Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
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
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.
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
And how green is that, givent hat a CD requires not only energyand
petrochemicals to produce, but also, requires an electrical device to be
We all live in the proverbial glass houses when it comes to degrees of
greeness versus degrees of wastefulness.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
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.
So 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
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
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
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
The ingredients as per Lorillard, manufacturer of Newport cigarettes
among numerous others:
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.