Hey, all:

 

Hey, Amanda:  In other words 'how in hell did we get HERE?'  Heh heh.....   A big part of the total environmental issue for me is the advent/combination of psychology, sociology, religion, and marketing in business and economics.    Tricking consumers to be so dissatisfied with their selves and their lives, through psychology, sociology, demographics, and religion in Western marketing campaigns, so they will buy anything at all--vastly beyond their means--that they believe will improve their existence,  is one of the biggest reasons for environmental problems. This is one big reason for egregious overconsumption of resources.  Your "social problems and behaviors" is another major aspect of these problems.   This also reveals our dualistic, anthropocentric mentality--humans on one hand, and nature on the other.

 

Most of what I have seen or heard is 'how-to' guides to achieve the above (or its results) rather than how to reverse and resist these efforts, and repair the tremendous damage and prevent future damage.  As an AoF, here in WE or Earth Charter, I am not sure if such has been suggested, but it certainly is interesting.   Setting it up is one step toward learning how to undo it, individually and globally.

 

Good Idea--Good Success!

 

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

 

Hey, all:

 

Hey, Beth:  Since in this particular group it seems to me we are attempting to essentially bring the future and present together, invoking the past for context and perspective, then by imagining that future and suggesting how it can easily become our present, and how it must for survival, this may be considered a mix of persuasive writing and science fiction--and more.  [How's that for a one-sentence paragraph?] 

 

About my favorite book of all is "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, and one I read repeatedly and spontaneously, like many read the Bible or any other religious or inspirational work.  In fact, it is my "Bible".  While not science fiction in the Jules Verne/Ray Bradbury/Ursula K. Leguin (sp?) style, Leopold blends past, present, and future quite persuasively, does so while conveying the proper sense of alarm, and writes firmly in the science discipline.  He describes things lost, how and why they were lost, their great, immeasurable intrinsic value, and how society can and should (my take is we must) revise and devise habits and attitudes to recoginize these facts and to achieve an improved world. 

 

The improvements we suport may appear to be a new goal, but in reality are a continuation of the same struggle, a struggle started probably in the Great Rift Valley, as hominoids began standing.   Everyone seems to shrink from the term "class warfare", but it is the elephant sitting on your couch.  There were probably elephants the hominoids had to dodge or kill as time, hunger, and skills dictated.  Actually, today it is the fat rich man eating your food, putting permanent depressions in the couch cushion, triggering in your mind a sense of wonder at such conspicuous consumption, and Gawd knows what other thoughts.  He may be in your TV but the effect is hardly different.  The struggle is long-term broadly distributed benefit, versus short-term narrow profit--social Darwinism with a deadly, global, technological vengeance.   

 

There is science fiction, poetry, creativity, plain fiction, non-fiction, persuasive writing all mixed up and used to flavor to taste.  I prefer mostly non-fiction, with a strong flavor of persuasion, to get across the urgency of the issues we face and must address.  That, and a plausible improved future as a side dish.  And good humor with some kick to wash it down.

 

If I could I would shamelessly rip off "Huckleberry Finn" (does anyone realize that the Great American Novel has been done--it came out in the last half of the 19th Century?) and alter it to convey a brighter, egalitarian future without extracted Carbon, in place of that book's racism, ignorance, and slavery, which, now that I write it, is not that far-fetched!  [Oops, another one-sentence paragraph!]

 

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, all:

 

One universal danger to communication is the erosion of language, especially when marketers and other unprincipled types intrude.  "Humpty Dumpty" is an excellent cautionary tale: using words in any way a person sees fit reflects ignorance (which can be fixed with rational education) or willful intent to deceive (which has continued for generation after generation).  We see the constantly worsening results every time we look up.  The contemporary emergence of the term "Greenwashing" has already been accompanied by the erosion of "sustainable" in all of its grammatical variations.  The term "sustainable-washing" can't be far behind.

 

What is needed is a clear, rigorous, unassailable definition of "sustainable".  Despite coming from an economic entity, or maybe because it does, the definition used by the Brundtland Commission is a good starting point:

 

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

 

What doesn't this mean?  It does not mean 'until we cain't no more', 'until someone tells us we cain't no more', nor 'until someone finds out'.   Referring to current events, it also does not mean 'until things crash'.  It also does not mean, referring to its use in the language of business, an enterprise that will conitnue to make money for a while.  The MBAs of the world will need to check out Humpty Dumpty to receive a corrective lesson.   Again, speaking slowly to the MBAs, It also does not mean 'development  that can continue until you run out of either the resources or space to put the end product'.

 

"Development" means any activity that changes the existing condition.  "Needs" does not mean 'minimal, impoverished, destitute survival needs', and in fact is not defined and is undefinable, because we can not define what the needs of future generations are--only they can.  It is a part of the pattern of blind greed and hubris and arrogance that promotes this illusion that we can speak for the future.  Indeed, we can't even take care of the present.  "Compromising" refers to cost, accessiblity, convenience, existence, quality of life--any measure that could be applied to determine a level of difficulty which future generations might experience.

 

The "cautionary principle" applies here, which should appeal to purist conservatives, but make faux conservative, greed-driven free-market types squirm.  This simply means if there is uncertainty about the consequences of an action, you err on the side of caution.

 

Another point to make the faux conservatives squrim:  there is no reference to economics here, thus there is no distinction between "economic" resources (or those that can be made so by technology) and "uneconomic" resources, which one can not make a quick buck off of.  "Conservation" in the natural resources sense, often refers only to this distinction, and is then extended, ala Humpty Dumpty, to any other discussion which seems vulnerable to distortion by 'conservatives'.   Therefore, such issues as "needs" can encompass anything that generation deems it to be, e.g., many people in the world today grieve the loss of species perpetrated by previous generations, due to greed, ignorance, or contrived blindness.  Many more today would grieve if they understood the resulting impoverishment.  This grief can be due to any concern: aesthetic, ethical, literary, poetic, biological, medical,. etc.  As this loss and the attendant grief is a quality of life issue for current generations, so too, do actions perpetrated by current generations impose on and compromise future generations.

 

This definition does not permit what could be called, using a 'buzz term', 'externalized costs' imposed on future generations.    This could be termed "deferred socialism"  in that they are current short-term,  privatized gain imposed on future societies for payment or negative consequences.

 

This definition also has no endpoint: it does not refer only to two, a few generations or four or ten.  Sustainability has to be firmly and clearly ensured to last in perpetuity (until the Sun blinks out or an asteroid ends life on Earth as we know it), or it isn't 'sustainable' at all.  Here again, we must apply the cautionary principle.  If not enforced at all times, the erosion of language contributiing to the erosion of the term "sustainable" will inevitably lead to further erosion--in real terms--to the quality of life, in its broadest sense, now and in the future.

 

The Brundtland Commission definition is not the last word in sustainability.  Other definitions meeting a high standard should also be discussed, and the result should be an even more rigorous definition. 

 

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

 

This has kinda vegetated (not in a good way) for a while, and I have been occupied elsewhere, but now I wish to be impatient and let my 'inner curmudgeon' out and bump this up, and get more attention for it. As I suggested, it seems simple enough to call attention of new users to the process, or to rename/add to the label "People" more precisely. I think this is an important correction, but in the meantime, there is a generally shared suggestion that documenting existing confusion/abuse could be another first step, so I will do just that in the Editors Group. I will just make it an open blog of sorts with dates to track entries, for all to add to, since as they say in medicine, 'early detection is key to effective treatment and a healthy prognosis'.

 

I encourage others to add information as these entities appear, either as new ones, or through activity. As recent and still-unfolding events painfully prove, self-discipline and ethics are absolutely vital for success, especially in a group effort. This is our Commons, and we need to take care of it.

 

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

 

Yes, this has been a problem since the start, at least as far as MY start is concerned.  I have actually contacted  individuals/groups to try to educate, to no avail.  They either don't see the note, don't understand, or ignore it.   In all cases it seems lack of concern is a constant. 

 

One reason may be a legitimate misunderstanding, in that  'people' can be construed as a collective, just as 'fish' can be, and then in the case of 'people',  thus an 'organization'.  This is a stretch, granted, but 'people'  is a plural noun as well as singular. 

 

Replacing the "People" label where ever it appears would seem to help a lot to prevent this misunderstanding.  The purpose is to remove the possible ambiguity and confusion.   Something like "People (Individuals)",  "Individual Members/Users/People", "Individual People", "Individual Users", "Personal Listing", "User Listing", etc., might help. 

 

As the site grows, this sort of confusion or abuse will continue and become more difficult to manage.   A preventive fix seems rather easy to put in place.  And reviewing such groups/organizations misplaced as individual members would also seem to be worthwhile, with some correction/redress mechanism in place. 

 

I add my support.

 

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

 

 

Hey, all:

Hey, Lorna:  Well, it's the night shift (just kidding).   To modify a member's status, you need to 'hover the mouse' over the photo of the member in your group page--a small box appears with the name, status, and at the bottom, 'Edit Member Status'. Click this--a new page opens with the photo, member status, and a small dropdown menu with the choices will appear.  Click on the appropriate choice, then "Finish", and then you should see the change in the same 'hover' box as before. 

This should work, but if it does not, there may be a bug, and we'll have to call the Cavalry!

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
 

Hey, all:

Yep, the Carbon Age is coming to a close, since it has reached a threshold past which it can not be sustained.  The Golden Age of Rockefeller and Peabody is ended.  Principles of atmospheric chemistry and Carbon Dioxide's action as a greenhouse gas were established in the 19th Century, and now we have seen the practical realization of that chemistry.

Therefore, we must all KILL Carbon as an energy source immediately, and institute sustainable sources.   Coal, oil, and gas are all environmentally destructive, from extraction to disposal.  "More, more, more" is the mantra and mentality of the addict, and in this case the source of the chant is indistinguishable from the Corporate Oligarchy.  

 The vast majority of this new energy source needs to be Wind and Sun.  These are tried and proven technologies--Wind turbines on all scales have been available since the 1920s, and technologies using the sun for electricity have been in existence since the early 1960s.  These technologies are not static either, but continue to improve. 

Energy from sustainable sources for transportation is transferred to Hydrogen or batteries for use in vehicles.  The best first application of these technologies is for rail transit of people and goods.  These technologies are also vastly improved, continue to do so. 

What is lacking is implementation, which in turn suffers from the continued suffocating pressure from the fossil fuel industry.  Coal companies buy judges and legislators and lobby the rest and get their way, despite the rule of law and will of the people.  Oil and gas companies prevent advances in sustainability and incentives to promote them, in the name of greed. 

Essentially connected to the sources above is the need for energy efficiency.  Waste on all scales makes us look like fools, beyond simple inefficiency of technology.  Consistent with greater efficiency is more local production of goods including industry and agriculture. 

Related to all of the above is the need to simply have fewer people on the Earth to demand a fair share of resources.  We simply do not have the resources of two extra Earths on which to rely, to satisfy the basic needs of the too many people we have now. 

This is the start of the best possible future, based on sustainability. 

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

Okay, either color me dense, or color me with a dense color, but I do not understand what is being suggested here.  Is the 'vote' a request?  Is this for a page the member maybe feels has important value but can't understand it?  How is value perceived without understanding?  Is a threshold in number of requests (='votes') needed to trigger translation of a given page? 


It seems the first statement about "local content in local language" is the most important, but I do not see how to bridge the gap implied by "barriers" with the balance of the statement.  It has occurred to me, while looking at several sites, that many have automatic multiple language features.  Therefore, it seems this is the most important direction to proceed, to provide the greatest 'internationalization'  improvement. 

If a more comprehesive explanation of the suggestion is available, please let's discuss this some more. 

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

Oh, Roger, that is brilliant! But SO obvious! Sorting Events by Location! Such an essential feature, I should have included it in my original suggestion. Having a clear geographic Location for an event makes it searchable on that basis, but being able to sort on Location, and in a hierarchy of various relationships as well, is a great improvement. And I fully agree, this does support Internationalization of the site and movement.

One problem that seems to occur with the current "Address" field is that this seems to be used as the address of the organizer or sponsor and not the physical, geographical event Location. The uses of these fields need to be clarified in the process of adding a Location field.

This suggestion will have to be implemented with several steps, first to add the Location field, and modify the boxes accordingly, and then implement a Sort feature, with the hierarchy and network aspects addressed.

Great ideas!

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Hey, all:

Hey, Honore: It turns out that most of the 'blanks' occur on the "Browse", "Edit", etc. links on the left. Maybe 2/3s of those are blank. Since I use them a lot, this only accentuates the problem, and although I don't know how much others use them, it seems since these are central features in navigating the site, so it would help to see labels on the browser items for them.

I wonder if this is an isolated observation since it is just you, me, and Camila involved here. Usually others chip in on larger more common problems. But, I use up-to-date Firefox on a PC with XP so you can't get much more mainstream than that.

Thanks for the help!

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!