State of Fear! Global Warming!

[amicus]

WASHINGTON -- In today's segmented America, Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" might seem to be just reading for red states. Granted, a character resembling Martin Sheen -- Crichton's character is a prototypical Hollywood liberal who plays the president in a television series -- meets an appropriately grisly fate. But blue states, too -- no, especially -- need Crichton's fable about the ecology of public opinion.

"State of Fear,'' with a first printing of 1.5 million copies, resembles Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged'' -- about 6 million copies sold since 1957 -- as a political broadside woven into an entertaining story. But whereas Rand had only an idea -- a good one (capitalism is splendid), but only one -- Crichton has information. ``State of Fear'' is the world's first page-turner that people will want to read in one gulp (a long gulp -- 600 pages, counting appendices) even though it has lots of real scientific graphs, and footnotes citing journals such as Progress in Physical Geography and Transactions -- American Geophysical Union.

Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data. Crichton's subject is also how conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched society.

Various factions have interests -- monetary, political, even emotional -- in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require more government subservience to environmentalists, and more government supervision of our lives.

Crichton's villains are environmental hysterics who are innocent of information but overflowing with certitudes and moral vanity. His heroes resemble Navy SEALs tenured at MIT, foiling the villains with guns and graphs.

The villains are frustrated because the data do not prove that global warming is causing rising sea levels and other catastrophes. So they concoct high-tech schemes to manufacture catastrophes they can ascribe to global warming -- flash floods in the American West, the calving of an Antarctic iceberg 100 miles across and a tsunami that would roar 500 miles an hour across the Pacific and smash California's coast on the last day of a Los Angeles conference on abrupt climate change.

The theory of global warming -- Crichton says warming has amounted to just half a degree Celsius in 100 years -- is that ``greenhouse gases,'' particularly carbon dioxide, trap heat on Earth, causing ... well, no one knows what, or when. Crichton's heroic skeptics delight in noting things like the decline of global temperature from 1940 to 1970. And that since 1970 glaciers in Iceland have been advancing. And that Antarctica is getting colder and its ice is getting thicker.

Last week Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environmental correspondent, fresh from yet another international confabulation on climate change, wrote that although the Earth's cloud cover ``is thought'' to have increased recently, no one knows whether this is good or bad. Is the heat-trapping by the clouds' water vapor greater or less than the sun's heat reflected back off the clouds into space?

Climate-change forecasts, Harvey writes, are like financial forecasts but involve a vastly more complex array of variables. The climate forecasts, based on computer models analyzing the past, tell us that we do not know how much warming is occurring, whether it is a transitory episode, or how much warming is dangerous -- or perhaps beneficial.

One of the good guys in "State of Fear'' cites Montaigne's axiom: ``Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known.'' Which is why 30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling. The New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) saw ``many signs'' that ``Earth may be heading for another ice age.'' Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about ``extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.'' ``Continued rapid cooling of the Earth'' (Global Ecology, 1971) could herald ``a full-blown 10,000 year ice age'' (Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug. 27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the cooling.

Last week The Washington Post reported that global warming has caused a decline in Alaska's porcupine caribou herd and has lured the golden orange prothonotary warbler back from southern wintering grounds to Richmond, Va., a day earlier for nearly two decades. Or since global cooling stopped. Maybe.

Gregg Easterbrook, an acerbic student of eco-pessimism, offers a "Law of Doomsaying'': Predict catastrophe no later than 10 years hence but no sooner than five years away -- soon enough to terrify, but far enough off that people will forget if you are wrong. Because Crichton remembers yesterday's discarded certitudes, millions of his readers will be wholesomely skeptical of today's.



*************

Special thanks to Cloudy for the reference and damn, a 1.5 million first edition printing, I should be so lucky!

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

In the book, a character (a university professor) explains the climate of fear that has pervaded our society:

"For fifty years, Western nations had maintained their citizens in a state of perpetual fear. Fear of the other side. Fear of nuclear war. The Communist menace. The Iron Curtain. The Evil Empire. And within the Communist countries, the same in reverse. Fear of us. Then, suddenly, in the fall of 1989, it was all finished. Gone, vanished. Over. The fall of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. Something had to fill it.

Of course, now we have radical fundamentalism and post-9/11 terrorism to make us afraid, and those are certainly real reasons for fear. My point is, there is always a cause for fear. The cause may change over time, but the fear is always with us. Before terrorism we feared the toxic environment. Before that we had the Communist menace. The point is, although the specific cause of our fear may change, we are never without the fear itself. Fear pervades society in all its aspects. Perpetually.

Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can't even see - germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it's an extraordinary delusion - a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing."

Okay, so it's a character in a novel, but I have to admit, the above sounds very, very familiar to me.

 

[oggbashan]

George Orwell said it first in his novel 1984 published in 1948.

Og

 

[amicus]

well, phooey...had a half page written and it disappeared...sighs...

You last comment keyed a thought I have been toying with for some time now.

Our 'new found' science, dating back only a few hundred years and more pointedly the last fifty years, has had some amazing effects...I think.

It was only with the invention of atomic weapons that we really realized that man had the power to destory all life on earth.

With astrophysics, space astronomy, solar studies, setting foot on the Moon and placing mechanical devices on other planets and in orbit throughout the solar system...we can finally view earth as a 'closed system' existing in a continuously changing natural environment.

In addition to the fears you made note of, we now also fear Asteroids and Comets, are more aware of earthquakes and Tsunami's and in Crichton's previous work Jurrasic Park, have fears about genetic manipulation.

My point is...and I have been struggling with how to phrase it, concerns the 'new found science' of man, that has really moved us into a new era of consideration.

I could more easily understand the fears expressed, if they were being felt by 'average people' of average intellect. But that is not the case. Here on Lit, and other venue's, those who seem to express the most fear and 'hatred' are not average at all, but above average in intellect and sensibilities.

It is of course more complex..involves faith, belief, ethical and moral considerations and of course, as always...political agendas from all directions.

Again, thank you for mentioning the book, I am off to the Library.

regards.....amicus...

edited to include: and your next to last paragraph, 'witchcraft' yes...what an amazing comment you made! thank you!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can't even see - germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it's an extraordinary delusion - a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing.

Intriguing quotation - thanks for posting it, Cloudy. I think it's interesting that the author has the character posit a sort of "fear vacuum" - people have to have something to be afraid of, or politicians want people to be afraid of something. It's an intriguing thought. However, suppose one took a different tack? One might argue that what people really fear, at heart, is power - whatever has power inherently makes them nervous, because power can be used in so many dangerous ways. So long as nature had the supreme power, we feared nature. Now that mankind is wielding increasing power over nature, we begin to fear mankind, for precisely the reasons given in the first half of the paragraph. We're aware that we have done amazing things for our own benefit. We're also aware that that power has a destructive side. Hence, the more powerful we become, the more we fear the repercussions of our own actions. If we're powerful enough to master nature, then we begin to fear that we are powerful enough to destroy her.

We can add to that, too, the fear most people feel of that which they do not understand. As modern science increases in power and complexity, we are increasingly in personal control of devices and energies that we do not comprehend. I would suggest that part of what makes people willing to believe that their modern conveninces might be destroying the world is that most of us are aware both of how powerful and remarkable the science is, and of the fact that we have no real idea how it works. A peasant of the middle ages might not have known much, but he certainly knew how everything in his village was made, how it got there, what it could do, and what the worst case scenario involving the object could be. I can't even say that about my trash basket. It makes people nervous when they control powerful things that they don't understand. And the mention of witchcraft seems particularly appropriate, as it brings to mind that old saw: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For many people, the world already appears to operate, essentially, by magic. It's torn with vast energies and powers that they don't understand, and so they are generally willing to believe that those powers could do nearly anything.

I do think that amicus's source has a major problem with credibility, however:

Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged'' ... a political broadside woven into an entertaining story ...

How can one trust a source with blatant factual errors like that one?

(Just pulling your tail, amicus.)

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

My fault for leaving the 'tail' accessible....will go pony up the link to that article...intended to include...slipped me mind... thanks for some interesting thoughts...

Not so sure I can fully accept the 'magic' concept about science and technology. I do see the point, but as you well know, children today come into the world and take for granted all the things they so easily adapt to and use.

Indoor plumbing was a rarity, real 'ice boxes' were common place, heating was by a coal furnace, there was radio, but no television and commercial jet aircraft were unknown until my teenaged years. Yet I do not, nor do most I know, consider the new technology to be 'magic.'

again, appreciate your comments...

amicus...

edited to add links:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.htm

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110815/

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4084

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1



just a few of hundreds....search State Of Fear Michael Crichton...

thanks...

 

[amicus]

Well, I guess I can 'bump' this...did not really expect otherwise than minimal response.

After 30 years of combatting the likes of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and according to a search, 1594 associated, entertwined eco action groups, finally a larger voice is being heard in opposition.

It must truly be devastating to those who have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the eco-nuts propaganda for lo these many years. Really left you without words.

I should just leave you to suffer in humilation and shame at being so gullible, but my motto is, when you get them down, stomp on em!

Eco terrorists have spiked timber and injured loggers; they have committed arson on new housing projects and sabotaged mining operations for years, and nary did the Liberal press complain...about one of their own.

They have disrupted building projects and land reclamation efforts through 'mitigation' and Legislation. They have disrupted industry by 'protecting' the spotted owl, snail darters and hundreds of other farcical efforts to slow growth, the building of homes and new industry.

All for what? The total 'scam' of Global Warming.

For over thirty years you had the upper hand. Time to pay.

Cheney for President, 2008!


amicus chuckles and saunters off stage.....for the moment...

 

[Couture]

Don't expect me to argue about global warming. I don't have kids, so all my concerns are for the future within the next 50 odd years. After that - fuck it. You want to turn the earth into some sort of desolate martian landscape? Go for it.

You want to take the word of a fictional writer instead of the thousands of scientists who have researched the topic? More power to you. Seriously, use hundred watt light bulbs instead of 60. Drive a hummer. Waaahooo!

 

[amicus]

I always use 100 watt rather than 60 and drive a recreational vehicle, even more gas guzzling than an SUV, smoke drink fart and belch and enjoy Nascar....

However, should you read the 'fictional writer' Michael Crichton, you might peruse the appendix...which is not fiction at all, but legitimate research debunking the left wing farce of global warming....

Glad you have 50 years left, wish I did.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Don't expect me to argue about global warming. I don't have kids, so all my concerns are for the future within the next 50 odd years. After that - fuck it. You want to turn the earth into some sort of desolate martian landscape? Go for it.

You want to take the word of a fictional writer instead of the thousands of scientists who have researched the topic? More power to you. Seriously, use hundred watt light bulbs instead of 60. Drive a hummer. Waaahooo!

Yes, the quote I posted was written for a character by a writer of fiction, but can you honestly tell me that it didn't strike a chord with you at all?

If not, you're more close-minded than I thought.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I like the Sierra Club, and I'm a big fan of John Muir, its founder. I don't feel the same sense of urgency about everything they're trying to preserve, but they don't break the law.

"The Sierra Club is an environmental organization founded on May 28, 1892 in San Francisco, California by the well-known conservationist John Muir, who became its first president. The Sierra Club has hundreds of thousands of members in chapters located throughout the United States, and is affiliated with Sierra Club of Canada. The Sierra Club is governed by a fifteen-member volunteer Board of Directors. Each year, five directors are elected to three-year terms, with all Club members eligible to vote. A president is elected annually by the Board from among its members and receives a small stipend. The Executive Director runs the day to day operations of the group, and is a paid staff member. The current Executive Director is Carl Pope.

All club members also belong to chapters (usually state-wide), and to local groups. National and local special interest sections, committees, and task forces address particular issue. Policies are set at the appropriate level, but on any issue the Club has only one policy.

Mission statement

1. Explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth.
2. Practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.
3. Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.
4. Use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Priorities and campaigns

In order to focus attention on particular issues the Sierra Club's national and local entities select priorities and organize campaigns. The current national priorities (as of 2004) are: clean water, an end to commercial logging in national and other public forests, stopping sprawl, and protecting wildlands. Campaigns to achieve those and other priorities are planned and conducted chiefly by volunteers in the various club entities, with help of small support staffs. The club also hires people for campaigns through the Fund for Public Interest Research, as do some other organizations in the environmental movement."

Wikipedia

I'm not so concerned about global warming. I am concerned about preserving nature - it's grandness and glory gives me peace.

 

[amicus]

It may come as a surprise to you, Lady Jeanne, but all land in the United States was intended to become 'private property' until the 'Muir' era and the democratic 'Wilsonians' at the beginning of the 20th century.

You may not understand this, but our form of government does not permit the taking or the use of land by force for grandiose purposes. Each acre of land taken out of the private market is a black eye in the concept of freedom.

We do not 'tax' our people to 'promote the general welfare' or some cockeyed left wing environmentalist mentality.

Freedom, look it up...

amicus

 

[Baron]

"State of Fear,'' with a first printing of 1.5 million copies, resembles Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged'' -- about 6 million copies sold since 1957 -- as a political broadside woven into an entertaining story.

Now that's just funny on so many levels.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You may not understand this, but our form of government does not permit the taking or the use of land by force for grandiose purposes. Each acre of land taken out of the private market is a black eye in the concept of freedom.

I'll fight you on that one, amicus. Here's what I see as the problem. There are certain things - clean air, a fully functional ecosystem, biodiversity, "recovery" areas where the land can regenerate - that are in everyone's best interest. However, they generate no income. In a capitalistic society, that's a problem. Things only get produced if someone pays to produce them. As a result, land that's owned by private individuals is rarely used in this fashion.

Because we wish to continue living and enjoying the manifold benefits of these areas, we need to keep them intact. Because we live in a capitalist society, they need to be owned by someone. Because the federal government is actually instituted to, amongst other things, provide the sort of broad-scale services that individuals and states lack the ability to coordinate on their own - i.e., you can't preserve a caribou range by twenty people in twenty states each buying a couple of acres near their individual houses - the federal government acts to coordinate the preservation of those areas.

(Feel free to pick that gauntlet up and slap me with it, but do be warned that I may enjoy it.)

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

It may come as a surprise to you, Lady Jeanne, but all land in the United States was intended to become 'private property' until the 'Muir' era and the democratic 'Wilsonians' at the beginning of the 20th century.

Then I owe Mr. Muir and the Wilsonians a debt of gratitude for allowing me the pleasure of Redwood National Park, Crater Lake, Lassen Volcanic Park, Yosemite, Sequoia National Park, Death Valley, Haleakala National Park, and Acadia National Park. I've yet to visit the rest, but those were breathtaking and I'm tickled pink that we have them.

You may not understand this, but our form of government does not permit the taking or the use of land by force for grandiose purposes. Each acre of land taken out of the private market is a black eye in the concept of freedom.

Er, well, we could ask a Native American whether the taking of land by force is permitted by our government or not and maybe get a different answer. Red herring aside, lands that are 'taken' by the government are purchased. Private property owners are compensated.

We do not 'tax' our people to 'promote the general welfare' or some cockeyed left wing environmentalist mentality.

Sure we do. Schools, fire, police...

Freedom, look it up...

amicus

I do, every time I see the sun setting over the Pacific or smell the eucalyptus trees on Mt. Davidson in San Francisco. You should drink a little of that champagne and watch the sun set over the Pacific sometime...

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yes, the quote I posted was written for a character by a writer of fiction, but can you honestly tell me that it didn't strike a chord with you at all?

If not, you're more close-minded than I thought.

As Ogg summed up, Orwell said it better.

Crichton has built a career out of taking science to an absurd level to make a story. Next to him, Dan Brown looks like Stephan Hawking.

 

[Op_Cit]

I like the Sierra Club, and I'm a big fan of John Muir, its founder. I don't feel the same sense of urgency about everything they're trying to preserve, but they don't break the law.

A fellow in Arizona once coined Steiger's Law, which simplified is this:

Sooner or later the preservation of an organization will become more important than the purpose for which it was created.

That is, there comes a point in the lifespan of any organization at which time it will be wholly consumed by it's own support and growth. The Sierra Club and the NRA are both excellent examples of this. On a larger scale, what else explains the insanity of Lincoln's denial of the right of secession "four score and seven years" after it became "necessary for one people to dissolve their political bands" connecting them to another?

...

As for Crichton... In response to a recent question, he's the only person I could think of that I'd want to invite to a "dinner party of any living people on earth". (All the other people that immediately came to mind are dead.) He strikes me as someone who actually might just "get it".

 

[Couture]

Yes, the quote I posted was written for a character by a writer of fiction, but can you honestly tell me that it didn't strike a chord with you at all?

If not, you're more close-minded than I thought.

Oh it did alright. But, you would be amazed at how unafraid I am. I'm only saying that this is a writer who makes his living making people afraid of the strangest and nearly impossible fantasies.

I mean cause everyone knows - it isn't global warming that is going to do us in - it's the ILLUMINATI! And you can quote me on that.

 

[Liar]

Oh it did alright. But, you would be amazed at how unafraid I am. I'm only saying that this is a writer who makes his living making people afraid of the strangest and nearly impossible fantasies.

Huh, I got the impression that he is a writer who makes a living by showing people how afraid they are, and how dumb that is. Better go back and reread the first posts.

Besides, the Vogons are coming to a Thursday near you. So why bother?

 

[gauchecritic]

Irony. Can you say that word? IRONY.

Write a novel 'attacking' or 'explaining' people's fears and make them fearful of those that show them what to be afraid of.

I don't know... I don't and never have believed the hoo ha about global warming, if I remember correctly the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) healed, maybe it's open again now but no one thinks it's newsworthy any more.

I do believe that areas of ordinary beauty, rather than outstanding beauty are being built upon or ravaged every day when (by spending a little more and unfortunately cutting back on the profits) the building could take place in places already built and left to wrack and ruin (inc. est. 1754. Realtors to the common rich)

It's been pointed out that only the 'intellectuals' care or are afraid about our future and that those who are below (thick, stupid, protestant, black, indigenous, Irish, common, working class, uneducated, shit shoveling serfs and surfers) don't give a twopenny toss. Not entirely true (as these things never are) but the underclasses actually have more immediate and pressing problems and rely, quite naturally and properly on those educated, middle class, white, Catholic, blue collar, tax-paying, arse spreading, lords and lordettes to do the right thing. Sad but just as true.

This state of affairs is ripe for usage and manipulation. The vast majority of people don't actually give a shit as long as they can see a future in which they are fed, clothed and have children to carry on. Bread and Circuses as some Roman or other said. (I understand Rupert is going for triple citizenship in order that he might become Ceasar of the known world or maybe Czar) Most people just want to carry on as normal and if any of the bigwigs want to change things they'd just better not be stopping them from eating or being warm and entertained.

In much the same way as they depend on the leaders and talkers they are equally depended upon to carry away all the shit in the night.

The character of the university professor explaining the climate of fear is actually talking about maybe 10 to 20% of the population and not even the 'top' percentage merely those who would buy the commodity for sale (fear is a commodity) at it's highest introductory price. The 'early adopters' as they are known. Every one else waits for the price to fall (inner city riots about welfare) or for Alba to make a cheaper version. (no bananas in winter) (that's far too complicated an analogy but I can't be arsed to explain) In other words the more immediate the danger (tsunami?) the greater the fear.

Fear is a very poor tool to use when dealing with populations, the Romans knew it and the manipulators of today actually know it but are riding the current trend which has a few years left yet, but is becoming increasingly more immediate (9.11) and harder to sustain (war on terror). Interesting times lay ahead.

Amico are you willing to pay the price for taking your grand kids to see the tree in the tree museum?

Amicus ite domum (Terminus)

 

[cloudy]

Er, well, we could ask a Native American whether the taking of land by force is permitted by our government or not and maybe get a different answer. Red herring aside, lands that are 'taken' by the government are purchased. Private property owners are compensated.

Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth.

They believe it's fine and dandy to take them whenever they want.

 

[amicus]

Shanglan; Lady Jeanne...

I often take what seems to be a singular stance in defense of human individual freedom that seems to irritate the hell out of most. Perhaps one day, I will understand why.

The History of the world, up until the 1700's, was a history of slavery, by oppression, by kings and gods and tribal leaders in which the 'leaders' made all the decisions about everything. One lived or die, ate or starved, at the whim of a warlord, chief, pope, duke or Earl...or whatever.

You know all that, of course.

The 'Grand Experiment' a Republic, form of government, wherein the powers that be did not 'grant' rights to the people, but protected them, was a new and startling development in human history. Moreso, the statement that every human being had innate and inalienable rights was also an epoch making step, included in the basic documents.

Having read the history of the Middle East, Europe and the Far East, with the Mongol hordes and the Huns and the Gauls and the Franks and many more, I am not the least bit inclined to be apologetic for the conquest of North America by those who started in Jamestown centuries ago.

Once a political entity 'conquers' a land area, it is administrated by the laws that prevail. In America, government was supposed to be a 'steward' to the land, making it available to the People as it was required. That is evidenced by 'Homesteading' and mineral claims of 'individuals' who would then own the land.

You may think that 'government' has the right to 'tax' the people to provide for the 'general welfare' in anyway you may interpret that phrase. You should know that every effort by the Federal and State governments to exceed the Constitutional restraints on government has been fought, tooth and nail, by those desiring to remain free.

Had I the power, I would rescind all laws that permitted the institution of 'public education' funded by general and property taxation. I would also sell every piece of 'government' held land, such as 'National parks' et cetera.

It is not that I am heartless and unconcerned about the education of children, or the preservation of wildlife or pristine environments, I am very much so. However, it is Not the function of government to do those things.

And if you replace the word 'Capitalism' a buzzword, with 'human freedom' or a 'free' market place...you might find it easier to comprehend just how essential freedom is if people are to gain honor and dignity within their own ability.

Many seem to think that 'Government' is a pancea for all the ills of mankind. I remind you that those people who are employed in government, are people just like you and I, but who found they could not suceed in a 'free, competitive market place' Thus like many teachers, who cannot 'do' so they teach, we get far less than the very best in both government and education.

enough...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Gauche...throw lyrics from an old Joni Mitchell song at me will you?

No thanks, I own timberland and in my younger days was a logger, knocked down trees right and left and hauled them away and filled my pockets....

Something city folks may not fully realize...those damned trees seem to grow overnight, (of course they don't, but...)

You might like to know, to soothe your fears about a tree museum, that when a timber company logs land, they replace the trees with new seedlings and 'manage' that forest land into sustainable growth and harvest patterns that will extend centuries into the future.

You might also like to know that there are more trees now...than ever before, as managed forests (timber companies not government land) harvest five trees for everyone that grew in a natural environment.

You might also like to know, if you ever plan to build or buy a new home, that the effect of the Eco Freaks, that have limited logging by preservation Legislation, have added about twenty thousand dollars to the cost of each new home.

How bout them apples?

amicus the devastator of innocent forests and bambi eater....

(doncha just love it?)

(edited to add an apology to Cloudy for comments concerning a 'conquered people', I knew as I wrote that, that it would offend you. Not my intent, but if you see the history of the world as different than I view it, please inform me.)

 

[cloudy]

(edited to add an apology to Cloudy for comments concerning a 'conquered people', I knew as I wrote that, that it would offend you. Not my intent, but if you see the history of the world as different than I view it, please inform me.)

I appreciate the thought.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of past wrongs. They're done and can't be corrected, unfortunately. My quibble now is with "our" government living up to the promises they made all that time ago, and returning the land they'd promised to keep in trust, as well as the money that they've "lost" that was also supposed to be in trust.

But that is a whole 'nother subject.

 

[neonlyte]

Irony. Can you say that word? IRONY.

Write a novel 'attacking' or 'explaining' people's fears and make them fearful of those that show them what to be afraid of.

I don't know... I don't and never have believed the hoo ha about global warming, if I remember correctly the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) healed, maybe it's open again now but no one thinks it's newsworthy any more.

I do believe that areas of ordinary beauty, rather than outstanding beauty are being built upon or ravaged every day when (by spending a little more and unfortunately cutting back on the profits) the building could take place in places already built and left to wrack and ruin (inc. est. 1754. Realtors to the common rich)

It's been pointed out that only the 'intellectuals' care or are afraid about our future and that those who are below (thick, stupid, protestant, black, indigenous, Irish, common, working class, uneducated, shit shoveling serfs and surfers) don't give a twopenny toss. Not entirely true (as these things never are) but the underclasses actually have more immediate and pressing problems and rely, quite naturally and properly on those educated, middle class, white, Catholic, blue collar, tax-paying, arse spreading, lords and lordettes to do the right thing. Sad but just as true.

This state of affairs is ripe for usage and manipulation. The vast majority of people don't actually give a shit as long as they can see a future in which they are fed, clothed and have children to carry on. Bread and Circuses as some Roman or other said. (I understand Rupert is going for triple citizenship in order that he might become Ceasar of the known world or maybe Czar) Most people just want to carry on as normal and if any of the bigwigs want to change things they'd just better not be stopping them from eating or being warm and entertained.

In much the same way as they depend on the leaders and talkers they are equally depended upon to carry away all the shit in the night.

The character of the university professor explaining the climate of fear is actually talking about maybe 10 to 20% of the population and not even the 'top' percentage merely those who would buy the commodity for sale (fear is a commodity) at it's highest introductory price. The 'early adopters' as they are known. Every one else waits for the price to fall (inner city riots about welfare) or for Alba to make a cheaper version. (no bananas in winter) (that's far too complicated an analogy but I can't be arsed to explain) In other words the more immediate the danger (tsunami?) the greater the fear.

Fear is a very poor tool to use when dealing with populations, the Romans knew it and the manipulators of today actually know it but are riding the current trend which has a few years left yet, but is becoming increasingly more immediate (9.11) and harder to sustain (war on terror). Interesting times lay ahead.

Amico are you willing to pay the price for taking your grand kids to see the tree in the tree museum?

Amicus ite domum (Terminus)

Nice post! Now this I would buy.