.:. gotblogua .:.

Hmmmmm,
Scientists are one step closer, and once again i ask myself, are we doing things, just because we can? Is quantity / length of life in any way connected to quality of life? And what cost do our technological advances carry?

The wolves are in trouble - Care to Help?

i find it outlandish to call a sacred animal “game”… and i hope and trust that any human who subscribes to this language and the underlying mentality, will be subject to being hunted and / or otherwise considered as dispensable. Every organism has its own right to existence and demanding that these animals live in a small designated area is bad enough (similar to the injustice of quarantining the native indians who actually knew how to live in balance with the land) , mass slaughter is unacceptable.

apparently US officials say that stabilizing CO2 emissions (around 535ppm) sufficiently to prevent more than a 2 degree temperature increase could lead to a global recession: “no world leader will pursue a strategy that would lead to economic recession.”

I wonder if that is really true? i wonder if the people of this world will see that if we want the concept of economic prosperity to continue to exist, we are rather dependent on an environment that is supportive of life… we are required to find better balance with our environment. It is not an option. It is not an economic trade off. Either we decide to find a gentle balance or we will face strife and natural disasters and repercussions stemming from over consumption and over combustion… It is simple and obvious.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070430/full/070430-11.html

Update:
You can listen to the friendly Idaho Governor here at Defenders

From Idaho Fish and Game website :

When feasible and legal, the state would propose hunting wolves to provide opportunity for harvest of wolves, as well as to reduce problems with livestock and to maintain a balance between wolves and their prey.

Please allow me to draw your attention to the phrase “harvest of wolves”…

From The Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife ( supported by King’s big business in Killing ) :

SFW continues to use politics as a tool to protect our hunting and fishing heritage in Idaho. With full-time staff in place Idaho SFW members will have their united voices shaping the policies and legislation used to manage our treasured wildlife resource.

From In Defense of Animals :
“the native species conservationists worked so hard to reintroduce and protect will likely be stalked and killed soon by an even more aggressive predator — man.”

So basically as i see it, the human predators at the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, are dancing on thin ice above hypocritical waters… (if they aren’t already swimming proudly)… They admit (boldly and proudly) that they are “using politics”… They portray that they are supported by big business (Kings) who OF COURSE stands to gain plenty from permission to kill these precious native species.

Are we really so civilized? Do we have no capacity to create peaceful pathways of co-existence? Do you personally respect life? Does that wolf have less right to exist than you? Is it threatening your ability to survive?

What are the reasons to destroy these animals? To take their last breath from a long distance without any fair fight? Is it wise to encourage men to use their intelligence to kill? When will we decide that the power rush is just not worth it? When?

As best as i can gather from my distant investigation, The primary motivating factors for killing all but 100 wolves in Idaho are as follows:
1. Sport (I suppose people have the right to entertain themselves as they wish and suffer the karmic consequences duly)
2. Protecting Human Lives (Have there been any injuries or deaths?)
3. Protecting livestock and other domesticated animals (ranchers will be reimbursed for wolf-related deaths)
4. Economic profit (from sport, and “saved” livestock)

So what are the statistics? How many livestock have been killed? How many humans have been attacked? Who are the real “invaders”?

Crazy world we live in!

White man takes land from nature, driving the people away who actually know how to coexist and communicate with and respect the creatures of the land. Then we want to protect our “live stock” so we can kill them ourselves…

And yes, we call ourselves civilized.

:-D

Please consider to take action now…

much info out there:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt05/
http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=6F1726CD-952D-6E23-9A79F5D44DBC2637
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/idaho_governor_declares_wolf_public_enemy_number_one/C41/L41/
http://www.pocatelloshops.com/blogs/Journal_Politics.php?id=1869

Some people eat over 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of meat per day (on average)…

Some on the other hand don’t :

From the 17th August until the 7th December 1996, Umasankar-ji stopped eating and sleeping altogether. His body weight remained the same and he continued his daily routine working in the assram in a perfect state of health.

How?

This swamiji, is said to “eat” the energy from the sun. Is it hocus pocus? Lies and Illusions? The website is quite convincing…

Organic semiconductors make cheap, flexible photovoltaics and LEDs from PhysOrg.com
Imagine T-shirts that light up, or a beach umbrella that collects solar energy to run a portable TV. How about really cheap solar collectors for the roof? All this and more could come from cutting-edge research at Cornell that demonstrates a new type of organic semiconductor device which shows electroluminescence and acts as a photovoltaic cell.

[…]

Some reading in a magazine tonight revealed some writings by Robert Anton Wilson and Graham Hancock…
Shedding some light on an older posts (twisting and evolution) about intelligent design (and offline discussion with Joen), and some ongoing debates with Daniel about thie issue outlined in these phrases:

“substituting a true transpersonal life with a grammar
structure, thinking that renouncing nouns or similar old abstinence (in
spiritual work) actually works as means of becoming enlightened, while
in fact it only reinforces the very thing they want to avoid. It is
basically non-acceptance…….
I just tend to disagree and think that relinquishing the usuage or
whatever is just another superego-represion..
“

“A change in language can transform our perception of the cosmos” -Robert Anton Wilson

This is based on the premis that altering our software and behavior is a way to alter our hardware and our tendancies for future behavior…”fake it until you make it”…

Please consider the difference between me saying:
“They must stop using oil. ”
and
“I think we should reconsider our oil usage strategies and patterns”

the difference between:
“do it!”
and
“lets do it”

between:
“light is a wave”
and
“when perceived with certain equipment, light exhibits the properties of a wave”

“i am a male nurse”
and
“i engage in work in a hospital as a male nurse”

“the facts in absolute irrefutable reality are…”
and
“the evidence from a specific perspective indicate that…”

the world is quantum. and there i go again… the world appears to be “quantum” (dependent on relativity) and “IS” statements get weaker and weaker as we gain the capacity to embrace a “post-Quantum E-Prime” framework for existence and language / behavior software… is your language flexible enough to be considered quantum soft?

And about the random emergence of DNA molecules “religion” - it has been compared with the idea that a junkyard will transform itself into a stealth bomber if left to enough billion years of hurricanes and tornados…. Any takers on that bet?

Evolution is perfectly plausible and likely and beautiful and eloquent IF we have DNA - without/before the existence of a functional language for life(DNA), evolution is statistically astronomically universally bloody unlikely. Crick had the same debate inside - and it was VERY challenging to him as a scientist who wanted to be a realist… [small aside note: Crick is said to have been on LSD when he visualized the DNA molecule]

hmmm what is DNA and where did it come from???

What do you think it’s going to take for more of us to grasp the
seriousness of our situation? How would you describe those conditions
that are going to provoke us to really change?

I think that all conditions are provoking us to really change. (more…)

I really get the feeling that we need to wear our sharp pointy skeptic noses… everything eco, bio, green, soft and fuzzy isn’t always backed by sound environmental ethics… take bio-diesel fuel for example.

from a cute little guardian article recommended by peter:

“Between 1985 and 2000,” it [was] found: “the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia”. In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia.[…][The british government:]Knowing that the creation of this [bio diesel]market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelerate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway.

perhaps the worst part is the role of govenments with money blinding their insight and leading to their destructive decisions.

As BP is saying:
Its time to go on a low Carbon diet.

(more…)

some quotes from luf-team @ yahoo by various group members

>Have. But it’s not for the ‘majority’ of people and we’re not going to change
>that.
from : http://www.culturalcreatives.org/
“While Cultural Creatives are a subculture, they lack one critical ingredient in their lives: awareness of themselves as a whole people.”

There is a very quickly emerging subclass of consumers that is being labeled the cultural creatives they / we are 50 mil strong in the US and 80-90 in the EU… But we still frame ourselves against the masses or the ‘majority’…and are relatively unaware of out collective strength.

[warning : incoming arrogant overstatement]
The world will always be full of 60-80% sheep. The question is what principles do the sheep follow.
[/ioa]

>>microgravity research.
>>There is a LOT of interest in it, but little opportunity to pursue actual
>>research given the limits of the Shuttle schedule and the lack of facilities and
>>manpower on the ISS.
just heard a story about a ESA reasearcher who lost two years of prep work and many Euro’s worth of cash on a failed microgravity experiment - because her boss miswired some small electronic component… point being lots of interest, lots of money allocated, lots of starving thirsty people, lots of pollution, lots of pesticide on our food….

Can we play a role in cleaning up this environment so that we deserve to visit space? Can we prove that we know how to engineer stasis within a very supportive environment before we go trying to inhabit a much less supportive one?

Space is sexy. Space is the ultimate escape from the disaster we are creating…

>my guess is that virgin galactic will use their money from the
>intial LEO tourism to try to expand their market sevices all the
>way to a lunar resort.

point is can we take the profits from this outlandish luxury of space tourism and redirect to provide sustainable infrastructure REGARDLESS OF THE COST/EFFICIENCY… before we get so far ahead of ourselves to be building lunar resorts….

rant_ingly yours,
joshua
ps : http://www.wie.org/spiral/
spiral dynamics at amazon.com

Wild what a search for vegatable based ink-jet refills can bring up:

A NOTE ON GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS
& OTHER GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS)

Although Ben studied genetic engineering at university, all of our breeding is by traditional methods only. On grounds of both safety and ethics we strongly oppose all genetic engineering and the patenting of plants.

The subject is very complex, but the dangers are very simple. We believe that, without exaggeration, the release of Genetically Modified crops truly is a dangerous practice that threatens the entire ecosystem.

It is simply not true that Genetically Modified crops will solve third-world food problems or require less pesticides. This is no more than advertising ’spin’.

Genetic engineering is NOT just a variant of what farmers and breeders have done for centuries. It is a completely new science that can give very odd, very different and highly unpredictable results. It is not ‘natural’ for a plant to have a fish gene in it, and there is no knowing what odd poisons the plant might make as a result of finding fish proteins floating around in its sap.

GM plants are probably unsafe to eat, but we don’t know for sure, because due to intense political lobbying, none of these plants have undergone any food safety testing(!) - which is why it is important that food should be labelled as to whether it contains GM ingredients or not. The only benefit of GM crops is to the large multinationals that are using them to take control of the worlds food supply.

We will not knowingly have anything to do with genetically modified seeds

Part of The Real Seed Catalogue at www.realseeds.co.uk

The odds that even that first bacterium in the primordial soup was due
to pure chance looks something like this:
1 protein is about 200 amino acids, there are 20 possible amino acids�
that makes a 1 : 20^200 chance that a single protein could emerge
properly from pure chance.
This is about 10^260 which is enormously* greater than the number of
atoms spread out in the observable universe (estimated at 10^80)
*Lets take a quick look at how enormously - 10^260 is equal to
10^80×10^180 which is 10^20 more than 10^80×10^80 (or 10^80 squared)
(side note � I just totally bugged out a business guy from Detroit
with this idea and by telling him that science and evolution via
random chance is basically impossible bullshit especially since our
point of observation is by nature NOT objective� he wasn’t exactly
ready to hear that, but I guess his dreams will be interesting
tonight)
One more time. There is about as much chance for a single protein to
randomly emerge as there is for you to throw an apple out into the
cosmos and it to bounce off of exactly 200 of the atoms in the
observable universe (and the 10^160 parallel universes) and return to
earth with your name written on the side of it.
OK so now we have a dilemma. DNA is verifiably the LANGUAGE of life.
Not only do we not know who what or how this language was/is/can be
written� we aren’t even looking for such an intelligent force.
Now lets just take a short breath back into the statistical mathematical realm.
The absolute MOST simple form of life (smallest bacterial genome) has
580,000 DNA letters/bases. Even with the ridiculous premis that the
introns (unknown undeciferable repetitive regions of DNA) are actually
“junk” comprising 97% of most genomes.. that leave 17,400 bases � 5800
amino acids (at 3 bases per aa) � 29 proteins.
So as if a 1:10^260 wasn’t impossible enough odds for you, lets make
that 1:10^260 x 29
:-) or is it (1:10^260)^29 ??

Ok back to the language thing. All this math is based on the premis
that the language and the letters already exist. ACTG � the building
blocks of DNA. Pretty complex molecules in themselves. We could launch
into another statistical exercise in combinatorial mathematics at this
point if felt like it� Something about the number of atoms in each
ACTG molecule. But lets ignore that for now, lets just assume that the
primordial soup was magically, randomly, chaotically, or just somehow
endowed with these 4 extrememly complimentarily organized molecules.
Lets imagine that this soup was so full of these little molecules and
they were bouncing into each other and ready to combine into DNA
(actually I’m not even sure if they would do so given the chance � but
lets assume they would and may have). [Again this is simply a
calculation about the random occurance of a meaningful string of
information in the language of DNA and it is “not to mention” the need
for a very specific system of complex proteins for transforming that
DNA into actual proteins]

How fast would they have to “try” different combinations to result in
that first super simple 29 protein bacterium???
Lets look at it from 2 time scales:
1. the currently accepted idea is that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and our first records of single celled organisms is at 3.5 billion
years � leaving 1 billion years (3.2×10^16 sec) for random
combinations. That leaves 9.2×10^244 attempts per second. By our
current estimates that is 9.2×10^164 times the number of atoms in the
observable universe.
2. if we consider our estimates of the age of earth to be very wrong
and actually the earth is 9 billion years old and there has been life
for 4.5 billion years � that leaves 4.5 billion years (2×10^244 sec)
for life to emerge. Or a measly 2×10^164 times the number of atoms in
the observable universe.

The number of atoms in the observable universe (again 10^80) is _____
times larger than the number of atoms () on earth.
–note: please also take a brief moment to consider the difference
between atoms on earth and the existence of ACTG molecules which are
needed to even start the craps table that we are calculating about.