petergabriel.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4152340418943461860

Very good one, Piedro, and what it mainly says is, don't rule over nature, but let it be, listen, watch and cope with it. . . Any "rulers" will be running dry. . . As the Dalai Lama also says: mother nature/the earth will revolt, if thats not happening, if she is over and over again just raped, so to say. By egos, who do not really listen/watch. Who only take, but don't give back, etc., etc. This film shows, its easy, and very well possible, if one only WANTS to cope.

bumpty dumpty displaced a troll

The link didnt work for me on this one. I kind of get the gist of it by what has been said. Mankind is like a parasite on this great planet of ours, but that is IMO.

I think it very much depends on the individuals of whom we speak, friend Sesmo. It may be true that human beings are the best and the worst things about this planet. I have found that finding peace in regard to human beings is sometimes a matter of trying to love that which is lovable and to hate that which is hateful, yet wherever possible to separate the act from the soul. I have been taught that with very few exceptions (psychopaths) everybody is doing the best that they know how, if not always the best that they are capable. Reversing the trend towards excessive pollution has been found by research scientists to be a matter of reaching a tipping point in the economic structure of the society, where it is no longer cost effective (ie., necessary) to continue to pollute excessively. In other words, it is in achieving the status of what might be called a "second tier" (diversified) economy that allows a nation's citizens the luxury of using intelligent and resourceful solutions to manage their resources, rather than being creatures of desperate necessity only, who have no real choice but to pollute or die.

Humans will never rule the cosmos anyhow, it will go on, also without us. We should forget about the bible quote to make nature our slave, rule it. It was one of the biggest mistakes, either in translation, or ("correcting") writings and has mislead millions. The native indians thus were and are right, if they keep on warning about this kind of thinking. Take just what you need, not more, and give something back. Otherwise we are against natural balance. . .and will fail all along.

Agree for the most part. Yet, once ruined, taking "control" in the sense of proper management may be the only solution to allowing rot to dominate. author Michael Chricton spoke of this before he passed away. It was his greatest hope that Humanity would come into a partnership with nature, not take the stance of trying to "control" it, which he considered to be an absurd proposition. Mastery is one thing, control often something totally different. The former seeks only harmony,cultivation of organic proclivities, and soothing natural forms like a Japanese garden. The latter focused upon rigid order enforced by pure, dry lifeless intellect. Sun shower Season Life flower Reason! - The classical rock group Yes, from "The Revealing Science of God"

Im thinking along the lines of, If only mankind could live more sympathetically towards the Earth, with it, rather than emptying all of the resources out of it. When its gone, its gone, and the future generations will have all the big problems to face, not us. Its ironic really, if we ran out of oil, and all had to go about by horse and cart, governments around the world would make hay, feed, farriers and vets some of the most expensive things to pay for, and I dread to think how much a horse would cost! Money is part of the problem, it seems people can overlook a lot of things when enough is bieng offered, pollution, murder, dissappearences etc.( Sounds like the story of a Diamond mine ) Alas not all nations are that open to intelligent and resourceful solutions. Quick fix for poverty or "creatures of desperate necessity" is also another problem which leads to pollution, deforrestation, etc. Education is the key, teach a more sustainable way of living. Anyhow it worked (for now) the post previous to my previous post!! Just passin thrugh! Hope im not bieng too previous lol. :-]

I was quoting a Scientific American study about the connection between the economic status of nations and the degree to which they pollute their environment. The deternimation of the study was that there is a strong link between tansition to a second teir economic structure( where the nation is able to trade effectively with other nations using efficient ttransportation mechanisms, to fill in the areas of their own deficiencies rather than to attempt to be entirely self sustaining. In other words, a nation that has a vast productive textile industry must reach apoint where they are able to make it possible for their own population to be employed doing what they do best ( making great textile products) rather than forcing a large portion of the population to be farmers in order to feed themselves, and also use primitive wastefully ineffecient farming techniques and cooking with coal fires, etc. Making it possible for a nation to establish an infrastucture of say, naturla gas distribution in order to eleminate coal fires, is a good example. Also using modern sewage systems instead of polluting the aquafers with septic or open waste disposal techniques. Bottom line is that there is a quantum cross over point that nations reach where they become able to feed house and clothe thier masses without incurring the detrimental effects of antiquated, ecolgically unsound methods for living. Elimination of coal or wood burning for cooking, modern farming techniques(which can include micro crops, not just massisve crops), wwaste disposal and water treatment techiques to conserve and purifiy avaiable water supplies, cleaner gas/electric distribution for manufacturing, and yes, education for the average citizen so that they can particiapte in the global market for skilled labor and management. And of course, the establishment of Democratic republics(with popular representative government founded in the Rule of Law) for governance as opposed to fascist or autocratic states, is another strong indicator for prosperity in the above regard. Totalitarian nations are expontetially less properous, with a shorter average life span and far lower average standard of living for their citizens than those of the citizens of democratic republics.

bumpty dumpty displaced a troll

- bump -