Triple Bottom Line: Global Progressive Movement’s Push to Undermine Capitalism
by Central Illinois 9/12 ProjectCertainly the philosophy of the Triple Bottom Line (“3BL” or “TBL”) is unconventional when compared with accepted business practices which are based upon the typical single bottom line of profit. We know that profit is essential to business survival, but we should ask how this expanded 3BL business model gained traction. For an answer, we need to look at the history of 3BL, and that history shows us that environmental and social idealism have been closely linked since the modern global environmental movement began in 1972.
In 1972, Maurice Strong, a patriarch of the global environmental movement who now sits on the board of directors for the Chicago Climate Exchange, led the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which met in Stockholm and released a declaration linking the human exerience to nature. It acknowledged that “man is both creature and moulder of his environment” and has advanced to the point where he has the power to significantly affect nature and, by extension, his own intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. The global social ramifications of man’s environmental stewardship are thus clearly stated in the Stockholm declaration:
The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the wellbeing of peoples and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.
The UN felt the environment and social well being were so linked that the declaration’s first Principle focused on it:
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.
Without question, the UN has made a particular commitment to social and environmental ideology since the very beginning of the green movement, and in the Stockholm declaration we can see much of the framework for global socio-environmental ideology already in place.
In 1987, the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (aka the “Brundtland Commission”), of which Maurice Strong was a member, first defined the now ubiquitous term “sustainability,” which in its essence was the integration of the three pillars of 3BL. Moving forward, Strong became Secretary General of the next major UN environmental summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (i.e., the “Earth Summit”), held in Rio de Janeiro, and created the Earth Council as a means of facilitating sustainable strategies worldwide.
The Rio summit was pivotal in the integration of 3BL ideals into what we now call “sustainable development.” The summit spawned Agenda 21, a comprehensive action plan with 27 guiding principles commonly known as the “Rio Declaration.” In response to these recommendations, President Bill Clinton, via executive order, created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which was essentially a restatement of the principles of the Rio Declaration. Not surprisingly, the three pillars of 3BL (i.e., “People, Planet, Profit” — again, the fundamentals of “sustainability”) were integral in both of these initiatives. For instance, note Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration:
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.
Similarly, note item 10 of the PCSD’s We Believe Statement (see page vi of this link):
Economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity are linked. We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals.
With the three pillars of sustainability (i.e., “People, Planet, Profit”) firmly established as a global objective, the UN has continued to move forward in its efforts to implement them across the globe. In September of 2000, the UN issued its Millenium Declaration which reaffirmed its commitment to Agenda 21. Two years later, the Johannesburg Summit, one of the most recent major environmental conferences, met to identify targets and adopt concrete steps for implementing Agenda 21.
(As a sidenote, for those wondering where today’s environmental activities fit into the picture, the Rio Summit produced another document in addtion to Agenda 21, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). This was a non-binding greenhouse gas reduction treaty but it provided for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which does mandate emissions limits for the nations that adopt it. The parties of the UNFCCC have met annually since 1995 to progress their goal of mandating that developed nations reduce emissions to meet the Kyoto protocol. The 2009 Copenhagen conference was the most recent such meeting. Also of interest, in pursuing its agenda, the UNFCCC relied upon the publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which were at the heart of the Climategate scandal.)
Returning to the question of why traditional businesses have adopted the inexact science of 3BL, we must realize that the Triple Bottom Line philosophy provides the foundation for the modern definition of sustainability, a paradigm which has been embraced and nurtured for nearly 40 years, and the foundation for today’s global policy and international relationships. For better or worse, the concept of sustainability has become woven into the very fabric of our society on a global — as well as local — level. Because ShoreBank was specifically founded on a commitment to environmental and social values, it comes as no surprise that it embraced the 3BL philosophy. However, it now also becomes more understandable why other, more traditional businesses are now professing a commitment to 3BL as well. Businesses which seek to be successful often cater to the current values of the culture and adopt the evolving mindset of the customer base.
We are now witnessing a shift in cultural values and priorities as the work of 40 years of cultivating 3BL philosophy begins to bear fruit. We are in a transitional phase. However, what are we transitioning into? What is our destiny? Our third and final article will seek to answer that.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
78 Comments
the concept of "sustainability"…
Let's take a look at sustainability, from a non-Marxist perspective. It doesn't make sense the way the communists claim, there can be no "perfect Earth society". The reasons are human nature, environment, but mostly due to the fundamental laws of the universe.
1. The Second law of thermodynamics, as well as common sense, shows that there is no improvement to materials left alone over time. Iron rusts, gold dissolves or is stolen, stone is washed away, until all that man has made is gone like sandcastles in the waves.
2. The degredations are reflected in taxes and maintenance. Who will pay to maintain society if no one has ownership or is making a profit? You cannot amortize a loss to all humanity. There's no profit in the loss of life.
3. There's also the matter of the sun heating. Between 50-500 million years from now there won't be large animals on Earth, all will perish as the sun heats. That is important to us now.
We need to change tactics to get to true sustainability. In all known nature, a population is either growing or dying. We cannot maintain a growing population in a shrinking space. And if humanity stops growing in population, we start declining inevitably until we all die off. Look at any population curve of any species in history. We need to be on the "growing" side.
That means we need to colonize space. That's the only way to sustain human survival. Also, if humans do not survive, there will be no survival for the trees or bees. They can't get off the Earth if we cannot. And forget about a "better" species evolving. There's no time for that, and there's no resources left for them to build with even if they do evolve.
More on this here: http://colonize.wordpress.com
Right underneath our noses, the world is turning into a pathetic, socialistic autocracy–controlled by the UN. We allowed these progressive/liberals to get away with this and we can stop it.
obama and his minions in power are just fine with passing the control of our country onto the UN. This has to be stopped.
Thanks for the business tip from the top, three sets of books. Hmmm…
Strong is a bad man…
He is George Soros without the publicity. His ideas, his megalomania,would do a Bond villain proud. The idea of 'sustainability'- which seems noble enough- is a charade to put them- the illuminist elite- in control of the entire
planet, it's resources, and it's people.
THEY will determine who gets what. Where the 'redistribution' of wealth goes. Of course,much of that will go into their pockets- for safekeeping, naturally. We surfs cannot be trusted with wealth. Like King John did to the English after King Richard left the throne. Raise taxes 400%, institute 'gun' control (broadhead arrows were banned for the peasants), and seize the property in the Name of the Crown.
THAT's why Robin Hood came to be…
"Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations…"
What a ridiculous statement. Does the sun or the planet know that man has the fundamental right to adequate conditions of life or anything else for that matter? What a bunch of loonatics to say that any man (or woman) has the right to anything over and above a chance at making something of himself (or herself) in life. And guess where you can do that? Here is the USA! Try that in Cuba or N. Korea or Venezuela or Iran or Saudi Arabia or the former Soviet Union or in China today. Good luck with that. In those nations and most other nations, if you start out poor you die poor. Here, you can make something of yourself. That is one thing that makes the USA great and the envy of the world. That's why immigrants from far and wide COME HERE to the land of opportunity to escape a life of being oppressed and impoverished with no chance for advancement and little or no freedom. Leave it to the socialists to want to change that. F**king idiots! We have to fight them! THEY WANT TO BRING US DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE REST OF THE WORLD. I say, F**K THAT! We have it right. They need to adapt to US, not the other way around. Socialism and Communism have produced NOTHING except class warfare, inescapable poverty, slavery to the system and death.
One word – hogwash
Even IF these claims of yours are true there are a few things to be aware of:
1. The process will take 10s of millions of years. You're claims assume we will see this in our lifetimes or in a few generations.
2. A resource is only a resource when someone finds a use for it. The earth is 6000 miles thick and we have barely scratched the surface.
3. You assume no other events will occur in the future. A linear fallacy.
4. That human society REQUIRES management. You again assume humans will reproduce ad-infinitum on their own without any other deciding factors … a linear fallacy. Its been shown that industrialization reduces and even zeros population growths. The more industrialized, the less the population requires children.
No resources left? Earth has been around for 100s of millions of years. Our bones will be the oil for the next species. I doubt humans will even be around in 1 million years.
The earth is not dying, shrinking, running out of resources anymore than taking a drop of water from the ocean will drain the ocean.
I believe business and good old capitalism already do these things. We need to get back to the basics of capitalism. Business helps the community because it is the right thing to do, it also has a great side effect of promoting the company and putting just a little bit more jingle in everybody's pocket to spend at your business. They want to protect the earth because it is the right thing to do. Also, a beautiful community means people will hang around and the community will grow. Nobody wants to live in a stink hole. Again, the wonderful side effect of promoting the company by helping the communities environment promotes profit.
Please check out my blog on business ethics and values as I tackle this subject. This is my first step towards creating a Business Ethics and Values consulting business. I would appreciate feedback.
http://bgibson27.wordpress.com/
Funny-if im correct, the communist POS Mo Rice Strong lives in Red China(hes a canadian, not an American). Please, someone tell me how a non-US citizen living in a communist country can be a board member of a company that sits on the Chicago Mercantile exchange?
There is no substitute for liberty, there is no substitute for capitalism.
All other options end in genocide over time, period.
Mao is murder!
Dcase-dont forget WHO Robin of Locksley was fighting-PRINCE JOHN and the Sheriff of Nottingham. In other words-he was fighting the GOVERNMENT.
Ayn Rand correctly described it in her "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" about the time this all started.
Time to get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. off our land.
The Cloward Piven strategy, this is what we are witnessing today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowar...
Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'
Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI&fe...
that's what we meant; sorry if it wasn't clear…
The Strongs and Soros' of the world are just going to invent the Sir Robin's to take them down…
I understand you may think I'm offtopic. But you seem to be supporting the liberal ideas of "sustainability" and "saving the earth."
All I'm saying is that the Earth is doomed.
1.No resources left?
a. That's a strawman. What I was saying is that we will have no useful resources left. There's several tons of sand beneath your house, so why would you order sand from a store? Oh, right – mining it would cost thousands of times more. Similarly, it doesn't matter how many resources there are on Earth, it matters what resources are available.
2.The earth is not dying
a. No it is already dead. The Earth has been around 6 billion years, 3 billion of which were times life could live. Now that time is coming to a close, but we can get out first. Also, nuclear war is nearly inevitable today. Getting to space might save our own necks, and saving ourselves may let us save the rest of Earth's species.
3. That human society REQUIRES management.
a. G-d is our King and He set His rules. Some of those rules are the laws of thermodynamics.
The Earth must die eventually, eaten by the Sun. Think long term, then realize that in our short lives we can have an effect millions of years from now.
That is a fallacy conservatives need to grasp to counter the liberal lies of "saving the planet" by doing less. http://colonize.wordpress.com/
What do we want to conserve? A planet in semi-pristine condition that will die off anyways? Or do we want to conserve our species, our culture, our worship of G-d, and our planet's life?
A person has a right to pursue those things without blockage from someone else but they do not have a right to be given them through the toil of another person.
To obtain the stated goal government would have to violate that goal. Essentially to guarantee people have adequate conditions of life, gov would have to deprive someone of freedom or equality or dignity.
You cannot obligate one person to support another. That is NOT a right. That is slavery.
I've been saying for years, if the Feds want to spend a huge amount of money on something that will show a return, they should stop subsidizing failed technologies and rather get the best and brightest together to create the next new technological revolution, and that revolution is the space elevator.
Humans will never be able to colonize the stars if we can't build a large enough ship that can get them there. A large enough ship cannot be built on earth, it will never be able to make it out of the earth's gravity. The parts for such a large ship must be assembled in orbit. The only way is through a space elevator.
As an added bonus, we can build mining ships to go to the asteroid belts. As the ships come back with the raw materials to be sent down to earth, you just put a heavier load on the down platform and the energy on the up platform is essentially free. You could also have great tourist destinations at the space port atop the space elevator. Who wouldn't want to spend a few nights in the Space Hilton?
The possibilities are endless, but the initial start up costs are likely too high for any private business to take on. Like with nuclear power though, if the Feds can build the first one, industry will come in and do the rest. We in America can lead the way and once again revolutionize human history, or we can sit back and keep throwing our money away to subsidize "green" technologies that nobody would ever purchase otherwise. What will we do?
You're damn right it's slavery. Slavery to the system. And that is what you can expect in most other nations. If you make any money, they tax the living shit out of you to the point where you just give up and live with it. But you'll never get anywhere unless you start out wealthy or know the right people. What kind of a life is that? Hey, all of you on welfare, WHAT KIND OF A F**KING LIFE IS THAT?
UN = United Nitwits. They are the culmination of the seediest and corrupt parts of government rolled into an international entity. If you are big enough (China), they look the other way. Why the US continues to send any money in their direction is the real question. I would like to see an example of the usefulness of the UN. How's Global Warming working out for you?
3BL is a means to spread their thinking to the planet. Why don't they just call it global business socialization or global bs for short? What happens when the profit part is minimized to create more emphasis on planet and people? Oh yeah, that's right, we call that government!
I cried when I saw how the "stimulus" was wasted, and again when I saw NASA's cuts.
Don't the politicians realize that a trillion dollars would start a very nice space mining colony?
We are so close to getting to space mining, something that may have profits no investment on Earth could match.
That's what we need – not a ShoreBank building on sand, but a Space Bank building on the expanding universe.
When Gorbachev found himself out of job and the Soviet Union (aka the Evil Empire) dissolved into several countries where did Gorby go?
To the GREEN MOVEMENT. Socialism and wacky enviromentalism are LONG TIME bedfellows. Advancement of collectivism/socialism – i.e. world socialism will be accomplished through "GREEN/ENVIROMENTALISM". Europe has been fooled into compliance – we're next.
The evidence of this is staring us right in our face, and Democrats and other liberal wingnuts deny that's the aim. Unbelivevable.
If I remember correctly Reagan wasn't a fan of the UN…It's a shame the
dimwits that followed him didn't follow his lead…..The UN is filled with
3rd World countries that think the West owes them…They are all ready
to take whatever they can beg, borrow or steal from us….I agree with
those that say, get out of the UN, and kick it out of our country….
"In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated. "
An excellent statement and policy!
Now, since the UN is working together with foreign entities to force environmental colonization on the US; and where foreign powers stand to oppress the citizens of the US by levying taxes which will not be used to fund the government of the US, I think we can declare that the UN is against Climate Change legislation and is against forced redistribution of US monetary funds.
Thank you, UN for standing against yourself.
We could easily, and even economically, be more energy efficient. We are the Saudi Arabia of waste heat, but you will not hear that from the environmental Marxist. Or from the utilities and big tech– that want a tax payer funded smart grid and the captured market and corporate welfare that a smart grid would bring….the smart grid does nothing to make utilities more efficient, instead it supposedly will make the consumer more efficient, eventually allowing the government to charge us for our carbon footprint. Utilities will still puff out smoke but the charge will be passed on to us.
Ben Franklin said it best in a piece written for The London Chronicle on November 29, 1766:
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/pri...
Read the whole thing.
Such wise words written for the world to see and learn from. Words applicable for then, for today and for all time. Yet the socialists and communists want to make us believe that slaving for the system or living on government handouts is the way forward. I solemnly say again, f**k that.
When I first read about a space elevator about 10 years ago, the estimates to start-up were about $20 Billion. Now I'm sure it'd be more pricey today, but I know it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions wasted on "stimulus". A space elevator would provide a true stimulus, and the tax monies that would start rolling in as a plethora of new industries take off would more than pay for it. But it'll never happen with the current crop in DC. Such an investment would bring further freedom to men, the "investments" they've been making lately have served their true goal of enslaving us.
Why is it that in order to 'fight' climate change, we have to take money from successful nations and give it to unsuccessful nations?
Why must we transfer wealth accumulated by nations that worked to develop technology through science and advancement; and sent it off to nations that don't educate their people?
Why must we take money from people who work to produce products used to make life better, work to discover cures and medical treatments and work to feed masses of people; and send it to people who don't produce anything and only try to provide food for themselves?
Why is it so necessary to attach the taxes and transfer of funds to any agreement on Climate change?
Why can't a climate change agreement be considered a success if it just involves countries agreeing to develop and utilize cleaner energy sources and better control pollution?
Why the adamant call for taxes and transfer?
Why not start with the simplest and most easily agreed up things (ie, limits and cleaner energy) and see what effect that has, why must we go all out and tax tax tax, and transfer transfer transfer????
This in itself tells you that this is in no way about Climate Change.
"Man has the fundamental right to _______________"
You can fill in the the blank with anything you want….
However, if you don't include the statement:
"Man has the fundamental responsibility to provide for himself and his offspring by utilizing those EQUAL opportunities available to him…"
Well, then rights mean NOTHING.
Okay, let me try this again, since it seems the miss application of TBL will not go away. The triple bottom line is actually a very EXACT science that has existed since the beginning fo business in general. Good companies have always been following practices that were sustainable at that time because that is what good companies do, they sustain their business.
Profit is a function of the value being offered. More of one equals more of the other. Value is either realized socially, fiscally, or environmentally (TBL). Because there is this value, people elect (not forced) to pay for it. Therefore, the more we let businesses pursue a profit, free of distracting outside agendas, the more sustainable the offerings are that we receive.
As an old school liberal (not this current perversion) i believe in sensible environmentalism. The climate change issue being a perfect example. I freely admit there is every possibility that man made climate change was fabricated. I would however urge conservatives to remember this isnt what the debate should be. The debate should be that many liberals typically promote the wrong environmentalism. We can reduce carbon AND save money if we just got people to stop doing large inefficient PR fueld projects and instead did the obvious (updating the sealing on windows for example).
they are just waiting for Obama to collapse our economy so they can take over and rebuild.
PROGRSSIVISM = TOTALITARIANISM
Agreed. I know that we trusting American Souls, that have been safe for so long, are a little late coming to this socialist party, but WE'RE HERE NOW! and we'll zip up the U.S., with the Progressives, & Dictators kicked out!
We'll return to fiscal prosperity, Free Markets, and socialist-free Government officials!
- TERM LIMITS for ALL!
- Check on Voter Fraud this Oct!
- Get RINO's out
- Vote Constitutionalists in
- Support State Sovereignty!
- Support our State Attorney's General in their law suits to keep U.S. safe! – - just for Starters.
- – - We'll get to the U.N. and Foreign Dictators, and Quid Pro Quo in D.C. as time goes on!
You got it but it is a very hard sell to conservatives, not because of the business model of conservatism but because of the method that is being sold as the fix…..Walmart is the business model not carbon credits. Walmart has saved billions by cutting waste from packaging to transportation.
I pretty much agree with everything Lovins say's except for government's role in Natural Capitalism–Lovin's biggest flaw is trusting the government, but his arguments and his research is right on the money….to bad about that government thing!
Amory B. Lovins: energy efficiency costs less than the fuel it saves, as thousands of practitioners prove daily. It is cheaper not to use energy than it is to use it
It seems many people here aren't thinking on a grander scale. The earth will be destroyed, or at least become inhabitable to man sooner or later. Whether it's because man destroys the planet, or the far more likely natural disaster (a massive asteroid strike comes to mind) our time on the planet is limited. There have been several mass extinctions in the earth's past, we can only assume another one is soon to come.
The only way for the human species to ultimately survive is by leaving the cradle and fulfilling our true destiny by populating the stars.
I get the feeling many of our fellow conservatives can't see the difference between spending $20-something billion on buying off union votes and spending $20-something billion on the next great human revolution. Oh well, I always figured we were doomed anyways…
I most certainly am NOT supporting those liberal concepts. I am calling hogwash on them.
1. Useful resource is irrelevant. Like I stated a resource is only useful until someone finds a use for it. Oil for gasoline was THROWN AWAY until Rockerfeller found a USE FOR IT.
2. Earth is NOT dead. All life would have the extinguished for that to occur.
3. Sorry but I'm atheist and I no more buy into a God leash holder than a human leach holder. BTW if God exists, wouldn't he just magically "fill" the earth back up with "life" and resources?
Yes the earth will die in MILLIONS OF YEARS. You're think absurd long term. Might as well sell your house now cause in MILLIONS OF YEARS the sun will swell and die.
There is an article on Drudge right now by Steven Hawking and he say's the same thing.
Exactly and WHY does everyone have to be on board?
NASA now raising money for The Freedom Center
Yeah, its just what really irks me is that people use this as an excuse to supplant the place of profit as a barometer of value, thinking a social or an environmental idea is good just because it is social or environmental. Whereas if it was good overall, it would make profit. Meaning thats still how we measure success. Which is of course what upsets the conservatives.
You bring up very good points about both wal mart and fuel efficiency in general. I guess its not so much that I have a beef with lovins, I really don't. Its just when people pervert the idea to fit agendas (as is the case with climate change). Fact is, the Mckinsey consulting group every year publishes an mitigation reduction cost curve. People know EVERY year, exactly how much they can save with each project and which projects won't save money at all. If they simply went after the money, we wouldn't care if climate change was man made, we'd be saving money. And who doesn't believe in saving money?
It is more costly to not use energy when it means production comes to a halt. Energy use does not always directly end in consumption. In fact, its use provides untold wealth in terms as broad as the universe itself. Look to the energy used by our computers. The knowledge shared by that energy use is invaluable. Using less would be quite costly. What about factories? You know, those things America used to churn out almost daily? How has using less by having less factories worked out? The environmentalism that drove those companies out of business has been quite costly, but hey, we aren't using that energy anymore so we must be saving! Hardly.
They key is not to use less energy. The key is make its use count for something. Government is the variable that removes this possibility. The only thing it ever counts, the only thing it values, is control over people and the political expediency in play to retain that control.
As for AK, convincing people is one thing, controlling them is another.
agree completely…
The only thing 'smart' about the smart grid is how smartly it will dive into your wallet. Rumor has it they- The Powers That Be- already have zero point energy but don't want to share it with six billion people. So, the fraud of rationing carbon based energy is just a ruse to reduce living standards while robbing us blind…
Exactly on the money,…. the economical fundamentals are rarely discussed by either party, the reason is there is no lobby for efficiency–efficiency is a revenue loser for the utilities, smart grid tech players, wall street traders and venture capitalist. Oil companies sure don't want efficiency either.
No lobby equals no campaign donations.
Makes me wonder, what will be different for those that are already the recipients of government and union benefits?
I mean, like magically, if the economy fully collapse and the government steps in and allocates jobs and dictates salaries, etc etc…..Those of us who were gainfully employed, doing well and paying taxes; we lose most of what we had. We will use our skills to work harder to rebuild and probably make less. Never again achieving what we previously had.
While, those with no skills, those who don't work hard or well; those with LESSER ABILITY, what will THEY do.
Now, magically, given government allocated jobs and salary; they will magically have MORE ABILITY and be productive?
How can we come out better? How can the majority of America EVER recover?
It's real simple:
If you don't have the ability to provide for yourself all that you want in life; the government has and will always provide you subsistence. However, we have now reached the point at which that government provided subsistence is expected to be at the same level as the self subsistence provided for by individuals
who do have the ABILITY to provide for themselves.
Our society is doomed. As now, instead of being a society that promotes achievement and progress by striving to attain the level of the highest common denominator; we are now forcing everyone to lower themselves to the lowest denominator.
It's a recipe for extinction.
Forget anthropogenic global warming as being a threat to human existence.
The real threat is government issued anthropogenic equal outcomes.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21691
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And if the "smartest man in the world" is saying it, then it can't be too far wrong.
Which is why I'm saying we should start implementing the "Hawking Protocol" for human survival. As an engineer, I may not be the best speaker.
But I have run the numbers and a profitable space mining colony can be built. However it will cost between $10 billion to $1 trillion… That depends on the technology used.
The better the technology to begin with, the better the chance of positive payback. And the government needs to get involved, for profit and human survival are both at stake. Unfortunately, current laws will PREVENT a space mining colony from attaining profitability without Gov't permission. There's safety issues, weapons control issues (rocket fuel is weaponizable), there's tax issues (who will tax the venture?)
What happens if we don't do this and ten years from now the world is full of radioactive potholes? We'll regret it then if we don't do it now.
Which is why I propose asking for G-d's help…. http://colonize.wordpress.com
hes not talking about halting production. Thats why Sorebird mentioned efficiency. Just doing more with less. So, essentially i think you are both advocating the same thing. Which means i dont exactly understand how you make a point with what he said.
As far as the controlling thing goes, I would ask if you think I was advocating such? If so, (and im still not sure) I ask that you point out where – so i can clarify my point. I assure you that was never my intention if you believe it to be the case.
1. Useful resources – this sentence doesn't make sense. I think you mean "a resource is useLESS until someone finds a use for it."
a. Needless to say we're not infinitely clever and we aren't going to come up with better uses for everything in the lifespan of our species on this planet.
2. Earth is NOT dead.
a. The Earth is not yet dead, but it is as good as dead. If it takes 50 million years or 50, the Earth is doomed.
3. Ah, you are an atheist.
a. Fear G-d, fool.
If G-d doesn't exist, then I'd still like humanity to survive.
Ah, now you see. Our money is not really ours, it is G-d's wealth we are spending.
Does G-d want us to spend it on makework jobs? Or does he want us to try to save our own children from certain doom? (viral, nanotechnological, nuclear, asteroid, chemical, take-your-pick)
Which is a better investment, even if the whole elevator comes crashing down, it would have been a thousand times better of an investment if we tried to learn and survive.
NASA has fallen far. I'm glad the former NASA chief survived the plane crash that killed Senator Ted Stevens. Maybe he can help restart talks of practical space colonization.
I don't see anything stopping us from colonizing except human short-term thinking, communism, and G-d Himself.
I smell a soros under this pile of turds!!!!!!!!
Term limits, replace Rs with D's or D's with R's…. I'm tired of the roundabout.
The reason we aren't going anywhere is we keep going from right to left and back!
We need to stop walking in circles. We need a new direction – we need to go up. http://colonize.wordpress.com
Doing the same with the same is fine too, provided that acceptable "value" is there. While person A may decide their "profit" rests solely in MPG, where person B decides their "profit" rests more with having enough room and comfort for road trips and decides MPG is secondary. The free market will decide of more can be done with less, because each has to decide those things for themselves.
I would offer we are advocating much the same thing, which makes me wonder why you thought I was arguing against you, I simply chimed in. As for my comment directly to you, my point was that some think "convincing" is done via "control". Some think those are the same thing.
Plenty of people say stop using energy. You only fool yourself if you really think otherwise. IN vehicles, some will say the electric hybrids are "efficient" and that may well be true, when one limits the definition of it. You see, a Family of 6 isn't served on a 600 mile trip in a prius. See whatI am saying?
When it comes to going by a plant of some kind , I think about this.
It isn't my place to decide for them how to use the energy they pay for.
RINO's in sheeps clothing and they are among us:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2646...
Those who lend don't believe in others saving money. .)
Locally, a new "green" (coal fired) power plant was billed as a rate saver. Tie in some Sierrra Club lawsuit wind farm energy requirements and its green green green. Well guess what? The plant is not operating at anywhere near capacity and is limited in what it can produce and sell due in large part to the Sierra Clubs activities. Not to mention the reality based fact that people are curbing their usage, the end result is less energy produced, sold and used and guess what? The $ promised isn't there and the municipal power plant is getting hammered over and over as people find themselves paying moreand more. Gotta love it eh?
Very good discussion
Thank you
I'm sorry but we're not going to "go up" until we grow up
I'm all for it but if we keep voting R or D and expect a different outcome
That is the definition of insanity
A trip to watch and know these people are doing this.
So many Americans seem to be watching a movie,including me.It's like a snowball rolling downhill.We are trying to stop it.
Unless Americans go and lock the doors on capital building and wh….I don't know.
As muslims and mexicans rush in during our weakness.muslims wanting their place and control in the transformed america.mexicans wanting to steal land.
Time to kick A– America,or lose.A dtitch in time saves nine.
1. Useful resources – this sentence doesn't make sense. I think you mean "a resource is useLESS until someone finds a use for it."
Sorry my bad
a. Needless to say we're not infinitely clever and we aren't going to come up with better uses for everything in the lifespan of our species on this planet.
How do you know? 200 years ago nobody would do anything with gasoline other than burn it. And uranium… what would romans use uranium for?
a. The Earth is not yet dead, but it is as good as dead. If it takes 50 million years or 50, the Earth is doomed.
That is as irrational as saying the universe is dead since it will end at some point.
a. Fear G-d, fool.
Even if I were religious why would I fear God?
"While, those with no skills, those who don't work hard or well; those with LESSER ABILITY, what will THEY do. "
Well if its like the Soviet Union they will be given our property and businesses to run while we are executed and if they don't produce THEY will be executed.
Just as in evolution bad ideas are supposed to die.
These Marxists are certain that people have a right to equal jobs, equal salaries, equal outcomes. They ignore that equal results were never guaranteed by our creator or our founding fathers. America is unique in the world because equality of opportunity results in merit achievement, which encourages hard work, good life choices and perseverance. The people who earn their place in life provide the high quality goods and services we enjoy. The Marxists/Obamaites believe they have the right to pick winners and losers based on class, color and national origin, which ultimately creates apathy, laziness and fraudulent behavior. Oppression is Marxism, elitism is Obama, and the answer to this chaos is to vote them out in November 2010 and 2012. America is strong in its people.
Want to save the U.S. economy, pull the budget from the U.N. we pay 25% of the budget for an anti American anti Semitic attempt at global governance. they have absolutely no use, just like the league of nations. I'm sure we could take a hunk out of the deficit by not paying for this pile of crap.
Check this out. I focus on a very similar subject called Conscious Capitalism. I contend that real capitalism is values based and sustainable. I think you will like my observation.
http://bgibson27.wordpress.com/
Agreed J_of_S. This fraud is ALL about looting the Treasuries of wealthy Western Nations and transfering the wealth through the sticky hands of U.N. to third world cesspools.
If the U.N. wants to make things better in Africa and other disasters the should remove the DDT ban and lower disease rates that way. Poor people living in squalor are in WAY less danger from "Anthropogenic Golbal Warming/Climate Change" than they are from a mosquito spreading West Nile fever or some other exotic malady.
Whoa, unless you are a party official. Then you live the good life without being deprived of zilch.
The remedy for capitalists abusing the system? Jail time.
The remedy for socialists abusing the system? Millions of dead people.
Malaria is the leading killer of the world's population…its vector? mosquitoes
Great read, I enjoyed it!! If I could suggest a book for you, read Ravi Batra's The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos, where he analyzes the present day economic downturn, and the forces behind it, and is envisioning a new bright future ahead, after some significant struggle.
How much does it now cost to get a gallon of gasoline out of the ground? I would suggest that the real cost is somewhere around 8 dollars a gallon, oil companies internalize profits, and externalize cost, as is the case with resource wars!!
The Bush administration’s “touchiness” about the charge that we are in Iraq because of oil by stating the obvious, though often unsaid, truth, “Now that’s curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than half a century.” Today control over the world’s oil supply is at the forefront of Washington policy makers’ thinking. Two-thirds of the oil in the world is in the Middle East, much of it under Iraq and Iran, the axis of oil, the current targets of the U.S. war on terrorism. Control of oil is integral to Washington’s official goal of world domination, a goal stated this baldly in national security documents.
I will check it out, thanks for the advice. Glad you liked what I had to say, it is a work in progress.
1. Apology accepted, no one is perfect.
2. Uranium burns just like coal, the Romans therefore burned it.
3. Okay, so the ShoreBank communists made a claim: "We are working towards a sustainable future." I'm pointing out that the claim is hogwash. You can't build a sustainable future for the Earth, our usable resources will run out, human nature will lead to devastating wars, and eventually it all goes away no matter what we do!
As for fear of G-d, it is just a good idea… Even if your G-d is nothing more than random particles, then now G-d must be more, for WE are intelligent.
Since this a "created universe" (such as a simulation, but even if created by "the randomness") then G-d has our "off" button.
Check out this: http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Or look at Kabala…
The more you think about it, the more you realize how little we can ever know. But I know this:
1. life is good.
2. death is bad.
3. therefore we should live (even if we have to leave Earth).
I've put before you the path of death and the path of life. Choose life. Http://colonize.wordpress.com
That's not a conservative or liberal notion. You sound just like Michael Savage.
Tell it like it is!
The terrorists want to control the oil, the Chinese do, and we do.
But I believe that G-d is really in control of the oil. And if we've stopped working on space colonies then we've taken our eyes off the ball. There's plenty of chemical, solar, and nuclear energy in space.
I was thinking of a practical fusion plant. The idea is you nuke a lake, then capture the steam. You refill the lake and nuke it again.
Sure it seems inefficient, but I think that's an illusion. To contain a nuclear blast you'd need more energy then the blast would make, so there's no point. You may as well use it for power as is, and nuke seas or lakes to capture the steam turbine energy.
In other words, that's what we do, humans burn things, and we will burn the planet eventually (although it will get fried even if we don't do it.) Our only end game should be survival, and that means spreading outside the Earth.
http://colonize.wordpress.com/
These two statements:
" Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible."
and
" Economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity are linked. We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals"
are the cornerstone of the ruse being used by the UN to claim that we need 'world government' to solve these 'problems'.
This is the crisis they have created for us, and they sure have plenty of solutions…. that they will force us to join at the point of a gun.
Please remember that the UN has one goal only and that is total world domination over all nation states to the detriment of our national sovereignty and unique constitutional form of gov't. All wars are fought on behalf of the UN (if you read Orwell you will understand the 'war is peace' thing) and most crises are used for their purposes, created or not.
More people are starting to understand this. I am currently reading a rare book written in 1953 that outlines the whole ruse, from educational system to collapsing the economies of the countries they hope to conquer (Soros anyone?). They even admit that they would use the propaganda that anyone who disagreed with world citizenship would be called 'isolationist'… especially when it came to wars and interventionism, even though it does not apply to trade. People would think this was a wild-eyed crazy idea in 1980 but now not so much… because everything this president, Clinton and even Bush41 are doing now, are proof positive they are promoting the agenda. Think back to Bush41's speech about world as the "UN envisions it".
He asserts, "If we are successful, and we will be…"
Never heard anything more chilling………….
You got it!!!!!!!!!!!!! The way to take us over without a shot being fired is to create crisis that bring us to their camp, and to collapse us from within by breaking our bank.
We have always managed to rise above this, but now that they have such a hold over our educational system that they have brainwashed people into thinking all these things are being done for the 'good of mankind' when no such thing is true.
The Rockefeller-Soros empire is advancing rapidly under Obama and the attempt to break the bank is being used right now.
DITTO!
We are no longer just fighting a war in the US, this is a GLOBAL WAR.
That's going to be tough since they 'own' a good part of it. Have you ever looked up World Heritage Sites? Look it up on the UN website chain… you'll be SICK.
the stakes are huge; no doubt…
Agenda 21 is the attempt to create a One World Order by taking away our personal property, liberties and freedom. I have been doing quite a bit of research on this subject, and I am trying to make everyone aware. Some form of this agenda is in every county in the United States attempting to limit where we live by creating dense urban areas with mass transportation. No more cars, no more land, no more farming, no more grass, and on and on. Light rail initiatives is one of the first things they will attempt. The federal government is giving billions of dollars to implement this in every city in the country. The ICLEI is what your local government entity belongs to. Please check out my blog at http://www.moveoverdotcom.blogspot.com as I am doing a series of articles on this very subject. I posted the global view and I will cover national, state and local in upcoming posts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.