Comment 43380

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2010 at 12:55:50

Everything we really needed to live sustainably was around a hundred years ago, and things haven't changed yet - at least not for the better. - Undustrial

Are you saying "better" as in more sustainable or just better in general Undustrial? Because if you're saying better in general you're obviously not a women, a black person, a miner, labourer or slaughter house worker, sick, mentally or physically disabled, etc, etc, etc... Calling a time when life expectancy (a statistic that is generally a reflection of childhood deaths) was 50 years old "better" is a little hard to swallow.

If you're just talking sustainability, I'll hesitantly agree.

Technologies are not neutral. They are intricate parts of larger social systems. Every one has costs and benefits, and the world-changing implications of certain technologies (television, nuclear weapons etc) make it clear that we shouldn't just wantonly adopt new ones without first considering the cost. - Undustrial

Agreed.

The main point I'm trying to make is I'd rather sit and talk solutions with these guys than apocalypses with Mr. McKillop… I think it would be more productive.

But in the end the "petro-apocalypse" warnings may be akin to shouting iceberg on a ship that is already sinking. There is a good case to be made that we will run out of the ability to pay for fuel before we run out of fuel itself and the real "apocalypse" will be a financial one.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds