I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo seems "un-green" to me.
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more energy-efficient manner".
----------------------------
That is pretty funny. Especially the cathedral ceilings.
:-)
But I guess if people are determined to live in a wasteful way, it's better that they waste less rather than more.
Pat wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
Except that it's better to have it 'green' if they're going to have it anyway. Techincally, vacationing at all is not 'green'. Neither are televisions or refridgerators or internal combustion engines. But people arent' going to give it all up anytime soon, so, if they're going to do/have it anyway, might as well make it all as 'green' as possible.
The 'moron' part comes in when people assiduously do all they can to
*avoid* being at all environmentally aware. As above, if ppeople are going to do and have a modern lifestyle, it's laudible if they try to do so in a somewhat responsible manner.
Saw a presentation at school last year. Guest lecturers. Bow and scrape at their awsomeness. Look at the efficient little wood stove (or something) they used. They are so cool. Bow and scrape.
In a twenty foot tall heavily glazed living room. Right on brother.
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed to "wasting in an efficient manner".
So if we all went back to living like our ancestors living with very little energy use just growing food, then that would be the best situation? Of course humanity would not be able to reach anywhere near our capabilities, just living a minimal existence with great hardship in an extremely difficult life.
There would also be accepting a very short life with a 50% chance of dying before age 20 and only about a 2% chance of making it to 40 as was the life of our ancestors and present people living in a primitive life.
Well those conditions are not what I consider a worthy goal. We can develop technology that does not increase CO2 or pollution while we keep improving life span and a better existence. I think that is a far better goal for humanity. The losers can go back to a primitive, miserable life that they idolize. The rest of us want nothing to do with their gullibility and hatred of innovation.
Pat, I realize your quote ended here, but Jaqo May can't figure out how to quote. Sorry.
If you are the alternative, I'll take whatever doesn't make you.
You are a maroon. Life expectancy went down due to the technology. Agriculture is technology. Building houses is technology. Lack of sanitation and living in tight quarters is technology. And please don't give me any, oh, that was then, crap. Look out your window, you'll see a brown smog ring around the city wherever you live. Give me your zip code and I'll find a Super Fund cleanup site within ten miles of you.
We can click our heels three times and land in Kansas, Dorothy.
It's not a question of whether we can develop technology that will be better for us and for the planet, but whether we can stop idjits like you from destroying it first.
And you want to hear _my_ voice while you're driving? One of two things would happen. You'd either fall in love with the dulcet tone and timbre of my vocal cords and start stalking me, or you'd accelerate and head for a bridge abutment. I don't like either of those outcomes.
Your view is exactly the opposite of what is shown in history
With all your imagined dangers to life span, the life span has been increasing for decades. It may start dropping again in the future, but from obesity, not technology or pollution. The very short life spans are now with the jungle tribes where there is essentially no technology.
They are living in a very natural life which in your view probably consider good. Of course your view leads to a short life, poor health most of the person's life, and very boring life according to what they have told people.
You have presented nothing to justify your comments. You have just presented a lot of lies.
Still waiting for the zip code, Sparky. I have no idea where you live, but I'll find a Super Fund site near you.
As far as history goes, you have exactly zero understanding.
formatting link
excerpt: "The rise of towns and cities during industrialization took a serious toll on health, but new evidence establishes a very long trail of poor health that followed the collective pre-Columbian efforts in creating modern civilization, Steckel said. He co-edited a book that looks at health trends in the Western Hemisphere throughout the last seven milennia.
According to some archaeologists, the urban revolution began long before Europeans settled the Americas. Sophisticated cities flourished and expanded throughout North and South America once people mastered agriculture. Researchers believe that indigenous people began domesticating crops more than 5,000 years ago.
The current research suggests that the overall health of the average person declined with the development of agriculture, government and urbanization."
The life span went down when people turned to agriculture and living in large groups for obvious reasons. Oh. Sorry. You can't spot obvious - let me know if you need some reading material. The life span has started going up relatively recently, and that's all you're focusing on as you are a clueless super hero - Myopic Man! Able to ignore blatant facts with an angry shake of his pointed head. Myopic Man! And who, disguised as a rational man, fights a never ending battle against truth, logic and the lucid mind.
formatting link
how do you explain that? The US is 41st in longevity. Why doesn't all of that spiffy technology and great health care provide longer life spans? From that article: "A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and Singapore."
I guess Andorra has some hot ass technology, huh? Maybe they've got CERN's new diagnostic imager? This from the CIA's site: "Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and furniture." Hmmm. That doesn't _appear_ to be high tech at all. Maybe they have really advanced cigarettes and high tech furniture?
You are 'solving' your simple linear equation, and calling it good. The only problem is that the world is more chaotic and you don't have the wattage to realize it. You don't have the breadth of knowledge you purport to have.
A simple life is a boring life? You're simple, is your life boring?
Au contraire, mon ferret, you conveniently ignore common knowledge so you won't have to examine your world view. That's a defense mechanism.
You've heard - I'm sure you've never read him - of the philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein? You should change your name to Ludicrous Witless- stein. You could be the poster boy for the absurd.
And I'd tend to think that Andorrans (weren't they the blue aliens on Star Trek?) don't have the let's-poison-them-slowly mentality of US tobacco. The ingredients as per Lorillard, manufacturer of Newport cigarettes among numerous others:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.