On 23/01/2015 1:10 PM, Jim Birch wrote:
> It is certainly what allows some the "advanced" life of humans...
Hey Jim,
I can see what you're saying, but I still disagree with your human
supremacist views. We can agree to disagree.
But beyond that, we're still talking about this culture. For insta
Personally, I don't have a lot of time for either the 'What a Work is Man'
argument or the sanctity of Nature arguments.
The bottom line is that if we were even remotely collectively intelligent we
would realise that you can't keep dumping your garbage in a closed system (the
world), and you ca
Hey there
Nice to see more thoughts.
On 23/01/2015 9:45 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> At some stage we may push the environment into a new climate equilibrium ...
> which would be bad, and which at the moment we have very few means of
> reversing ... which probably won't kill all of us, but it wi
Just watched this one. BBC production. Multiple points of view. Explains why
neolib/con (whatever you want to call it) is a dead end for all of us, globally.
Thanks for prodding, Jore. There is so much in this one that anyone who votes
needs to understand. The two main parties in Australia are as
On 22/01/15 08:36, I wrote:
> ... Changing climate ... may well increase the risk of global nuclear
> war ...
The Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security
appear to agree. They have advanced the hands of the "Doomsday Clock" to
3 Minutes To Midnight". This is in respo
On 24/01/2015 12:50 PM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> The Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and
> Security appear to agree. They have advanced the hands of the
> "Doomsday Clock" to 3 Minutes To Midnight". This is in response to
> "... unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms rac
