by Starman » Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:43 pm
Slimouse said:<br><br>"Do you have permission to reproduce this ?<br><br>If not , why post it ?"<br><br>Uhm ... I'd say 'Fair Use' pretty much covers it, ie. information of importance useful for research and education. I sure appreciate its being posted instead of having to digest and process a summary and then do the additional steps required to link to a cite. In any case, the author was acknowledged -- I don't think the liberty-taken was a big deal -- it's not like this is a for-profit site instead of a discussion board.<br><br>Slimouse also posted:<br>"And therein lies the ultimate Bullshit.<br><br>The technology to deal with all of this ALREADY EXISTS"<br><br>Er, WOT???? The 'technology' to deal with tyranny already exists? Praytell, what ARE you talking about? As I see it, it's the corporate abuse of technology and exploitation of seriously-flawed economic system in which the 'free-market' demonstrably doesn't have an accurate cost-accounting in place for crucial public resources, ie. artifacts of the commons such as clean water and air, healthy communities, fertile soil, sufficient and appropriate growing conditions ie. weather and climate, a motivated and effective work-force, reliable, efficient and extended supply systems, good government to facilitate good management and long-range planning, social services, and other services re: laws and equitable economic participation, etc., that has led to current problems exacerbated by loss of regional and local control over crucial resources, goods and services.<br><br>Amply documented, our political system is no longer adequate to address a wide range of critical issues, which have been subverted by special and powerful economic special interests -- we aren't seeing real leadership encouraging novel and progressive solutions, but rather an extreme form of CYA denial and lack of initiative. There's an appalling lack of systems-thinking, no cohesive vision of how society and the global community could be best served by development that helps the largest numbers of people in the best, most-efficient and environmentally-benign manner possible.<br><br>If you mean that the problems of drought and weather-extrmes with loss-of-arable land (ie., salt-poisoning from irrigation) and decrease in food-production, declining petro-output that impacts growing market-demand, warming-trends exacerbating bog-melting with release of huge amounts of methane (dangerous quantities of potent greenhouse gas), loss-of-fisheries and death of coral-reefs, groundwater depletion, and agribusiness monopolization and control of world's food supply -- in the absence of political will and effective public support for investment and development of suitable alternatives, the available technology won't do anybody any good, will it? And even limited development of alternatives are only going to benefit those who are most optimally-positioned -- ie, the relatively-affluent North and West --the 'developed' nations which are already exploiting inequitable and criminally-disproportionate incentives, ie. economic and political coercion of debt-indentured and dependant nations.<br><br>I think Ruppert correctly identifies the distractions that are diverting public attention from a great many of the serious problems that are overtaking the world and political institutions that aren't looking-out for the citizens best interests -- if they're not aware, they can hardly act in time to provide effective solutions and prevent massive suffering. It's hardly a secret, esp. to the better-than-average reader on this site (and many others) that the political infrastructure serves their globalist and corporate masters -- and corporations and the wealthy elite have ALWAYS manufactured crises and chaos as a way to further consolidate their wealth. How would these crises Ruppert described be any different? I mean, K-Rist, look at how our whole system is built on the premise of force-projection instead of constructive engagement. As such, your suggestion of 'the ultimate bullshit' is totally off-target. IMHO, of course.<br><br>But perhaps I simply misunderstood what you were driving at. For instance: I see the US's 'energy policy' as grabbing control over foreign oil reserves instead of investing in alternative energy systems and promoting conservation (Helluva shortsighted, self-absorbed 'solution' all right) -- as an example of how technology ISN'T being used to prevent the kind of problems we can reasonably anticipate are going to be of increasing concern in the years ahead. But then, the Bush Adminstration is hardily-biased against science and quite deliberately avoids accurate perception of reality, in favor of wishful-thinking and believing in their own fabled fairytales -- so what else SHOULD we expect? Too bad tho that those most responsible for contributing to serious problems will be among the last to suffer as a result -- it sure doesn't seem fair.<br>Starman<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
