] Can you not see the value of showing people the symptoms...?
I see the value in showing people we must walk away. The symptoms are all around us all day long. The only reason Mother Culture would make a movie about the symptoms is to try and comfort people who have already noticed some of them, and especially the "big ones" like Global Warming. The ones no one can ignore. I don't see value in Mother Culture or taker civilization continuing to brainwash people into believing in the system. I don't see the value there.[/quote]
Well, I'd point out that we're not the audience. Gore's movie's audience are the vast majority of people that haven't seen things in another way. Those fully engulfed in MC, who don't have eyes to see the symptoms, who don't see the symptoms that are "all around us all day long". Global warming is ignored by most people.
And, I don't see it as brainwashing. It's opening a door in a mind that was once closed to Quinn's work. If you can't see that possibility, well, I can see why you hate Gore. But if you hate people that say "we've got problems" without saying "civilization is the core problem", you're going to hate nearly every climate scientist, ecologist, the individuals that inform you and I about these issues, because nearly every one of them makes the same argument as Gore. So I think the hate for Gore is misplaced.
Yes, obviously movies are effective at showing people new/old myths... what's your point?
That we need to create new myths that work for Life. This is one step towards that goal.
[quote:07d153732d="Joe"] And while I'm at it: dump the idea that people are submissive.
...Um. No. As we all understand, having read Ishmael and all, people are held as captives to their mythology. The do the bidding of it, which means submitting to it, which means they are submissive. You are the one who claims large audiences would not accept the myth that civilization doesn't work and we need to walk away, yet here you are saying people are not submissive?[/quote]
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. If people are held captive to their mythology, then ALL people, ever, have. Thus, every tribal person is submissive.
By this model, you submit to Jensen when you read his books. We all submitted to Quinn when we read his books.
Clearly, that's not the way submission is generally used - it doesn't make sense.
People view the world through the lens of their myths. Myths don't sit atop our heads and force us to their "bidding". We act upon the world through the perception informed by their myths, we are not "controlled" by those myths.
My message is not that large groups of people can't get Quinn's message. It's that they can't do it now. It's nothing about submission. You don't successfully teach someone how to read by handing them "War and Peace". In the same way, you don't successfully teach a "full Taker" Quinn's message by just handing them Ishmael with a pat on the back.
[quote:07d153732d="Joe"] Insulting them is both a false stereotype and completely counterproductive.
Who says it's an insult? It's the way people function. We are slaves to our myths. So what?[/quote]
Calling someone submissive is an insult, and it's clearly so. Even if that is the way people function (which I've argued against above), describing it that way is completely counter-productive.
Hey Curt,
Annie's mom went to it the first day they showed it. She said there was a big turnout.
Huzzah!
After the lights came on, she stood up in front of the screen and asked the audience how many of them read Ishmael? About half of them raised their hands, I guess. She then went on to say that Gore's movie is just a start when it comes to understanding the type of problems we face. And if you want to really understand why things are the way they are you need to read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, she said. I guess she had a lot more to say, but that was gist of it.
Wow, that's a lot of Ishies in one place. Whereabouts is this Curt?
I've been checking the local library ever since and Quinn's books have been checked out more than usual. I've been watching them like I hawk since I stocked the local libraries full of Quinn's and Jensen's work.
So not all of the The Inconvenient Truth viewers went home and went back to sleep...
Sweet. That was the point I was trying to get across poorly. Your mom totally rocks!
Stories really are cool ways to talk about things :) I'm envious of Bill.
[edit]
I think that ultimately it's an important film. It's a lot of information that people, I think, benefit from understanding. While the film may be mega-weak in the solutions department, it primes people. Many people might be looking for an alternative; now that they know there is a problem. But like the hippies before them, they won't have anywhere to go. That's where we come in. If we start getting alternatives worked out and off the ground, the people who were affected by a film like this might decide to make the plunge.
Hey Matt,
+1! All those brains, ready for the taking! (err I mean Leaving).
[/edit]
- Joe |
Florizel
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 05:05 PM |
That's part of my point. You can't go from "full Taker" to "full Ishie" in one step.
I disagree.
I think that the spectrum of fear provides the impetus for a detachment from the natural world and the natural states of humanity - examples: it's going to storm, build a stronger house; we have no food, manipulate the food supply; I feel weak and vulnerable, I must take more without accounting for the results - and the results have spiraled out of control.
and the removal/annihilation/eradication of fear, which happens instantaneously, creates a different state - one connecting and harmonizing, one which, if I had to put a word on it, I'd call love.
and I like that word. I don't always like the way other people use it, but it's good enough for the purpose of what I'm trying to communicate here.
all the facts in the world won't do a damn bit of good for an insecure, entrenched, frightened person. the root makes its home in the psyche, dare I say the spirit? and the transformations in such a realm are atemporal.
and the education that deals with fear and love, the psyche/spirit... it's not common. it's generally thought of as airy-fairy flakey poofy. how often do you hear the word love in a discussion? it's difficult to nudge someone into saying it.
that's an incomplete arguement, full of holes for anyone to pick up on should someone want to discuss such things (and who does?) - and it has nothing to do with Al Gore, who presents his own brand of incomplete awareness from the perspective of a taker. |
Ludi
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 05:32 PM |
and the removal/annihilation/eradication of fear, which happens instantaneously, creates a different state - one connecting and harmonizing, one which, if I had to put a word on it, I'd call love.
Neat. But does it have an effect on what we might call "the real world" (physical world, Meatworld) in action?
Or do you just go on living the same way but "without fear"....? |
Florizel
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 06:43 PM |
Since we have the idea that fear is at the root of these disconnections, then I think it's safe to say that to live without that disconnection would have quite an impact on the day to day life of a society.
Take a look at all the leaver cultures we have knowledge of. Certainly they do not want to lose someone canoing in a storm, but do they take steps towards building hulking ships requiring all this mining and waste all that, just so they can have the additional security and cheat the course of nature? Do they seek dominion over nature? Are they afraid of nature, or do they understand it enough to know it's fearsome without cowering? |
memeshredder
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 09:11 PM |
Perhaps they have no fear, because of their cultural knowledge of death as a beginning, a continuation on a journey...
We know Takers cannot hold onto this plane forever.
If everything is one, and one is everything, then what does it amtter for a people to die today when they are constantly being reborn?
It's a Taker conclusion that Taking is 'bad' or 'dysfunctional'. |
locke
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 09:39 PM |
It's opening a door in a mind that was once closed to Quinn's work.
I think this is how it should be done. You'll probably scare many people off dumping everything on them all at once.
I have a friend who's currently studying political science. He means to try to change the system from within the system. I don't think it will work, but I didn't tell him that straight up. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't accept Quinn's ideas right off.
So I introduced him to Jeff Vail's ideas, because they were closer to where his interests lay. He thought it was pretty interesting, and I've been gradually leading him towards the more radical anti-civ aspects of it.
Know who you're talking to and know what their interests are. Then find something they're interested in that you can tie to Quinn's ideas. There's any number of directions you could come from. |
INNERCOMBUSTION-PJM
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 10:07 PM |
oh boy.
here we go again with the 'everyone who doesn't walkmy path is an idiot'
Let me know when you guys get to the 'hey he may not be perfect, but he's doing more than all of us collectively stage....' so I can say I told you so....
Enjoy your thread! that's what I was thinking |
Florizel
Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 10:18 PM |
Perhaps they have no fear, because of their cultural knowledge of death as a beginning
I think the state of 'no fear' has to do with 'know fear' (clever, huh?), it's a question of understanding, and an understanding of death plays a role in that.
An example: Steve Irwin. He understood all those crawlies well enough to engage them without shaking, he understood what could happen but his love kept him from stopping at the realization that it might be a lethal hobby.
It's only when a subject is not met with a comfortable level of understanding that it becomes alien, something to be feared and shunned and cast aside, and potentially (and frequently) exploited for personal gain.
to go back to mythology, the popular mythology input I grew up with and the experiences arising from that mythology rarely had anything at all to do with a connection to the landbase. the landbase was was an unknown, and as a child and even as an adolescent the idea of spending a night in the woods without suprevision would have frightened me.
and if something undesirable had happened to me in those woods, i might not have sought to understand my supposed foe, i might just have been a logger instead of a blogger (again with the cleverness).
viewed as an unknown the natural becomes something to destroy without remorse, or to peruse on the weekend with a cooler full of coke, tossing empties out the car window - not something to relate with and care about.
"Oh, look honey, they have trees!"
Nevermind that some places do not have trees anymore.
It's a Taker conclusion that Taking is 'bad' or 'dysfunctional'.
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this.
(again... nothing to do with Al Gore...)
) |
memeshredder
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 09:51 AM |
It's judgement is what I was talking about.
it's hard for to let in all that "there is no right and wrong" does and could mean.
That means, you have to give up on your anger towards those who refute your arguements.
That means, you have to give up on that one last judgement one reserves for themself, which is that 'civilization is bad'.
If ther is no right and wrong, if it's purely social construct...
That's frightening!
Think about all the things in your life, from potato salad to diet soda to logging and the internet and violent video games and b-movies, all of those things, you have to give up judgement on.
There is a power to had when the final deathgrip on judgement releases. But that is not the point.
There are mechanisms in your mind that work against you, as you go through your catalogue of judgement, new judgements are made....
In the end, we have made ourselves aware of a concrete truth within the abstract confines of our mind. The idea itself is unbalancing...
Knowing fear IS half the battle.
But it's not a struggle that can be won. |
Florizel
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 02:16 PM |
okay, civilization is bad is a judgement.
what about saying that civilization negates the things I love, I have proof, Al Gore told me about Global Warming, and therefore I seek to eliminate it as a countermeasure, an extension of my love. I didn't judge civ, did I?
Knowing fear IS half the battle.
But it's not a struggle that can be won.
I think knowing fear is more like a skirmish on a complex battlefield, and it's one of the key endeavors, it goes straight to the roots. It's something everyone experiences, it's one of the common aspects that binds the human race as brothers and sisters. & it's something that I believe needs to be delved into more seriously.
As for whether or not the -battle- can be -won-, I guess that depends on how you define winning. If winning is reaching a level of understanding through which fear falls away, then I don't see why that's impossible.
And without fear, which I consider, after much speculation and no conclusion, the source of internal fragmentation and disconnection from reality, what would remain? |
prometheus235
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 05:28 PM |
And without fear, which I consider, after much speculation and no conclusion, the source of internal fragmentation and disconnection from reality, what would remain?
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Florizel, you ever read Dune by Frank Herbert? i think you would like it. |
odb_fan_1
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 06:27 PM |
herbert totally stole that from fear factory's "fear is the mindkiller." |
Florizel
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 07:17 PM |
YEAH! I have. I read Herbert a bit as a teenager.
Ever read Soul Catcher, the one about a Native American who has a vision after being stung by a bee and seeks retribution for his raped sister and wronged ancestors, kidnapping a politicians son and taking him into the woods of Washington State for the puprose of human sacrifice? From the little I remember it was a disturbing read - Katsuk (the new name of the Native given to him during his vision, translating into 'the avenger') takes on the role of mentor and by the end the kid starts to agree with his passionate tirades. |
prometheus235
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 07:41 PM |
Florizel, i can't say that I have. i'll check it out.
ODB, its the other way around. Dune was first published in 1965. |
slumberelegy
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 08:55 PM |
herbert totally stole that from fear factory's "fear is the mindkiller."
HAHA! Gotta give credit where credit is due, I laughed my ass off when I read that. It was just so unexpected!
You rock, ODB. Well, sometimes, at least.
- Chuck |
Huby7
Sun Dec 10th, 2006 at 09:25 PM |
In short, we've taken a journey of discovery. For millions, literally, millions of people, this movie is an opportunity for a first step onto that journey.
I remember Derrick Jensen saying this exact same thing after he went and saw Fahrenheit 911 by Micheal Moore.
Wow, that's a lot of Ishies in one place. Whereabouts is this Curt?
That'd be in the big town of Spooner, Wisconsin.
Sweet. That was the point I was trying to get across poorly. Your mom totally rocks!
She ain't my mom... 8O Future mother-n-law, but not mom.
Take care,
Curt |
random_vagrant
Mon Dec 11th, 2006 at 03:42 AM |
Man I am finally starting to get the whole "Ishcon is like sex" thing. Alright after reading all this here is my late night-shortened-two cents-take.
Al Gore did a solid thing by taking something like power point on global warming and turn it into what he did and generate the success and attention for it. I give him props for that even though yes it doesn't touch at all on what we all here (believe?) share and talk about here.
MC, Taker culture and how climate change is just one piece of a very fucked up pie. But some of you are already nailing it. People cannot take on this shit at once. Hell I only check this site once a week maybe 2. Its alot for me to handle. As incredible as this place and the ideas and discussions that come from here are. I get overloaded. And I think mainstream culture would to. Shit it took me all weekend to read this tread and I mean REALLY read this thread. Even though its only 4 fuckin pages. I wanted to get it, I wanted to really take it in to trully try to get it.
Inconvenient Truth. Its a start, just like reading a Quinn, or Jensen book for the first time. I mean damn I'm still wrestling with this and I believe in it. I'm not gonna get too much into this cuz I think people here get it. Im just saying. I know we got a massive shit storm on our hands (ohhhh no pun intended). But at least this shit is in the news now, 06 has been a fucking environmental year and because of that its now cannot be erased from the minds of mainstream culture.
At the same time you guys are right. Its a Takers take on solving this problem with taker ways. Which is fucked up into itself. I hear ya. Your right. Fuck man I live in AK. Its incredible here. But I just got done watching 2 long special on the history of our pipeline and christ. Anyway that didn't prove shit but i don;t care. I hear you guys. But at the same time, he at least is reaching people...the mainstream people. And those are the fuckers that are shitting where we all eat.
I still joke with kids and prof at my college that Im waiting for a Fall of Civ class to open. But hell again solid thread. |
memeshredder
Mon Dec 11th, 2006 at 11:00 AM |
It's all One.
That man over there, is you.
You can't kill them all.
But without culture of their own,they are very receptive to change... |
random_vagrant
Mon Dec 11th, 2006 at 02:28 PM |
hmmmm something about cultural tradition perhaps? Or does it still all come back to just not knowing or caring ie human nature? |
Florizel
Mon Dec 11th, 2006 at 10:30 PM |
here's some media with a few things to say global warming.
the nararator: aninverted eye, doubled snychronized and tinted green, and a foul mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y40CDKvz3c |
memeshredder
Wed Dec 13th, 2006 at 03:01 PM |
Uh oh green-anarchists, you forgot about the power of
Oprah Oprah Oprah Oprah Oprah Oprah Oprah |
wildway
Wed Dec 13th, 2006 at 07:05 PM |
"The Power of Oprah"?!!? WTF?!
Honestly, this makes me want to effing scream. Can it get any clearer than this, the co-opting of the death of the WORLD to feed a dying civilization?
From the link:
A Green 'Truth': 5 Things to Buy
You are not helpless in the fight against global warming. Gore goes inside a Lowe's Home Improvement store outside Nashville, Tennessee, to show you the five things you can buy that will help solve the climate crisis…and save you a few bucks!
Awesome. And what prizes do we have for our pathologically addicted consumer?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs: These energy-efficient bulbs cost less than $4 and are produced by major corporations like GE. If every household in America switched five regular light bulbs for five fluorescent bulbs, it would be the equivalent of taking 1 million cars off the highways for a full year.
Outdoor solar lighting: These yard or patio lights cost less than $20, and they don't burn any electricity or produce any CO2.
Programmable thermostats: Though these thermostats cost from $50 to $100, they can actually cut your heating and cooling costs. Set the setting so it's a little bit cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer when you're not in the house. A difference of 2 degrees can reduce a home's CO2 emissions by up to 9 percent over the course of a year.
Air filters: Changing the air filters in your heating and cooling systems regularly can knock 2 percent off of your CO2 output each year.
Electric hot water heater blanket: Hot water heaters use a lot of energy and generate a lot of CO2. A blanket costs less than $18 and can cut your home's CO2 emissions by almost 4 1/2 percent.
PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE!
Thanks Al Gore. You've really done a bang up job. Everybody, please go back to sleep -- false alarm. Civilization does work, if you give it half a chance.
Star Trek, here we come! |
UrbanScout
Wed Dec 13th, 2006 at 07:20 PM |
This whole thread really blows my mind. |
Talvir
Wed Dec 13th, 2006 at 09:15 PM |
Hey guys,
Well, it was a good dialogue I think. We don't have to agree at the end of it.
- Joe |
Huby7
Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 06:14 AM |
Hey all,
I just got the email below from a friend of mine. I thought some would be interested in it.
Thank you,
Curt
Subject: Help Al Gore Send a Message to Congress
Hi,
Al Gore is ready to build on the success of "An Inconvenient Truth" and start organizing to solve the climate crisis. He's working to get hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress demanding real action to stop global warming. And he's asking for our help.
Can you help out by signing the petition at the link below? If you do, Al Gore will personally deliver our comments to Congress. I just did it myself and it only takes a second.
http://pol.moveon.org/climatecrisis/
Thanks! |
Saline_Solution
Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 09:29 AM |
Thanks for the link Huby! I sent a message with it stating the climate isn't the only thing in danger, it's also our society and we must become sustainable if we are going to exist. Take Care, Adam Hintz |
Huby7
Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 10:04 AM |
Adam,
Thanks for the link Huby!
You're so welcome!
I sent a message with it stating the climate isn't the only thing in danger, it's also our society and we must become sustainable if we are going to exist.
My message was similar to yours. I also added that the government should make it mandatory for all citizens of this wonderful nation to read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn... :twisted: I'm kidding. I just added Read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn www.readishmael.com
Take care,
Curt |
Talvir
Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 01:54 PM |
Hey Curt,
Hmm, it only looks like it's for US folks to sign for. :( Well, I'll sign it in spirit. Thanks for posting it :D
- Joe |
Huby7
Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 at 09:58 PM |
I pulled the analysis below off from the Derrick Jensen Discussion List. I think it adds perspective.
Curt Here's the analysis we did of the handout we got at An Inconvenient Truth. Feel free to use in any manner you wish. Please let me know if you find any errors. Original copy from the handout is in blue italics. Then Things to Do Want to do something to help stop global warming? Here are 10 simple things you can do and how much carbon dioxide you'll save doing them. Change a light: Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Analysis: We made up the figure of 50 light bulbs per household (by counting the number in our house, which seems pretty typical of houses around here). 50x150=7500 lbs carbon dioxide per household. Multiply by 105,480,101 households (2000 Census http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U) this comes to 395,550,378 tons of carbon dioxide (using short tons, not metric tons here) Drive less: Walk, bike, carpool, or take mass transit more often. You'll save one pound of carbon dioxide for every mile you don't drive. Analysis: We figured a 50% reduction in driving. Annual miles driven is 2.3 trillion (https://www.worldwatch.org/node/99) Half of that is 1.15 trillion miles, which translates into 1.15 trillion pounds, or 575,000,000 tons of CO2 saved. Recycle more: You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste. Analysis: 2,400 pounds for 105,480,101 households comes out to 126,576,121 tons of CO2 per year savings. Check your tires: Keeping your tires inflated properly can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Analysis: Total US Fuel Consumption (in 2002 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html) is 167,730,000,000 gallons. Five percent savings would come out to 8,386,500,000 gallons. At 20 pounds per gallon it comes out to 83,865,000 tons of CO2 saved. Use less hot water: It takes a lot of energy to heat water. Use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of CO2 saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year). Analysis: We figured two low flow showerheads per household and multiplied the clothes washing number by 2.59 (average household size 2000 Census) to get a figure of 1995 pounds of CO2 saved per household. Multiplied by the number of households (above) results in 105,216,400 tons of CO2 saved. Avoid products with a lot of packaging: You can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide if you cut down your garbage by 10%. Analysis: 1,200 pounds per household comes to 63,288,060 tons of CO2 saved. Adjust your thermostat: Moving your thermostat down just 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Analysis: 2,000 pounds per household comes to 105,480,101 tons of CO2 saved. Plant a tree: A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Analysis: Using a 40-year average lifespan for a tree (http://www.friendsoftrees.org/tree_resources/facts.php), we figured that each tree would save 50 pounds of CO2 per year. If each person in the US (299,084,893 US Census Bureau Population Clock http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) plants one tree, that results in 7,477,122 tons of CO2 saved (temporarily sequestered) per year. Be a part of the solution: Learn more and get active at ClimateCrisis.net. Analysis: We didn't figure any particular carbon savings coming from visiting this website. Summation: Total carbon dioxide savings if every person in the US does all of these things: 1,462,453,182 tons. Total annual CO2 emissions in the US (2004 figures http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR6P5M5M/$File/06FastFacts.pdf ) (converted from metric tons) is 6,600,572,400 short tons. Total carbon dioxide savings represents 22.2% of the total. If every man, woman, and child in the US made all of the behavioral changes listed above, the total CO2 saved in a year would represent 22.2% of the total. This is just for CO2. Other greenhouse gases are not included in this calculation. Now...here's the extra credit problem: What is the current yearly percent increase in US CO2 emissions? How many years of growth would it take at this level to wipe out (in absolute terms) the savings calculated above? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? |
Talvir
Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 at 12:38 AM |
Hey Curt,
Thanks to the folks that put that information together, it was interesting to read.
Ok, from same source I found that the US went from 5877.7 million metric tons CO2 in 2003 to 5988.0 million metric tons CO2 in 2004 (I think that's the most recent data you can get). I get an increase of 1.88% (I studied biology, someone might want to check the math :lol: ).
Ok, so then:
n = log (FV / PV) / log (1 + i)
FV = 5988 million metric tons PV = 77.8% of FV, or 4659 million tons i = 0.0188
Which comes to 13.5 years (better double check that one too).
- Joe |
memeshredder
Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 at 01:54 PM |
so in 13 years compact florescents won't be replaced by even more affordable, much more efficient, LED lighting? I'd bet a dollar on it.
So people in their homes only produce 20 percent of the pollution. That other 80 percent would take less effort to reduce.
Once our emmisions level off, once we reach "peak pollution"
it's all downhill from there...
or am I a moran? |
memeshredder
Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 at 09:27 PM |
Of course, it's going to be hard to maintain those carbon numbers when large corporations keep refusing to cooperate and remain pigeonholed as callous greedy batards:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061222/bs_nm/utilities_edisonintl_dc |
Huby7
Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 PM |
DELETED
I posted this in the wrong thread... :oops:
Curt |
Talvir
Mon Dec 25th, 2006 at 02:37 PM |
Of course, it's going to be hard to maintain those carbon numbers when large corporations keep refusing to cooperate and remain pigeonholed as callous greedy batards:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061222/bs_nm/utilities_edisonintl_dc
That's surprising, they had 17% of their power generated by renewable sources in 2005, and that wind is second only to natural gas in terms of installed power per year.
- Joe |
memeshredder
Mon Dec 25th, 2006 at 04:44 PM |
Why surprised Joe?
Doesn't it make real business sense to invest in power generation that requires no inputs, drastically reducing running costs?
The 'affordability' of clean energy was only in question when oil was 30 dollars a barrel. |
Talvir
Tue Dec 26th, 2006 at 11:57 AM |
Why surprised Joe?
Doesn't it make real business sense to invest in power generation that requires no inputs, drastically reducing running costs?
The 'affordability' of clean energy was only in question when oil was 30 dollars a barrel.
Hey Tony,
It certainly makes good sense! :) I didn't expect it to be that much that quickly.
- Joe |
Florizel
Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 06:19 PM |
the latest dirt on Mr. Gore:
NativeEnergy helps Al Gore travel emission-free http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414264 |
|