There are things which informed individuals can do without
waiting governments take corrective actions on present environmental problems,
both in cities and country sides. It is now important that american
people act individually as US Government has not ratified Kyoto Protocol
(reducing gas emissions) which yesterday declared operational and the
RESPONSIBILITY moved to the grassroot. Any scientific findings
and practical experiences need to be widely disseminated. People
are more intelligent than what we usually think they are, even at times
they let themselves guided as flocks by their shepherds.
Such a move springing up from grassroots may carry with it
very many other positive actions to establish a more meaningful democracy and
provide a good example in the right direction. Every cloud has its silver
lining.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:47
PM
Subject: Re: Recycling, Rosennean
Style...
I think Ayten's point is very well posed. What may once have been
possible to entrust purely to Nature's way of remediation, in Nature's time
scale, would not be enough at our current level of global overpopulation and
that level is continually growing. Ultimately, Nature will take care of our
problem for us if we don't take care of it for ourselves, but it will be very
unpleasant...
So, we can look at a number of things we could
do to improve the situation. My favorite is to live smarter, as a
species. But I have few illusions that this is going to happen fast enough to
really prevent climate change or worsening of other global forms of
damage. My country just re-elected George W. Bush!!!! (Forgive me a
primal scream.....) It would require a massive unified effort to
reorganize our ways of doing everything, from what we build our houses out of,
and how we build them, to how we supply all our physical needs (food, power,
water, etc), to how we get around (transportation) to how we run our
industries, to how we handle inevitable waste flows... To make such
sweeping changes at the pace humanity is used to would take generations, and
that will be too late to prevent many of the global changes, I
fear.
Failing that, then ways to slow down the global climate and
other environmental changes, whilst working to encourage the human
reorganizational changes, would be my second choice. What I suspect will
happen is that as global climate changes manifest themselves in ways that
scare humanity, there will be far more interest and willingness to embrace the
wider-scale, more difficult reorganization of our ways of doing things. We at
least have a chance, then, of "beating the clock"; our efforts at slowing down
the changes may just provide us with enough time to prevent the worst of the
global climate shifting. What I'm most concerned about is the kind of "system
oscillation" my father spoke of, which happens when systems are
destabilized. He said the oscillation is very difficult to stop and will
continue until it runs its course and the system regains
equilibrium. If we can avoid destabilizing global climate to that extent, we
can consider ourselves very, very lucky.
So, to that end, where would our efforts best be spent? What is
both feasible and do-able, in terms of application of Rosennean Complexity?
That's what got me to thinking about the molecular recycling/reconfiguration
idea in the first place. I'm sure there are plenty of other applications we
could come up with, on this group, so I suggest a brainstorming session. Who's
game?
Judith Rosen
PS: I'm currently researching, thanks to Leo's suggestions for
links and databases, the nature of Dioxin molecules... Specifically, the worst
of the dioxin compounds is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. It's created
by burning things with chlorine in them, or processes which use chlorine with
other hydrocarbons... so garbage incineration, paper mills, PVC plastic
manufacturing, Pesticide manufacturing, etc..... The trouble with dioxins is
that they mimic hormones in living organisms, so they have all sorts of
widespread effects. Worse; they persist in the environment and
bioaccumulate in fat (which females mobilize when they are
pregnant or nursing-- dosing the developing embryos and newly born with
it). I chose dioxin as my research subject because I've been reading about it
for twenty years; ever since my first pregnancy, during the Reagan years,
which was also the beginning of my environmental activism (Coincidence?
Not!). Dioxin is a bigger problem now than ever.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:01
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Recycling,
Rosennean Style...
Leo, Dan
A query on the following:
"Perhaps in a
glance towards Judith's desire for a practical approach,
one could
develop the appropriate higher-level "soil" analogy in terms
of the
functional strata of an integral recycling framework for the
myriad
waste products that we produce.
Nature does this stuff so very
well."
Once, still in remote areas now, it was/is believed that
running water will
not get polluted as it purifies the waste
by oxiganating it while flowing.
Nature does this stuff so very well was
therefore a correct statement to
make, also for soil. We have since then
realized that it was the matter of
quantity. We have never experienced
the effects of present quantities and
varieties of waste. Both
flowing water/shores and soil get polluted and in
times and places die
for good!
What is then the practical value of trusting the nature's
inherent ability
to purify or transform the waste naturally? In this
connection I would go
along with Leo's view:
"I would imagine in
practical terms there is more to be done in raising
awareness of 'total
system accounting' than in any underlying
technology or science. " I
would add:
with a lot and effective public education and consciousness
raising
activities also with a continuing research to produce supporting
scientific
proofs and perhaps some remedial
solutions.
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo
Caves" <***>
To:
<***>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Recycling, Rosennean
Style...
> Dan, I think your comments on the importance and
role of the soil in
> the wider system are very interesting and
pertinent.
> Perhaps in a glance towards Judith's desire for a
practical approach,
> one could develop the appropriate higher-level
"soil" analogy in terms
> of the functional strata of an
integral recycling framework for the
> myriad waste products
that we produce.
> Nature does this stuff so very well.
>
Leo
>
>