Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

oil consumption

Expand Messages
  • Ross or Judy
    ... People most often leave out Canada when they are talking about energy hogs. Per capita Canadians are at least as bad as Americans, burning about 30 times
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > > The USA is a hog

      People most often leave out Canada when they are talking about energy hogs.
      Per capita Canadians are at least as bad as Americans, burning about 30
      times as much as Indians.
      Ross
    • prometeus57
      ... about 30 ... Please don t compare first world and third world people. It only serves to undermine your case by making it seem that the only way to reduce
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Ross or Judy <rossjudy@s...>
        wrote:
        > Per capita Canadians are at least as bad as Americans, burning
        about 30
        > times as much as Indians.

        Please don't compare first world and third world people. It only
        serves to undermine your case by making it seem that the only way to
        reduce our energy consumption is by becoming primitive ourselves.
        (IOW, you reduce your own argument to an absurdity.) Not only is this
        impression dangerously false but it is unnecessary since it's very
        easy to compare North America to Western/Northern Europe.

        If you actually happen to champion primitivism, please shut up about
        it in the interests of diplomacy and consensus building. As an
        example, look at my own use of 'primitive' instead of 'uncivilized
        savage'.
      • william stewart
        ... I don t see any reason to exclude the developing nations from energy use comparisons. After all, many cultures that aren t as developed exhibit high
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          prometheus wrote:

          >Please don't compare first world and third world people. It only
          >serves to undermine your case by making it seem that the only way to
          >reduce our energy consumption is by becoming primitive ourselves.
          >(IOW, you reduce your own argument to an absurdity.) Not only is this
          >impression dangerously false but it is unnecessary since it's very
          >easy to compare North America to Western/Northern Europe.
          >
          I don't see any reason to exclude the 'developing' nations from energy
          use comparisons. After all, many cultures that aren't as developed
          exhibit high degrees of sustainability. Does having A/C, big TVs, SUVs,
          PlayStations, etc give our lives more meaning? Or are toys and image
          crutches the essence of "The American Way of Life"?

          Will Stewart
        • prometeus57
          ... energy ... SUVs, ... image ... First to get rid of some strawmen you ve thrown in as so much chaff to defend your worldview. I am not an American, nor do I
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 9, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, william stewart
            <v_stewart@e...> wrote:
            > I don't see any reason to exclude the 'developing' nations from
            energy
            > use comparisons. After all, many cultures that aren't as developed
            > exhibit high degrees of sustainability. Does having A/C, big TVs,
            SUVs,
            > PlayStations, etc give our lives more meaning? Or are toys and
            image
            > crutches the essence of "The American Way of Life"?

            First to get rid of some strawmen you've thrown in as so
            much chaff to defend your worldview. I am not an American,
            nor do I defend the "American Way of Life". I spit on them.
            As I already said, perfectly good comparisons can be made
            with Western and Northern Europe. Now onto your argument;
            the one sentence of it there is.

            It's not necessary for you to accept that non-industrial
            cultures are so much primitive savages that should be
            exterminated in the swiftest manner possible, that they
            should and would be put out of their misery if only it
            wouldn't inevitably lead to moral degredation in ourselves.

            What is necessary is for you to accept the reality that
            many people hold to this worldview to some degree. And
            I'm not talking about right-wing racists, but about left-
            wingers who can't stand misoginy, slavery, brutality,
            misery, squalor and superstitious fear. Not all left-
            wingers accept cultural relativism.

            To people concerned with social justice, however few
            and far between they are, your eco-freak stance of
            "sustainability above all" will only earn you an
            invitation to go fuck yourself.

            And considering the fact that social justice is a far,
            far more important motive to the vast majority of people
            than long-term ecological sustainability, I think that
            shoving your misplaced priorities in their face is
            impolitic to say the least.
          • Will
            ... An odd thesis statement if I ever heard one... ... Perhaps many people that you associate with. I ve never heard such rot. And ... I d like to see support
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "prometeus57"
              <prometeus57@y...> wrote:

              >
              > It's not necessary for you to accept that non-industrial
              > cultures are so much primitive savages that should be
              > exterminated in the swiftest manner possible,

              An odd thesis statement if I ever heard one...

              > that they
              > should and would be put out of their misery if only it
              > wouldn't inevitably lead to moral degredation in ourselves.
              >
              > What is necessary is for you to accept the reality that
              > many people hold to this worldview to some degree.

              Perhaps many people that you associate with. I've never heard such rot.

              And
              > I'm not talking about right-wing racists, but about left-
              > wingers who can't stand misoginy, slavery, brutality,
              > misery, squalor and superstitious fear. Not all left-
              > wingers accept cultural relativism.

              I'd like to see support for statements such as the above. "Many" could
              be 20 people in the world or 2000, hardly a significant number.

              >
              > To people concerned with social justice, however few
              > and far between they are, your eco-freak stance of
              > "sustainability above all" will only earn you an
              > invitation to go fuck yourself.

              LOL! Who cares what a few extremists say?

              >
              > And considering the fact that social justice is a far,
              > far more important motive to the vast majority of people
              > than long-term ecological sustainability,

              This flies in the face of what you wrote above.

              I think that
              > shoving your misplaced priorities in their face is
              > impolitic to say the least.

              Sorry, freedom of speech is important to all of us and if we stand on
              principles and step on a few feet, so be it.
            • turpin
              ... I doubt that very much. Many developing nations, perhaps most, have economies that depend heavily on technology, equipment, and other goods that they do
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                William stewart <v_stewart@e...> wrote:
                > After all, many cultures that aren't
                > as developed exhibit high degrees of
                > sustainability.

                I doubt that very much. Many developing
                nations, perhaps most, have economies
                that depend heavily on technology,
                equipment, and other goods that they
                do not and cannot product themselves.
                Many even have to import food. Their
                local economies might have been
                sustainable a few population doublings
                back, but these days, economies are
                much more interconnected than most
                naive notions of sustainability.
              • Will
                ... There is a difference between sustainability and self-sufficiency. One doesn t have to be self-sufficient in order to have a higher degree of
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "turpin" <turpin@y...> wrote:
                  > William stewart <v_stewart@e...> wrote:
                  > > After all, many cultures that aren't
                  > > as developed exhibit high degrees of
                  > > sustainability.

                  > I doubt that very much. Many developing
                  > nations, perhaps most, have economies
                  > that depend heavily on technology,
                  > equipment, and other goods that they
                  > do not and cannot product themselves.

                  There is a difference between sustainability and self-sufficiency.
                  One doesn't have to be self-sufficient in order to have a higher
                  degree of sustainability than the US. Europe is just one example.
                  And of course, the US is by no means self-sufficient.

                  > Many even have to import food. Their
                  > local economies might have been
                  > sustainable a few population doublings
                  > back, but these days, economies are
                  > much more interconnected than most
                  > naive notions of sustainability.

                  Your point is self-sufficiency, so I would tend to agree, though there
                  are many primitive cultures that are completely sustainable and
                  self-sufficient. And yes, their numbers are decreasing every year as
                  we attempt to 'civilize' them.

                  Will
                • prometeus57
                  ... You mean, as we DO civilize them. The noble savage is a myth and a delusion. North American autochtones were brutish, nasty and completely uncivilized by
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Your point is self-sufficiency, so I would tend to agree, though
                    > there are many primitive cultures that are completely sustainable
                    > and self-sufficient. And yes, their numbers are decreasing every
                    > year as we attempt to 'civilize' them.

                    You mean, as we DO civilize them.

                    The noble savage is a myth and a delusion. North American autochtones
                    were brutish, nasty and completely uncivilized by any objective
                    standard. Australian aborigines killed and ate their own babies while
                    living their lives in a schizophrenic dreamworld. Indians raped their
                    own daughters; "If a girl is a virgin, then it's because she has no
                    father nor brothers." and this universally accepted fact was
                    publically used to justify the institutional rape that is
                    child-brides. And African mothers cut off the clits of their own
                    daughters even to the present day!

                    The primitive cultures are characterized by misogyny, slavery,
                    brutality, misery, squalor, and superstitious fear. The Western
                    cultures are automatically superior to the savages' since it takes a
                    certain degree of sanity to concern oneself with the real world,
                    investigate it, and develop the extensive technologies to control it
                    as we have done. Of course, it doesn't take that much sanity, as
                    should be obvious to any dispassionate observer of either the USA and
                    Japan. So even though being industrialized doesn't guarantee sanity
                    (the Victorians certainly weren't), being primitive all but
                    guarantees insanity.

                    You may choose to order your life and beliefs according to the
                    anti-scientific precepts of cultural relativism, but most people do
                    not. And shoving your provincial delusions in their face isn't going
                    to win you any friends or allies. In fact, since people value social
                    justice far above ecological sustainability (because the former is an
                    immediate concern, while the latter isn't), your eco-freak stance
                    ("sustainability" is the only thing worth consideration) alone is
                    enough to put other people off.
                  • Will
                    ... If getting them hooked on Coca Cola, McDonald s hamburgers, airconditioning, and automobiles (the point of this group) is considered civilization, then you
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "prometeus57"
                      <prometeus57@y...> wrote:
                      > > Your point is self-sufficiency, so I would tend to agree, though
                      > > there are many primitive cultures that are completely sustainable
                      > > and self-sufficient. And yes, their numbers are decreasing every
                      > > year as we attempt to 'civilize' them.
                      >
                      > You mean, as we DO civilize them.

                      If getting them hooked on Coca Cola, McDonald's hamburgers,
                      airconditioning, and automobiles (the point of this group) is
                      considered civilization, then you are right. But that is hardly
                      admirable or desirable.

                      > The noble savage is a myth and a delusion.

                      Um, how many have you known personally? Ok, I thought so.

                      > North American autochtones
                      > were brutish, nasty and completely uncivilized by any objective
                      > standard.

                      At least in the propaganda that you read.

                      > The primitive cultures are characterized by misogyny, slavery,
                      > brutality, misery, squalor, and superstitious fear.

                      Sounds like you are describing the US since it's inception. THAT'S
                      civilized?

                      The Western
                      > cultures are automatically superior to the savages' since it takes a
                      > certain degree of sanity to concern oneself with the real world,
                      > investigate it, and develop the extensive technologies to control it
                      > as we have done.

                      I see no discernable benefit from simply controlling 'the real world'.

                      > Of course, it doesn't take that much sanity, as
                      > should be obvious to any dispassionate observer of either the USA and
                      > Japan.

                      Dispassionate? You said you 'spit on the US".

                      > So even though being industrialized doesn't guarantee sanity
                      > (the Victorians certainly weren't), being primitive all but
                      > guarantees insanity.

                      You have tried to take a grain of sand and make a mountain. Sorry, I
                      don't see anything but a grain of sand.

                      > You may choose to order your life and beliefs according to the
                      > anti-scientific precepts of cultural relativism, but most people do
                      > not.

                      I sincerely doubt that most people share the greater part of your
                      belief system.

                      > And shoving your provincial delusions in their face isn't going
                      > to win you any friends or allies.

                      I'm writing in a yahoo group that is dedicated to the carfree
                      lifestyle; what are you doing here?

                      > In fact, since people value social
                      > justice far above ecological sustainability (because the former is an
                      > immediate concern, while the latter isn't), your eco-freak stance
                      > ("sustainability" is the only thing worth consideration) alone is
                      > enough to put other people off.

                      You've managed to contort a strawman; read my previous posts and you
                      will see nothing of what you just stated.

                      Occasionally a dittohead such as yourself wanders through here, and
                      makes grand pronouncements and gets cheap thrills out of tilting at
                      windmills. After a while, if they have any semblence of a life, they
                      are off somewhere else making grand pronouncements and bashing anyone
                      who holds an opinion other than there own.

                      Cheers,

                      Will
                    • J.H. Crawford
                      ... Can we agree to close this topic now? Thanks & regards, -- ### -- J.H. Crawford
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 11, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >> > Your point is self-sufficiency, so I would tend to agree, though
                        >> > there are many primitive cultures that are completely sustainable
                        >> > and self-sufficient. And yes, their numbers are decreasing every
                        >> > year as we attempt to 'civilize' them.
                        >>
                        >> You mean, as we DO civilize them.

                        Can we agree to close this topic now?

                        Thanks & regards,



                        -- ### --

                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.