I'm a fan of the "ready-made" post, so here's something I wrote for a food storage email list I'm on.  A new person on the list posed the question of why we are pursuing such extreme versions of food stockpiling, rather than the more traditional "emergency stores" version of food storage (you know, have enough food for a 3 days and water for a week version?).  Well, here's my response.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I promised myself I was going to go sit on the couch and read a magazine.

Okay, I'm probably not really a luddite.  Or maybe I am, I suspect it matters more who you ask than the actual definition.  Regardless, I saw Sharon Astyk post this quotation over on Grist, and I remembered reading it myself (knitting in my lap, no less).  I recall how absolutely, stunningly obvious it seemed to me, once I'd read it.  How is it that simple lessons from the past are so obscured?

The quotation is from Jared Diamond's Collapse: how societies choose to succeed or fail.  It's an awesome read.

"This is an expression of faith about the future, and therefore based upon a supposed track record of technology having solved more problems than it created in the recent past.  Underlying this expression of faith is the implicit assumption that, from tomorrow on-wards, technology will function primarily to solve existing problems and will cease to create new problems.  Those with such faith also assume that the new technologies now under discussion will succeed, and that they will do so quickly enough to make a big difference soon....But actual experience is the opposite of this assumed track record.  Some dreamed-of new technologies succeed, while others don't. Those that do succeed typically take a few decades to develop and phase in widely: think of gas heating, electric lighting, cars and airplanes, television, computers and so on.  New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problem that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems.  Technological solutions to environmental problems are routinely far more expensive than preventative measures to avoid creating the problem in the first place: for example ,the billions of dollars of damages...Most of all advances in technology just increase our ability to do things, which may be either for the better or for the worse.  All of our current problems are unintended negative consequences of our existing technology.  The rapid advances in technology during the 20th century have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that's why we're in the situation in which we now find ourselves. What makes you think that, as of January 1 2006, for the first time in human history, technology will miraculously stop causing unanticipated problems while it just solves the problems that it previously produced?"

Maybe a week ago, a True Believer in the Power of Nuclear Energy found hir way onto Sharon Astyk's blog, and raised a bit of Nuculer-powered hell (over 100 comments on that blog post--wow).  Besides being a bit of a condescending twit (okay, a lot of a condescending twit), s/he was at least making some reasonably well-argued points.  S/He'd thought about the situation carefully.  And s/he'd come out the other end a "no matter what problem you could possibly come up with, nuclear will Save The Day!"  I spent some time this morning in bed arguing with this person in my head, which meant that I wasn't sleeping, which meant that I was getting cranky.  But I think I've decided that this person is deluded at best, and possibly an industry shill at worst.  Behind the cut are my ruminations on nuclear power.

(snagged from otterkin)

I can't decide whether this makes me want to laugh or cry...

So a little while back I posted one of Brian's satires of those terrible "10 Things YOU Can Do!" lists.  I hate those lists.  When I'm being charitable, I assume that they probably only do as much damage as good (that is, it's a wash), but I cannot imagine that they're particularly helpful.  But then again, I'm a cynical twit.

So does individual action matter?  Hells yes!  I've always thought individual action matters, just not for the reasons that most people probably do.  I've talked a bit about this elsewhere, but Brian has a great piece (below the cut) about why individual action does matter, matters a lot in fact, and why we all need to take it very seriously.  I hope you enjoy.

Yeah... don't you just love those assinine lists?  Well, my husband feels the same way, so here is his list of 10 ways to fight global warming.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/09/climate.deep.freeze.reut/index.html

Well, I'm glad at least someone is thinking about the future, albeit in the (appropriately) doomsday style.  Bah. 

In other, somewhat more optimistic news, Richard Branson is offeringing a 25 million dollar prize for finding a way to scrub CO2 out of the atmo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070209/sc_nm/climate_prize_dc

Gods, the Bush Admin is gonna wet itself over this one.  "See!  We don't have to change our ways at all!  Technology will save us!"  Not casting aspersions on Branson, who I think rocks all over the place; just being prematurely sickened by our Admin's reaction.  Who knows, maybe I'll be wrong?  I mean, they could behave even worse....

R.