Researchers conclude poverty is melting arctic ice

Let us focus on smokestack industries instead of nations, poor or rich.

Maybe we need to start thinking about Ruralization as the way forward. Maybe we need to start forming ourselves into villages.

As I see it, cities are huge conglomerates of people engaged in
i) intellectual-type stuff
ii) large-scale trading/manufacturing activities
ii) service-type stuff for the intellectuals and traders, cooking their food, washing their clothes etc.

Villages are smaller places that house primary producers of basic things like food and clothing, largely for the villagers themselves. The people there also tend to do a lot more for their own households and neighbourhoods; they are more connected to members of their own family and community. Villages have relatively self-sufficient households with limited give-and-take with the ‘outside world’. Hence, each village develops a character and history of its own.

These are of course huge generalizations that I am making for the limited purpose of stating my main point, which is:

We need to start living in smaller, slower-paced, more self-sufficient groups that are less dependent on, and that do not contribute much to, this huge money-making resource-guzzling thing we call the economy.

The intention here is not to create hippie-type utopias or communes of spaced-out people, but to create replicable models of groups of thinking people DROPPING OUT OF THE MAIN ECONOMY, gradually taking the wind out of its sails and slowing it down.

Villages I believe are basically places that are friendlier to people, animals and the environment. They are slower paced and have less of a hunger for personal growth, primarily because they are focussed around good living day-to-day, not on growth.

Villages are built around the core principles of caring for each other’s good opinion and way of life and actively participating in upkeep of common facilities such as rivers, beaches, grasslands, neighbourhoods, roads and playgrounds. (By contrast, indifference of ones surrounding is built into a typical urban setup; the bigger the city, the greater the indifference — because everybody is in such a tearing hurry to get somewhere else that they delegate the basic tasks of looking after their own neighbourhoods.)

I’m not saying that ruralization is the one and only answer to the ills that we face today. I’m only saying this is one possible way forward — one among many others that we must consider.

What do you think?

Blamed the poor for being poor? Where in Lene's comments did she blame the poor for being poor? What an obvious obfuscation of the real issue – that anthropogenic global warming isn't real! Instead of dealing with the facts behind the current moderate, cyclical warming we are experiencing, this reader makes an issue of poverty?!

On one hand, some scientists have proposed putting more CO2 into the air to cool the earth while others propose we need to eliminate CO2? But few realize the benefits of cyclical global warming – TO THE POOR! If the earth warms Eastern Europe, Russia, and Asia and they increase crop output and improve the economies as a result, is global warming even a bad thing – regardless of its cause? (Only if you believe the hype, which is the REAL problem!)

If you are such a great thinker, why have you fallen for the hyperbole being sold to support the Kyoto Protocol? Most of the poorer countries of the world have signed on to Kyoto because they have NOTHING to lose – and everything to gain, ECONOMICALLY. As the United States improves its technology, it can help the whole world adapt to climatic changes instead of trying to control something we don't even fully understand.

(But the great thinkers seem to think it is better to consider ourselves sufficiently intelligent to control the climate than adapt to it… right?)

Will Kyoto change the El Niño, decadal oscillations, solar activity? Do the global warming models accurately model the albedo effect of clouds or can they even accurately model the clouds themselves, the single biggest greenhouse effect? Why don't the climate models take into effect the fact that the Antarctic is growing in size? Why don't the AGW predictors include the increased release of CO2 from the single greatest source, the oceans, in their models? Why do all the arguments made by supporters of anthropogenic global warming tell what WILL happen, not what actually IS happening?

Think? Do some of your own thinking instead of the what the propaganda tells you. So, what would Kyoto truly accomplish?

Hi

I have a new thought on global warming it can be read at <a href ="http://psychsthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/11/global-warming-new-approach.html"&gt; My Blog

Very good article thank you… evden eve nakliye