Neo-green

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Oct 2012, 08:01

Paul Kingsnorth, thought provoking as ever http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/journalis ... eo-greens/

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Oct 2012, 08:56

biffvernon wrote:Paul Kingsnorth, thought provoking as ever http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/journalis ... eo-greens/

We're done for

ceti331 · Post by **ceti331** » 24 Oct 2012, 09:06

"green technology" is an practically an oxymoron

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 Oct 2012, 10:27

Permaculture is the only true "green technology", but almost nobody takes it seriously.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Oct 2012, 10:38

It appeared in The Guardian originally; the non-neo-nincompoops are out in force in its comments section of course.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Permaculture is the only true "green technology", but almost nobody takes it seriously.

Write an article for them, UE, why not? (The Guardian, not the nincompoops).

Post by **clv101** » 24 Oct 2012, 10:45

Also see this from Fred Pearce which Kingsnorth recently took exception to.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_are_en ... QR.twitter

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Oct 2012, 10:59

Fred Pearce wrote:On issues ranging from ocean acidification and tipping points in the Arctic to the dangers of nanotechnology, the scientists have always gotten there first — and the environmentalists have followed.

No, nature got there first.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 24 Oct 2012, 12:11

Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture, but it seems to me that throughout my life headline science has failed to deliver most of the things it promised.

I well remember watching "Tomorrows World" as a kid, I loved the idea that we'd all be driving hover-cars in the year 2000, we'd all have limitless clean energy and be spending our holidays on the Moon. Cancer would be a thing of the past.

We got amazing computers, but we're still using coal-fired power stations and half the world doesn't have clean drinking water.

Science stalled when it ran into economics.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Oct 2012, 12:19

Heh heh. And what on earth are we doing with all this 'leisure time' that was talked about? (Someone's obviously filched my share.)

Post by **clv101** » 24 Oct 2012, 12:50

Catweazle wrote:Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture, but it seems to me that throughout my life headline science has failed to deliver most of the things it promised.

Be careful, was it 'science' that promised all these undeliverables or was it the media's and wider society's reinterpretation of that science?

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 24 Oct 2012, 19:02

clv101 wrote:
Catweazle wrote:Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture, but it seems to me that throughout my life headline science has failed to deliver most of the things it promised.
Be careful, was it 'science' that promised all these undeliverables or was it the media's and wider society's reinterpretation of that science?

I suspect it was actually scientists looking for funding, and modern claims that technology will save us from energy starvation could be the same.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 24 Oct 2012, 20:24

emordnilap wrote:Heh heh. And what on earth are we doing with all this 'leisure time' that was talked about? (Someone's obviously filched my share.)

Well, sometimes things do come to pass, but with strange twists compared to how they were originally envisaged. In the "developed nations", technology and industrialisation has indeed allowed us to feed ourselves while a significant proportion of the population remains idle (either by choice or otherwise). Without the technology we'd all have to be pitching in and helping.

We see this as a social problem rather than the idealised result we were looking for. Not exactly an image of people spending all their time wandering through sunlit gardens composing poetry!

I wonder what other rosy predictions of the future have come true, but with a dark twist?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Oct 2012, 20:53

I for one have traded 20% of my income for and one more day of leasure each week - although I don't get much leasure out of it! I look forward to work days so that I can get some rest and catch up here.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 24 Oct 2012, 21:49

RalphW wrote:I for one have traded 20% of my income for and one more day of leasure each week - although I don't get much leasure out of it! I look forward to work days so that I can get some rest and catch up here.

I, and many more like me, have traded the same 20% for longer working hours, shorter and unpaid breaks, no job security to speak of, confrontational management and so on.

A lot of what hasn't happened science-wise isn't economics it's politics, specifically the desire of TPTB to continue concentrating wealth.

It's only going to get worse I fear

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 25 Oct 2012, 10:49

Like Ralph, I chose to work four days and took a fifth cut in my gross wage. The way the tax system is set up (at the moment anyway), I didn't lose that much in nett wages.

If I was asked to work five days again, my gross wage rate would have to increase otherwise it wouldn't be worth it. The day spent at home is unbelievably valuable - I highly recommend it, though it seems a risk to some. Another guy at work has done the same.

The spare day is when everything else gets done, as opposed to stuff that has to be squeezed into a weekend. Or one can sit and contemplate what to do when the job disappears completely.

PowerSwitch

Neo-green

Neo-green

Re: Neo-green