| Author
|
trance+politics Or trance politics
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 14:12
|
EYB, you seem to be spacing out in some very loose ideas there.
The word 'nature' does not encompass Atomic bombs.
Shure, uranium is exsisting in nature, as well as the metals needed to build the bomb.
Nature is inside everything, yes, but everything is not nature.
Technology and man made constructions is just that, they have their own words in our languages.
Nature we use to desribe things that remain unaltered by us.
Just as we speak about nature in people as the original self, without the personality built up by surroundings.
And where did you get the idea that if we moved back to nature (confusing to discuss when that word can mean cites as well, but I think you understand me if you try) that that would use more resources. People living in the country generally use less resources, need less things transported to them etc... |
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 14:29
|
We are nature, so our doing is nature. Thinks created by nature are nature. Of course is abomb nature, as everythink is nature.
We can use this word in two ways, nature as whole in one and nature like u described, that we can pollute and destroy.
And i didn't say we would use more resources. I said we would pollute even more the nature (second one) by moving out of the cities. And living in the cities is nice, lot of people want to live in cities, so where is the point? And why do people use less resources when living not in cities? For example u have much longer transfers for a lot of thinks, like electricity and water. Next point u need space and places to live even in nature, so u need to build houses and make space for them. 'Closing' all cities and moving back to nature is just nonsense.
And i don't think my ideas are loose, u just need to understand them and u will if u think about.
Peace
 Signature |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 14:54
|
You don't seem to have much ideas, except 'everything is great as it is', which is kind of a non-idea.
And belive me I try to understand how so many ppl can belive that in the times and system we are living in....but I don't.
According to wikipedia:
"Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form, untainted by human influence."
They also acknowledge the conflict we have in the definition:
A distinction is often drawn between the "natural" and the "artificial" (="man-made"). Can such a distinction be justified? One approach is to exclude mind from the realm of the natural; another is to exclude not only mind, but also humans and their influence. In either case, the boundary between the natural and the artificial is a difficult one to draw (see mind-body problem). Some people believe that the problem is best avoided by saying that everything is natural, but that does little to clarify the concept of the "artificial". In any event, ambiguities about the distinction between the natural and the artificial animate much of art, literature and philosophy.
I sure don't see the point in calling everything nature.
For me it's misuse of the word to bunch it together with artificial. As you noticed you need to use a paranthesis to explain what you meant with the word now. Easier to discuss if you don't call artificial nature if you ask me.
Quote:
|
And why do people use less resources when living not in cities? For example u have much longer transfers for a lot of thinks, like electricity and water.
|
|
So, you think that the power, food and electricity is created in the cities?
Wrong...another loose spaced out conception.
I didn't say we have to move back to nature (again a paranthesis needed to explain, the normal definition of nature, not the one including artificial), but saing that it would be polluting more or using more resources is not based on any logic I can see.
Houses we need, yes, but how many is not related to where they are located.
|
|
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:12
|
Ok u right a conflict in the use of terms.
Quote:
|
You don't seem to have much ideas, except 'everything is great as it is', which is kind of a non-idea.
|
|
I never said everything is great as it is. This is wrong.
Quote:
|
So, you think that the power, food and electricity is created in the cities?
|
|
No.
Quote:
|
Wrong...another loose spaced out conception.
|
|
U hadn't a answer.
I don't see any sense in moving back to nature.
It is just a dumb idea when u think u can move all people of the world out of cities and distribute them over earth. And why should people want that? where is the sense of it? And of course there is logic when i say it will be end in more pollution:
- U got longer transport ways for everything.
Thats a fact, and u can't say it is not true. People have to move longer ways to get things.
And u need space for all peoples, enough that not new cities are created. If u want people to be farmers they need even more space.
Signature |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:22
|
Sorry, I can see any logic in what you say.
I do have the answer to if food, power, wood, metal etc is produced in the cities, it's NO.
Since they are produced in the countryside, I do not see why it would be less transportation to get it in to the cities.
I don't see you giving an explanaition to it either.
Again, people wouldn't necessarily need more space because they don't live in a city.
People farm for the people in the cities....they maybe eat a bit more because of the fresh air in the country tough 
I really don't get your logic at all. And I don't see you coming with any ideas either. |
|
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:27
|
U will if u think a bit more 
Signature |
|
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:31
|
If u bring a product to a citie u reach directly lot of people coz they live there concentrated on a small place.
On countryside u have not concentraed people and not short ways to shops for example so u need a car, or u need to distribute the product -> more usage of energy -> more pollution.
And of course people need more space. In cities living millions of people in big houses divided in small apartments. Biger ones and small ones.
But if u don't want to build new citie-like-nature-ghettos u need to build houses not so big -> more houses -> u need more space.
Hope u got it now.
Signature |
|
|
|
-Abatwa-
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
1087
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:35
|
|
nice so we started discussion with what is nature. I think that is a nice topic to start
`Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules, which are repeated without end` Mandelbrot |
|
|
|
Dimitri
Inactive User
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
229
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 15:59
|
EYB , i'm sorry but Spindrift is right here .Most of us undeerstand word nature as something basic on earth not touched by civillization , which are human unless you believe in "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons . Everything done by human based on earth nature rules , same as atomic powerplants but it createn by human so it is not nature in it's basic form . For those who want to keep "nature" alive , i would advice to think and threat the world from God's point of view which is perfect world than you won't try to ask some questions which can't be answered .
When human live in more natural form of living there were advantages and disadvantages of it like human lived much less than now because of medicine progress or air was much cleaner than now . We need to deal with what we have and not what we could . We have polluted air and water so we need to find out how to clean it without destroing of pollution root aka factories , cars , etc.... . It is way harder to keep this world like it is and deal with it's problems that just destroing the root which can't be destroyed in daily life .
One intresting story about water pollution . The Miditerian sea is way polluted and there is a conference where Miditerian counties decide how to clean the sea . Do you know that most of countries do not come to this conference because of idealogic , relegious and fundametal problems . Suria , Lebanon do not accept Israel as part of world society so they do not come to this conference . So all not only about cleaning the earth , politics are highly common these days in world care decisions . |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:02
|
Well, EYB, the problem with your logic is that the farms, power plants etc is not concentrated in one place still, so you need to do a lot of transporting to get it in to the cities.
I have lived in cities, and live in the country now.
And even though I grow quite little vegetabels myself and don't hunt, I can assure you that the food I eat have been transported shorter than if I' bought it in a city.
My water is carried a few meters...my electricity is local...
The wood from my heating is from the local forest etc, etc....
You should check out life in the country a bit, and learn what you are talking about.
It's not enough to have a quick think to understand everything...sometimes you have to look deeper (try psychedelic plants, they can help you do that), and experience can help as well.
Space is not so much an issue as resources, but if you have some vision you could see that you could have 'compact living' in the country as well if it would think it was necessary. |
|
|
|
Dimitri
Inactive User
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
229
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:07
|
|
Spindrift you must accept one thing that in city it is much more efficient to carry electricity , water or food than in farm . City is much more organized structure and less ecomonicly wasted . |
|
|
|
Pointy
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
278
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:10
|
Quote:
|
EYB wrote:
Accept the world in this way it is, and it is utopic to think u could change it this way.
|
|
@EYB
Ok, you don´t say everything is "great", but you say we should accept the world as it is.
To me that is a non-idea too.
As I wrote earlier, I think change is always possible, but it doesn´t happen if we just accept everything as it is.
Getting back to nature, or a more natural life doesn´t mean to me, that everybody has to live in the countryside. There are other issues that relate to natural life, for example the food we are eating the water we are drinking, the rubbish we are producing and so on and on and on.
|
|
|
|
Dimitri
Inactive User
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
229
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:16
|
|
Golden words Pointy . We should clean water , eat and produce healthy food and not these Amehamburgers and Frenchips . We should first eat healthy food and not polute water and air and then we can teach other not to do it . By only democratical and not anarchist form of teaching .(Cheers to Green Peace) |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:18
|
Dimitri:
If the production was local in the cites, yes.
Now we need networks transporting resources across the country in to the city.
And I think and hope that we never only have population in cities, so we still need a network to supply the countryside as well.
In all examples of necessary resources I can think about, it's transported a lot shorter now when I live in the country. Power, water, wood and food is available just a few meters away from where I live.
Thats not the case in a city.
You don't actually need much transporting at all if you live in the country. |
|
|
|
Dimitri
Inactive User
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
229
Posted : Oct 6, 2004 16:21
|
|
Okay i see we all here learned ecomonics in university . Let me ask you another question . What is harder to keep small powerstation for local farm of big powerstation for big city ? |
|
|
|
