There is nothing right wing about riding bikes; the Amish are not
permitted to ride bikes. I ride a bike daily to work and elsewhere.
Sometimes I even walk. I have two cars in which I carry loads and
family that I cannot carry in a backpack.
Industrialisation is one thing, but if you drive cars unecessarily, eat
too much, gamble beyond your means, and overheat your house you are
going to use up traditional energy sources and create other painful
situations.
People survived in the real world without cars and heating for millions
of years. Walk and, if you are cold, wear a jumper/sweater. Use both
sides of a piece of paper, put your kitchen scraps in the garden, etc
etc...
Re: have a I ever been to Tasmania. I enjoy Tasmania. When I was
there for a conference I stayed in the Casino. I have a strong
recollection of too many overweight gamblers. On other occasions I have
stayed elsewhere in Hobart, Cradle Mountain, Burney and Launceston.
I have also been to Nepal, where I mostly walked except when we took a
bus to the foothills (where we also walked).
Jon. It appears to me that you are on the one hand imposing
constraints on society, but unable to realise you yourself need
restraint. We all need to regulate our lives and actions if we are to
exist in harmony. If that sort of responsiblity is right wing then what
is left wing: unbridled consumption and refusal to accept the
consequences of one's actions? Perhaps that explains the late 1990s
Kirner government's (State of Victoria, Australia) economic
performance.
My comment was that if we are irresponsible with energy then nuclear
energy may be the only alternative. Windmills are fine, but if you have
too many you create too much wind.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
ICSB2006 Conference - Proceedings Compiler
Research Fellow -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Centre for Management Quality Research
Read my book:
http://intergon.net/tsw
$45 see
http://intergon.net/rvrpd
>>>
runjonrun@EARTHLINK.NET 09/05/2006 8:57 am >>>
Please---this is why we need metrics. I'm sure the developing world
will be thrilled by your recomendation that they forgo industrialization
and stick to organic farming.
Your statement is as right wing and anti-progressive as I could
imagine.
Why don't we just move out of the cities and join the Amish...
please...this is a real world out there. Try visiting the developing
world or the new industrial socities like the Asian Tigers before you
apply your ultra-conservative upper middle class view of the world on
the rest of humanity. Been to Tasmania lately?
Jon
-----Original Message-----
>From: Lionel Boxer <
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au>
>Sent: May 8, 2006 6:39 PM
>To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU,
runjonrun@EARTHLINK.NET
>Subject: Re: Sustainability and nuclear energy
>
>Perhaps if we accepted that we do not have a right to drive
everywhere
>and consume endless streams of energy - perhaps if we accepted the
duty
>to ride a bike and wear appropriate levels of clothing - perhaps if
we
>accepted that we sometimes have to walk, be cold and be uncomfortable.
>Perhaps then we would not need nuclear energy. Until that happens,
>until people accept the consequences of their actions we will need
some
>alternate source of energy. However, if you consider the vast
>population of overweight, alcoholic, addicted gamblers (if they do
want
>to change look for a quick fix) soon becomes clear that most people
are
>unable to make the connection between cause and effect and others
simply
>do not care.
>
>Start out by joining critical mass
http://www.criticalmass.org.au/
and
>ride your bike to work. If it is too far to ride your bike move or
get
>a new job.
>
>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
>ICSB2006 Conference - Proceedings Compiler
>
>Research Fellow -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
>Centre for Management Quality Research
>Read my book:
http://intergon.net/tsw
>$45 see
http://intergon.net/rvrpd
>
>>>>
runjonrun@EARTHLINK.NET 09/05/2006 5:03 am >>>
>So here's a thought exercise for those sustainability savants..
>
>Is nuclear energy sustainable? See if you can answer this without
>invoking
>an ideolologica/political concept such as
>the "precautionary notion."
>
>Use cost-benefit analysis. Ground your answer in the context of the
>real
>world, where hard choices between energy
>sources are being made whether we like it or not. After all, let's
hope
>we
>want this debate to be more than just
>'academic' (used in the pejorative) and actually lead to constructive
>solutions to managing the environment.
>
>It might also be helpful to draw comparisons with, say, the practice
>of
>recycling in industrial economies. Many
>studies have shown that the recyclable industry infrastructure,
>involving
>heavy use of natural resource powered
>trucks to pick up recyclables and transport them, where they are then
>processed using machinery run by carbon
>based energy, is extremely wasteful (or 'non-sustainable', you might
>say).
>
>Jon
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .