I request, that in the name of civility, this series of e-mails come to a close. I would not blame even Nietzsche for the unprofessional dialogue currently making its way across the internet. If I overconsume excessively processed foods, drive excessively large cars, and have fat pink offspring, I offer no apologies. And I do not forgive the "Nietzsche" moments.
________________________________________
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer [
lionel.boxer@RMIT.EDU.AU]
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:57 PM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: blame my outrageous comments on Nietzsche ...
Forgive my Nietzsche moments. I have no solutions, but I do consider fat pink people who overconsume excessively processed foods after driving excessively large cars with their fat pink offspring to the dispensors of the toxics they willfully ingest into themselves to be the root cause of the problem and the target of any intervention. Soilent green maybe a little harsh; perhaps soilent pink at Walmart.
Whatever, cause and effect needs to enter into this discussion. That my comments have incited contributions from otherwise idle keypads is wonderful; often such a catalyst cures writers cramp and other intellectual barriers.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>> Punit Arora <
punitsarora@GMAIL.COM> 15/02/10 10:24 AM >>>
Sorry I cannot restrain myself any longer.
While I do agree there are too many humans, but what solution are you suggesting? We know that it is not going to stabilize (and decline thereafter) before we reach 9 billion. Which countries do you want to completely annihilate to reach your goal of 90% reduction? Like nuclear bombs would solve the problem better than nuclear energy!! And by the way, 6 out of 7 billion of these humans do not get to consume enough to cause climate change. So, why don't we first eliminate the 1 billion that does?
Why do we need to either deify or vilify Bill Gates or anyone else? Why do China and India have to be the favorite whipping boys of everyone? They did not, and do not, create all the problems of the world, and of course they are not as innocent as they would like to think. Why is complexity so hard to accept? Why do we need to find simple black & white answers? In reality, perhaps, Bill Gates does both good and bad, so do China, India, US, Australia, British and the rest. Copenhagen did not fail because of BASIC countries. It failed because everyone wants to make the most of the situation to their advantage, while assuming the least responsibility for their actions.
I am sorry to say that the conversation on this listserv has been reduced to the level of trashy blogs. Instead of sound research, we seem more interested in advancing our ideological positions and agendas, as if IPCC has not done enough damage by doing just that.
On Feb 14, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Lionel Boxer wrote:
> Exactly the reaction I was after. I am being sarcastic to a point, but I am equally outraged about the refusal to accept that nuclear power generation is necessary in some circumstances; windmills are necessary in some circumstances; wave power generation, solar power generation, and so on ... . The alternative is to reduce the demand for electricity. I do think there are too many human beings consuming too much and contributing too little.
>
> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
> Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
> Graduate School of Business
> my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
> now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>>> Mike Barnett <
michael.barnett@SBS.OX.AC.UK> 14/02/10 10:34 PM >>>
> Lionel, I was taking your posts to be sarcastic, but after a while, and with direct statements such as below, it is hard to continue to assume sarcasm. If you are serious in stating, directly, that killing humans for food or fomenting a third world war with the goal of killing 90% of the world's population, are good options, then I firmly and directly demand that you stop posting and get out of ONE. I don't want ONE to be even remotely tainted by a sociopath. Charles Wankel -- as moderator, you have taken on a duty that involves screening out, not just forwarding on, all outrageous filth; if that's not the case, then I have no clue why we have started a delayed posting system with moderator (a recent advance, but as I now see, perhaps a necessary one).
>
> In all seriousness,
> Mike
>
> PS If I have mistaken something here, please do let me know. It is hard to comprehend a post on an academic list that calls for an end to consumption, to be achieved through mass slaughter. Thus, I may just be too weirded out to know what the hell you're talking about, even though you've said it several times.
>
> ************************
> Michael L. Barnett
> Professor of Strategy, Said Business School, U. of Oxford
> Research Director, Oxford U. Centre for Corporate Reputation
> Fellow, St. Anne's College, University of Oxford
>
>
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/people/Pages/MikeBarnett.aspx
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>
http://ssrn.com/author=414796
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer
> Sent: 14 February 2010 10:56
> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium rods into electricity .....
>
> I did not say nuclear energy is a good option. A good option is soilent green, or perhaps WWIII.
>
> We really have to stop consuming. Happiness occurs when you learn to admire without needing to desire. Sure, this will collapse economies, but then we will not need as much electricity.
>
> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
> Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
> Graduate School of Business
> my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
> now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>>> Debbie de Lange <
ddelange@SUFFOLK.EDU> 14/02/10 10:09 AM >>>
> To those who think that nuclear energy is or might be a good option, please read Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Accidents-Living-High-Risk-Technologies/dp/0691004129
>
> After this, think about all the costs and risks of nuclear technology from a complete life cycle perspective and weigh that against other options like truly clean, safe approaches such as solar, wind and tidal energy sources. It's not as if it's harder to develop these latter approaches (and others that would fall into the clean, safe, renewable category) than nuclear - it's just that we've had an incredibly powerful nuclear power industry pushing that agenda such that the political will (and investment) has been one sided, against the other technologies.
>
> I previously worked in the energy industry. I can tell you that they are a bunch of dinosaurs and as they go extinct, they will take us with them, if we listen to them.
>
> I also worked for IBM and never listen to Bill Gates :-) At work, we passed a computer game around that allowed us to throw pies at his face (ha, ha!). By the way, there was also a study done that wind energy could power the world many times over without any other energy sources. Why do we need "traveling wave reactors, etc." when we have the sun?! I do not understand how anyone could be so naive as to listen to Bill Gates and the nuclear industry.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dr. Debbie de Lange
> Strategy and International Business
> Suffolk University
> Sawyer Business School
> 8 Ashburton Place
> Boston, MA
> USA 02108-2770
> 617-573-8794