View Full Version : Sustainable Hiking
How might the "Daly Rules" of sustainability be applied to trails and hiking?
Should priciples and guildelines like "Leave No Trace" be extended or reworded so that they become guidelines for sustainability rather than conservation?
Would it be more effective to reword the "Daly Rules" as an enlightening and empowering concept, rather than as a set of rules, which might seem overbearing?
Is the concept of sustainability incompatible with capitalism?
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 11:41
How might the "Daly Rules" of sustainability be applied to trails and hiking?
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
they don't apply
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 11:54
Is the concept of sustainability incompatible with capitalism?
Sustainability can exist with capitalism, but those who practice it are at a disadvantage in capitalistic competition, in the short run. Tragedy of the commons. A capitalist can exploit and appropriate common resources such as the oceans, earth, and atmosphere and the things found in and on the planet, to his own advantage.
A capitalist also exploits labor (other people), and so is going to hell.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 11:58
S T F U already :rolleyes:
Sustainability can exist with capitalism, but those who practice it are at a disadvantage in capitalistic competition, in the short run. Tragedy of the commons. A capitalist can exploit and appropriate common resources such as the oceans, earth, and atmosphere and the things found in and on the planet, to his own advantage.
Interesting. That "tragedy of the commons" is usually cited as a fatal flaw of socialism, not capitalism.
A capitalist also exploits labor (other people), and so is going to hell.
Hehehe. Sounds like something I'd say. But not on this forum. ;)
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 12:03
thought you didn't believe in hell
thought you didn't believe in hell
Like uncle mitt... speaking figuratively, of course. ;)
With capitalism man exploits man.
With communism it is the other way around. ;)
Socialism avoids exploitation. Therefore it cannot exist. :D
I like JOHN DALY'S rules better. Get drunk, golf a bit, win a few million dollars, gamble it away with strippers in Vegas, play some more golf, win another tournament, repeat as necessary.
Now THOSE are rules I can live with.
Golf? Gak, that's even more boring than hiking. And don't get me started on what golf courses do to the environment...
they don't applyApparently not.
But can they be applied? What would be the impact on our economy?
Those birds and trees and rocks and stuff really ought to have done an future economic impact assessment before they decided to exist where we have always intended to exploit. :D
I just know this is going to end up being moved to the math forum. :D
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 12:25
Interesting. That "tragedy of the commons" is usually cited as a fatal flaw of socialism, not capitalism.
It's the same thing. It all boils down to the desire of man to accumulate earthly riches. Really we just need clean air, clean water, healthy food, and clothing and shelter, as far as worldy goods. Few people still have clean air and less and less have clean water. We're living in a rather large closed system, like a bunch of rats sealed off in a terrarium. Whatever. I'll be dead in a few decades but I feel very sorry for the children and grandchildren of people my age.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 12:28
Golf? Gak, that's even more boring than hiking. And don't get me started on what golf courses do to the environment...
golf is great. try it.
golf is great. try it.
I have, sorta vaguely. It's one of a thousand sports (sorry, recreations) I suck at. Actually the only ones I don't totally suck at are skiing, sailing and hiking.
It's the same thing. It all boils down to the desire of man to accumulate earthly riches. Really we just need clean air, clean water, healthy food, and clothing and shelter, as far as worldy goods. Few people still have clean air and less and less have clean water. We're living in a rather large closed system, like a bunch of rats sealed off in a terrarium. Whatever. I'll be dead in a few decades but I feel very sorry for the children and grandchildren of people my age.Problem of course is that it is often neccessary to exploit people, and nature, in order to avoid being exploited. Even rats are likely to be aware of their condition, but not likely to do much about it. Still, the best revenge is living well, and thinking well. Or is it?
Peter Marlowe: [speaking about King] It wouldn't have occurred to you would it, Grey, that you're only alive because of what he gave you?
Lt. Robin Grey: What are you talking about? I never took anything from him. He never gave me anything.
Peter Marlowe: Only hate, Grey. Only hate.
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 12:43
More like Harry Lime.
Just Jeff
12-23-2007, 13:06
Really we just need clean air, clean water, healthy food, and clothing and shelter, as far as worldy goods.
Good thing those dirty capitalists weren't satisfied with that, else we'd never have electricity, computers cheap enough for households to own them, medical care advanced enough to drastically lengthen lifespans, and enough free time to hike for recreation. But you can bash them while living off their achievements if you choose - they live for profits, not for your goodwill. Biting the hand that feeds and all.
Sheesh - this is why I stopped coming to WB.
Yeah, them poor old bosses need all the help they can get.
Just Jeff
12-23-2007, 13:21
I didn't say they needed help. I said they're the reason we have all the stuff that benefits our lives.
Hard work is important but it won't build a country on its own.
Hard work is important but it won't build a country on its own.
True, for that part you need weapons, abundant natural resources, and cheap labor. And you must kill (err... displace) whoever was there first.
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 13:26
Good thing those dirty capitalists weren't satisfied with that, else we'd never have electricity, computers cheap enough for households to own them, medical care advanced enough to drastically lengthen lifespans, and enough free time to hike for recreation. But you can bash them while living off their achievements if you choose - they live for profits, not for your goodwill. Biting the hand that feeds and all.
Sheesh - this is why I stopped coming to WB.
I didn't realize only capitalist countries have electricity, cheap computers, medical care, and leisure time. I'll have to do more research on this.
Either way, nothing is sustainable if it isn't.
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
I have, sorta vaguely. It's one of a thousand sports (sorry, recreations) I suck at.
So do the golf pros on occasion, that is why golf is great. You can birdie a given hole or take a quadruple bogey, just like a pro. Unlike a pro though, you don't have to wait for the 19th hole to celebrate - you just need to flag down the beverage cart or byo.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 13:45
So do the golf pros on occasion, that is why golf is great. You can birdie a given hole or take a quadruple bogey, just like a pro. Unlike a pro though, you don't have to wait for the 19th hole to celebrate - you just need to flag down the beverage cart or byo.
i usually BMO but if the cart girl is a hottie i'll flag her down
I haven't met too many golf pros, though I have met a few cons.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 13:46
i met, and got a picture taken with Tiger Woods some years back
i met, and got a picture taken with Tiger Woods some years back
name dropper
Cool. When I used to sail competitively we would sometimes show up early and use golf to get acclimatized. Those cart girls would have been handy. :D
This is the guy that started us on the idea of using golf.
He actually did pretty on the golf, and not so bad with the ladies either.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DE103DF93AA25752C1A96E9482 60
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 13:51
name dropper
i used to do golf course maintenance too
i used to do golf course maintenance too
I rake a lot of bunkers myself
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
How does this apply to some of the following:
1. Trail development.
2. Trail maintenance.
3. Trail use.
4. Gear.
5. Clothing.
6. Food and Food Packaging.
7. Water and Water Bottles.
8. Fuel and stove.
9. Personal hygene.
10. Transportation.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 13:59
none of it applies. why keep on with it? vote for John McCain for a sustainable America. republicans unite!
Why is the concept of sustainability so damned offensive to some?
I like this guy:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm
Why is the concept of sustainability so damned offensive to some?
It's not offensive, in the least, to me. But I'm not sure it can be "taught." Eventually, when resources are depleted or degraded sufficiently, folks will catch on. Just sayin' -- the folks who think about this stuff and care about it, are probably already doing their part, at least in some measure. And the folks who don't.... don't.
I here you. I just found it helpful to finally here a decent definition of sustainability. I suppose it was preaching to the choir by the time I got around to hearing it. It's an old idea of course, but Day summed it up very nicely, way back in the 1970s.
sparky2000
12-23-2007, 14:12
As Man distroys Man, Man wins!
ISTM, the problem with life in the USA these days is that we've lost sight of cause and effect. We think we can have everything, with no sacrifice involved. One result (or symptom) of that is a $9 trillion deficit, and a mortgage credit crisis. This issue runs deep. I don't see any easy solutions. The "problem" will fix itself eventually, but most likely not in my life time. I'm not sure any of our existing political or economic structures will still be recognizable when that happens.
The Departing of Gluskâp
It is so long ago; and men well-nigh
Forget what gladness was, and how the earth
Gave corn in plenty, and the rivers fish,
And the woods meat, before he went away.
His going was on this wise.
All the works
And words and ways of men and beasts became
Evil, and all their thoughts continually
Were but of evil. Then he made a feast.
Upon the shore that is beside the sea
That takes the setting sun, he ordered it,
And called the beasts thereto. Only the men
He called not, seeing them evil utterly.
He fed the panther's crafty brood, and filled
The lean wolf's hunger; from the hollow tree
His honey stayed the bear's terrific jaws;
And the brown rabbit couched at peace, within
The circling shadow of the eagle's wings.
And when the feast was done he told them all
That now, because their ways were evil grown,
On that same day he must depart from them,
And they should look upon his face no more.
Then all the beasts were very sorrowful.
It was near sunset, and the wind was still,
And down the yellow shore a thin wave washed
Slowly; and Gluskâp launched his birch canoe,
And spread his yellow sail, and moved from shore,
Though no wind followed, streaming in the sail,
Or roughening the clear waters after him.
And all the beasts stood by the shore, and watched.
Then to the west appeared a long red trail
Over the wave; and Gluskâp sailed and sang
Till the canoe grew little, like a bird,
And black, and vanished in the shining trail.
And when the beasts could see his form no more,
They still could hear him, singing as he sailed,
And still they listened, hanging down their heads
In long row, where the thin wave washed and fled.
But when the sound of singing died, and when
They lifted up their voices in their grief,
Lo! on the mouth of every beast a strange
New tongue! Then rose they all and fled apart,
Nor met again in council from that day.
- Charles G. D. Roberts (1860-1943)
CoyoteWhips
12-23-2007, 14:39
Why is the concept of sustainability so damned offensive to some?
I have no particular objection to sustainability. However, I also believe, like LW, that it does not apply to backpacking.
Hiking is necessarily a consuming activity. Yes, you limit your resources to only those you can carry, but you have a choice of low-tech+high-impact or high-tech+low-impact with the technology derived from high impact industry. Either way, you've optimized your resources for mobility over sustainability.
That's why foraging slows or stops hiking. You'd have to high-impact forage more than your current need to accumulate resources to continue traveling. While traveling, you contribute nothing.
If you want to improve sustainability, stop being nomadic, invent the plow, and manage your resources to produce greater than subsistence levels.
Perhaps sustainability is like one of those jokes that just isn't funny if you have to explain it.
all this sustain
all this sustain
ability is a joke
no fun to explain
If you want to improve sustainability, stop being nomadic, invent the plow, and manage your resources to produce greater than subsistence levels.
I think you've got it backwards. If anything, it's agrarian civilization that marked the end (or the beginning-of-the-end) of sustainability. Before that, we were hunter-gatherers.
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
How does this apply to some of the following:
1. Trail development.
2. Trail maintenance.
3. Trail use.
4. Gear.
5. Clothing.
6. Food and Food Packaging.
7. Water and Water Bottles.
8. Fuel and stove.
9. Personal hygene.
10. Transportation.
The day will soon come when it will be possible to hike from Philadelphia to Port Clinton on the Schuylkill River Trail (http://www.schuylkillriver.org/). Anyone other than JAK see how this post is A.T. related?
Hey. Wrong forum. Sorry about that.
Well I've ruled out humour, so how about General Non-AT talk. :)
Nice looking trail --> Schuylkill River Trail :sun
I think you've got it backwards. If anything, it's agrarian civilization that marked the end (or the beginning-of-the-end) of sustainability. Before that, we were hunter-gatherers.
Must have never heard of the concept of sustainable agriculture.:rolleyes:
Interesting concept. Maybe we should work on that.
Capitalism is fair because it leaves the money in the hands of those who earned it, and they can give it away foolishly if they choose (thats exploitation of ignorance, probably...) but if the consumer (of employment, commodities, government, whatever they are consuming...) behaves self responsibly and makes an effort to educate themselves they can exploit the full benefit of capitalism, which is a fair shake at prosperity. NO OTHER SYSTEM is fair. ALL other systems take the responsibility (and hence freedom) out tof the hands of the indivivdual and puts it in the hands of the state, meaning they create a dependance on the state, which helps the state sustain itself, but exploits the individual. The needs of the individual must outweigh the needs of the group (meaning the group or state can't steal from or exploit the individual parasitically). This ultimately serves the needs of the group best anyhow. You can't steal from me, even if you're dying, starving, need an operation, etc it's just not fair. Benefit...I can't steal from you either.
Must have never heard of the concept of sustainable agriculture.:rolleyes:
Of course it exists, but not always practiced. My point was that agrarian culture made civilization possible, and that was what (eventually) led to non-sustainable habits on a large (nationwide, or even global) scale.
The needs of the individual must outweigh the needs of the group.
That's impossible, long term, if those needs happen to conflict.
Maybe it's time for a good old fashioned plague. :eek:
That's impossible, long term, if those needs happen to conflict.
They ultimately never do. The group is made up of individuals.
Maybe I should have said "rights" insted of "needs".
They ultimately never do. The group is made up of individuals.
Maybe not in Ayn Rand's universe. :rolleyes:
Capitalism is sustainable. It just needs a little more foresight.
Capitalism is sustainable. It just needs a little more foresight.Agreed. It is the only truly sustainable system that respects human rights.
Maybe not in Ayn Rand's universe. :rolleyes:
I can't fully advocate an author I find dull, but her universe is the universe. She is not wrong.
Interesting illustration. I would settle for either viable or bearable over equitable. I would say we are currently too far off into the equitable zone, but never satisfied. I think we need to shift over into viable first, and worry about bearable later, in order to end up with something sustainable. Doubt we will get there if all we are ever worried about is equitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sustainable_development.svg
Maybe it's time for a good old fashioned plague. :eek:
That, or something like it, is bound to happen. Possibly within the next few decades, even.
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 16:47
Maybe it's time for a good old fashioned plague. :eek:
All it will take is a good flu epidemic. I believe something of this sort is right around the corner.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 16:49
I just know this is going to end up being moved to the math forum. :D
Geek.:p :D
Well that would be viable, but we would need another every 10 or 20 years.
I am not sure how bearable that would be in the long term.
Geek.:p :DYeah, you'ld like that to eh. :p :D
CoyoteWhips
12-23-2007, 16:56
I think you've got it backwards. If anything, it's agrarian civilization that marked the end (or the beginning-of-the-end) of sustainability. Before that, we were hunter-gatherers.
Do you know why there are no more giant sloths and woolly mammoths and a host of other extinct tasty large mammals in North America?
We ate them.
CoyoteWhips
12-23-2007, 16:57
All it will take is a good flu epidemic. I believe something of this sort is right around the corner.
Well, if not, trace toxic residue in our environment is reducing fertility in industrialized countries, so the population is falling in many parts of the globe.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 16:58
Yeah, you'ld like that to eh. :p :D
Damn straight. I need to bone up on the difference between an a symptotic and logarithmic graph.
Although I was stating my theory as the logarithmic progression and so therefore I think there would be a crash and not a plateau.
When you keep building unchecked (population in this case) eventually the foundation can't bear the weight.
Crash.
Pandemic proabably.
Damn straight. I need to bone up on the difference between an a symptotic and logarithmic graph.
Although I was stating my theory as the logarithmic progression and so therefore I think there would be a crash and not a plateau.
When you keep building unchecked (population in this case) eventually the foundation can't bear the weight.
Crash.
Pandemic proabably.Math Nazi! :p
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 17:04
Math Nazi! :p
That's right. . . 'I'm smaaatt'.
Generally until I talk to other people who are able to expain to me how dumb I am.:)
I think economic crash first, then famine, then plague.
Then perhaps a good old fashioned war, or peasant revolt, probably both.
Or we could just give up stuff like bottled water. :D
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 17:07
. . .
Or we could just give up stuff like bottled water. :D
Perish the thought. However would people get water to drink if you did that??:D
Geek response: an asymptotic curve is one whose first derivative approaches a constant (ie., the curve approaches a straight line.) Eg. the curve 1/x is asymptotic to the y-axis for small values of x, and to the x-axis for large values of x. Hyperbolas have asymptotes, but parabolas don't.
"Population crashes" have been predicted before (viz., Malthus) but with the earth's human population at >7 billion, it seems the likelihood of it actually happening is substantial. Google on "dieoff." Euphemistically refered to as "biomass crash."
Oh great. Another Math Geek.
This thread is doomed to the Math Forum for sure. :D
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 17:13
Oh great. Another Math Geek.
This thread is doomed to the Math Forum for sure. :D
Speaking of which. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:600px-LinLinScale.png
Yep, the ln (log natural) curve is also asymptotic (to the negative y-axis) for values of x much less than 1. What that's got to do with hiking, or the price of tea in China, is anybody's guess.
Easter Island:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/easterisland.shtml
They were virtually wiped out by a series of disasters - natural and manmade - that brought a population of 12,000 down to just 111 in a few centuries.
So why haven't they replanted forests yet? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Hangaroa_Moais.jpgBad for tourism or what?
Try again.
Easter Island:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...erisland.shtml
They were virtually wiped out by a series of disasters - natural and manmade -
that brought a population of 12,000 down to just 111 in a few centuries.
So why haven't they replanted forests yet? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_Moais.jpg
Bad for tourism or what?
JAK, I can't follow that link. But I know that what Jared Diamond claims is (was) the end of Easter Island: in a word, deforestation. The place is utterly devoid of trees.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 17:56
You 0 for 2 JAK. HA HA.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Hangaroa_Moais.jpg
http://www.kew.org/conservation/cpdu/Toromiro/toro_t1.html
Sophora toromiro once formed part of the natural vegetation of the Pacific island, Rapa Nui (Easter Island). It is now extinct in the wild. A prolonged history of habitat destruction has resulted in the loss of the island's original scrub and forest. The first European navigators noted the Toromiro, recording areas as "covered with a shrubbery of the mimosa ... to the height of 8 or 9 feet." However following the introduction of domestic livestock, those surviving clumps were rapidly destroyed by browsing. The last surviving tree was recorded by Scottsberg in 1917 within the crater Rano Kau. This tree survived until 1962. The only plants that can be confirmed as genuine S. toromiro are descendants from this single founder and survive in cultivation within European and Australian botanic gardens, the National Botanic Garden in Viña del Mar, Chile and private gardens in Chile.
"The Toromiro Management Group is committed to the conservation of the sacred Toromiro tree through its reintroduction as a viable element of the ecology and culture of Rapa Nui."
EvilCapitalist
12-23-2007, 18:15
Sustainability can exist with capitalism, but those who practice it are at a disadvantage in capitalistic competition, in the short run. Tragedy of the commons. A capitalist can exploit and appropriate common resources such as the oceans, earth, and atmosphere and the things found in and on the planet, to his own advantage.
A capitalist also exploits labor (other people), and so is going to hell.
You couldn't be MORE WRONG. A paper company, for example, HAD BETTER PLANT TREES, or else go out of business. They couldn't make a profit if they ran out of trees. Private property owners sell their trees to paper company, for example, to allow their money to make land, but usually it is junk trees, and they let the big ones stay. Rarely, do they clear cut. Funny, how we hardly have a real forest fire back east, since most of our land is privately owned, as opposed to the western US, most of which is public land, and consequently has forest fires ALL THE TIME, because they don't clean out the junk trees. The government may set aside a piece of land as a National Park, because of it's beauty, but they really will never take care of that land like a private property owner would. The AT is a good example of this. Most of the caretaking for the trail is done by private citizens and volunteers at their own expense, even though it is a "public trail," where anyone and everyone can come and trash it without consequence. You might want to study up on damage done to the environment by "Big Government" and "Socialism" vs. Exclusively Private Corporations(as opposed to co-ops which are bad, too). Someone who cares about the environment would be a capitalist, as well, because it is only in the profit and loss system where someone would pony up massive amounts of money and ingenuity to invent and mass produce energy saving or non-polluting technology. Socialists could care less about this. Remember they're the elites, and above the law. Also, capitalists don't exploit labor. No one ever forced me to go to work for anybody. However, I believe that socialists force me to pay lots of taxes for welfare programs and other global social projects (including wars) that I don't approve of. However, I think Socialists (the Nazi party and the Communist party) were responsible for forcing millions of people to work in concetration camps. Get your facts straight and stop thinking EMOTIONALLY.
A capitalist does not need to remain a paper company forever.
Before there was a paper company, there was capital.
We will always have capital, but you can't eat capital.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:21
Is it me or does it seem that this thread all of a sudden fell under the shadow of the Death Star?
Also, capitalists don't exploit labor.
Oh yeah, that's rich. Too much BS in your post to argue with point-for-point, (and has nothing whatsoever to do with AT/Hiking, etc.) but that line was pretty amusing. PS: who's paying for the war in Iraq, and why? Buncha evil socialists?
"...the core values that underpin sustainable development - interdependence, empathy, equity, personal responsibility and intergenerational justice - are the only foundation upon which any viable vision of a better world can possibly be constructed"
- "Capitalism - as if the world matters" by Jonathon Porritt (2005)
http://spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAEE6.htm
As might be expected from someone who moves in Blairite circles, his new book, Capitalism As If The World Matters, presents itself as embodying a sensible third-way approach. Porritt concedes that there is a potential conflict between economic growth and the environment. His solution is to try to find a reasonable balance between the two. But a closer inspection shows his project is to repackage the idea of natural limits to make it acceptable to the majority of the population - who he sees as living a life of systematic denial.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 18:26
this thread is the epitome of geekism, wankerism and bullshatism. you wannabe, packsniffing, cyberhikers are just that.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:26
Heavy sigh.:(
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:28
this thread is the epitome of geekism, wankerism and bullshatism. you wannabe, packsniffing, cyberhikers are just that.
Sounds like somebody didn't get to golf today. Or is it cuz the Packers lost?
:D
When you warn people about the dangers of climate change, they call you a saint.
When you explain what needs to be done to stop it, they call you a communist.
- George Monbiot
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 18:31
Sounds like somebody didn't get to golf today. Or is it cuz the Packers lost?
:D
who's the packers? you mean appalachian tater? too cold to golf. huh?
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:31
When you warn people about the dangers of climate change, they call you a saint.
When you explain what needs to be done to stop it, they call you a communist.
- George Monbiot
It seems of late they call you a communist for both.
Blue Jay
12-23-2007, 18:32
this thread is the epitome of geekism, wankerism and bullshatism.
By my count you've posted on it as much as anyone else, therefore.....
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:33
who's the packers? you mean appalachian tater? too cold to golf. huh?
I hate when your more entertaining than me. Goddammitt WOLF.:eek: :datz :p :)
EvilCapitalist
12-23-2007, 18:36
Oh yeah, that's rich. Too much BS in your post to argue with point-for-point, (and has nothing whatsoever to do with AT/Hiking, etc.) but that line was pretty amusing. PS: who's paying for the war in Iraq, and why? Buncha evil socialists?All of us are paying for it, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. And it isn't a war as much as a social engineering project, which is what most post WWII "conflicts" are. You think Bush is a capitalist? Think again. Most Republicans aren't capialist, which is why the party is split in half. I hate arguing with you guys, too. It's pointless. The fact is, if you really want to save the planet, stop compaining, AND BUY LAND. No one is cutting down the trees, or building factories, or conducting wars, or anything on my little piece of land. However, I am not bothering anyone, either which is why I like capitalism. Capitalism allows me to be left alone, and likewise I am allowed to leave everyone else alone. You can't do that with socialism, because the elites make you participate. I just gave a few examples, to try and make a general point, but you can't argue with people who think emotionally. Besides, most people love anything that is public, so that can deface it and trash the hell out of it and ruin it for us all. I have already fought my demons concerning religion, government, socialism, and capitalism, and people in my mind. All, I know is that I don't want to be forced into participation in any program. If I am forced to participate, then it's not for me.
Appalachian Tater
12-23-2007, 18:37
You couldn't be MORE WRONG. A paper company, for example, HAD BETTER PLANT TREES, or else go out of business. They couldn't make a profit if they ran out of trees. Private property owners sell their trees to paper company, for example, to allow their money to make land, but usually it is junk trees, and they let the big ones stay. Rarely, do they clear cut. Funny, how we hardly have a real forest fire back east, since most of our land is privately owned, as opposed to the western US, most of which is public land, and consequently has forest fires ALL THE TIME, because they don't clean out the junk trees. The government may set aside a piece of land as a National Park, because of it's beauty, but they really will never take care of that land like a private property owner would. The AT is a good example of this. Most of the caretaking for the trail is done by private citizens and volunteers at their own expense, even though it is a "public trail," where anyone and everyone can come and trash it without consequence. You might want to study up on damage done to the environment by "Big Government" and "Socialism" vs. Exclusively Private Corporations(as opposed to co-ops which are bad, too). Someone who cares about the environment would be a capitalist, as well, because it is only in the profit and loss system where someone would pony up massive amounts of money and ingenuity to invent and mass produce energy saving or non-polluting technology. Socialists could care less about this. Remember they're the elites, and above the law. Also, capitalists don't exploit labor. No one ever forced me to go to work for anybody. However, I believe that socialists force me to pay lots of taxes for welfare programs and other global social projects (including wars) that I don't approve of. However, I think Socialists (the Nazi party and the Communist party) were responsible for forcing millions of people to work in concetration camps. Get your facts straight and stop thinking EMOTIONALLY.
In absolute capitalism, paper companies are free to discharge wastes into the air and water, and it is more profitable for them to do so than not. It is not about emotion, it is about profit.
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 18:39
No one's forcing you to participate here.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 18:46
By my count you've posted on it as much as anyone else, therefore.....
whatever eagle scout wannabe :rolleyes:
For all you Ayn Rand fans out there:
"The difference between animals and humans is that animals change themselves for the environment,
but humans change the environment for themselves."
- Ayn Rand
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 18:49
For all you Ayn Rand fans out there:
"The difference between animals and humans is that animals change themselves for the environment,
but humans change the environment for themselves."
- Ayn Rand
you'r always quoting others. you ever have an idea of your own? oh that's right, you're a college teacher
Edit: Thought it best to spare the board some political economic BS.
you'r always quoting others. you ever have an idea of your own? oh that's right, you're a college teacherYou want more of my poetry? Gee Wolf. Thanks.
EvilCapitalist
12-23-2007, 18:50
Wrong, again. The government gives them permission to discharge pollutants into the environment, for a large fee, of course. This gives the government officials a little control over the corporate guys and lines their pockets with a little vacation money. WE, THE PEOPLE, lose, again. Under pure capitalism, they'd have to BUY ALL THE LAND DOWNSTREAM, which would never happen. Look at all the man made reservoirs in America. The government had to use eminent domain (steal in the name of the public good) to take private land, because citizens didn't want to leave. A corporation could never do this, exclusively, without the governments help. They'd have to pony up so much money, that the project would be cost-ineffective. You guys are so brainwashed it is embarrassing. There is a reason our forefathers wanted so little government. It is just like poison. It doesn't take much to ruin all the good. It's not the corporations or private property owners that scare me, but what happens when the government gets involved. You can bet it will become a corrupt organization.
"Sustainability is here to stay. We may not be." - Niall Fitzgerald, UK CEO, Unilever
http://www.unilever.co.uk/
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 18:52
You want more of my poetry? Gee Wolf. Thanks.
NO. spend time with your kid and wife. obviously you ain't doing much of it
I have already fought my demons concerning religion, government, socialism, and capitalism
apparently not, since you've just spewed them out on this website, unbeckoned and unwelcome. :rolleyes:
NO. spend time with your kid and wife. obviously you ain't doing much of itYou're a man of fewer words, making more sense.
It's not the corporations or private property owners that scare me, but what happens when the government gets involved. You can bet it will become a corrupt organization.
Indeed, perhaps the corporations might be a bit less harmful if they didn't have the full power of government to do their bidding and their dirty work. :rolleyes:
this thread is the epitome of geekism, wankerism and bullshatism. you wannabe, packsniffing, cyberhikers are just that.
Wolf, tell us how you really feel. :banana
I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded communist
'Cause I'm left handed
That's the hand I use
Well, never mind
-- Simon and Garfunkel, a Simple Desultory Philippic
Merry Christmas to all.
Good Will to L.Wolves.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 19:00
Wolf, tell us how you really feel. :banana
i'm just getting started. gonna pop the corks of some red here pretty quick and give y'all a piece of my brain
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 19:01
Merry Christmas to all.
Good Will to L.Wolves.
to you and yours also
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 19:04
i'm just getting started. gonna pop the corks of some red here pretty quick and give y'all a piece of my brain
Sweet. I'm headed out to get the beer and popcorn.:) :)
EvilCapitalist
12-23-2007, 19:04
I always figured that the social welfare programs and transfer of wealth to the less well heeled was to make sure that we never reach a point where 51% of the population takes a fair an democratic vote to expropriate the property of the 49% who are living high on the hog.
Seems to me that these so-called socialist forces are just a good way for the rich to protect their wealth, given this one-man one-vote nonsense looks like it is here to stay.It is, actually. That's why they "donate" money to government legislatures, in order for the said government(s) to pass laws to protect them, as opposed to free competition, without restrictions, which would do them in, of course. Commodore Vanderbilt faced this problem in NY. They don't mind paying all the taxes and conforming to all the government regulations as long as they're protected from competition. That's what really makes me sick about it, and is a point where I actually can agree with an HONEST "anti-capitalist." What I mean is that it isn't 100% corporation that is bad, or 100% government that is bad, it is when the 2 co-mingle and start exploiting each other. The corporations exploit government and the government protects the these corporations, in order that they both may co-exist in their elite status amongst the rest of us, while we lose in multiple ways. We are taxed more than we should be in public affairs, we have to pay more for goods and services than we should in our private affairs, and nothing ever changes. We, the people, lose, AGAIN.
EvilCapitalist
12-23-2007, 19:09
apparently not, since you've just spewed them out on this website, unbeckoned and unwelcome. :rolleyes:Yeah, that's what happens when something is open to the public, isn't it. I just illustrated absurdity by being absurd. And ... Yes, I swore I wouldn't get involved in these 3rd grade emotional arguements with flamers on this site, but when I read the 1st page of the posts, I had to respond, to see if anyone here thought logically, and used reason. I got what I expected, but I had to respond on the side of reason and logic.
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 19:12
Yeah, that's what happens when something is open to the public, isn't it. I just illustrated absurdity by being absurd. And ... Yes, I swore I wouldn't get involved in these 3rd grade emotional arguements with flamers on this site, but when I read the 1st page of the posts, I had to respond, to see if anyone here thought logically, and used reason. I got what I expected, but I had to respond on the side of reason and logic.
please stay here and slap these little bitches around. they need it
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 19:14
please stay here and slap these little bitches around. they need it
That's it!? Cancel the popcorn, guess I'll just have beer.
please stay here and slap these little bitches around. they need it
Speaking of btches, you do more of that around here than anyone, quit being such a hypocrit:)
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 19:46
Speaking of btches, you do more of that around here than anyone, quit being such a hypocrit:)
huh? that makes no sense
You bitch too much, better?
Lone Wolf
12-23-2007, 19:50
i don't bitch at all
warraghiyagey
12-23-2007, 19:52
i don't bitch at all
Ummm. . .
All it will take is a good flu epidemic. I believe something of this sort is right around the corner.
If this bird flu thing every takes off, it could be trouble for mankind.
Just Jeff
12-23-2007, 23:13
Capitalism, like Rand's selfish Objectivism, is based on enlightened self-interest rather than the hedonistic self-interest y'all point to when criticizing it. Enlightened self-interest breeds sustainability.
But like everything else, philosophy is hard to practice because human nature gets in the way. And free will is a bitch.
Rand was a great philosopher but a mediocre economist...Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is the perfect antithesis to Atlas Shrugged (at 1/6th the length). Take what's good and leave the rest.
An Epitaph for a Husbandman
He who would start and rise
Before the crowing cocks, --
No more he lifts his eyes,
Whoever knocks.
He who before the stars
Would call the cattle home, --
They wait about the bars
For him to come.
Him at whose hearty calls
The farmstead woke again
The horses in their stalls
Expect in vain.
Busy and blithe and bold
He laboured for the morrow, --
The plough his hands would hold
Rusts in the furrow.
His fields he had to leave,
His orchards cool and dim;
The clods he used to cleave
Now cover him.
But the green, growing things
Lean kindly to his sleep, --
White roots and wandering strings,
Closer they creep.
Because he loved them long
And with them bore his part,
Tenderly now they throng
About his heart.
Charles G. D. Roberts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrMB6JWaOfo
New Brunswick Moosehunt 1905.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnTDBuic-iU&mode=related&search=
Merry Christmas. Ho Ho Ho.
Why do we need 4 wheel drive they did OK. And the clothes old but good. Now thats called hiking and camping.
CoyoteWhips
12-24-2007, 13:10
If you come across locally grown produce in town, that'd be your food for the first couple of days out. It's heavier, but part of that weight counts on your water budget.
Eat meat sparingly and stay away from grain fed meat. Foil packed fish is often wild caught.
Rather than logs in a fire ring, use twigs in a wood stove.
Just Jeff
12-24-2007, 13:51
I've been thinking about woodstoves...might start experimenting.
I often carry fresh produce the first day or two of a hike...nothing like breaking open a fresh orange on a warm day. It's amazing how far that smell goes, too...hungry hikers can smell it before they see you!
I've been thinking about woodstoves...might start experimenting.
I've used a Zip stove for a couple of long sections. It has its pros and cons. You'll never be out of fuel, and you can have your own little private campfire on cold, damp days. You'll also be the last person to eat dinner at the shelter or campsite. Suffice to say... it was fun for a while but I use a Pocket Rocket these days.
I often carry fresh produce the first day or two of a hike...nothing like breaking open a fresh orange on a warm day. It's amazing how far that smell goes, too...hungry hikers can smell it before they see you!
Yep, this summer in the heat it was nice having some fresh fruit for that first day or two after resupply. Or even those fruit/pudding cups that are made for kids' lunchboxes.
Darwin again
12-24-2007, 22:01
If this bird flu thing every takes off, it could be trouble for mankind.
Only about 30 percent of people will get sick, and among them, mortality will be around 60 percent. The bird flu favors the young, like the 1918 Spanish flu. That's still 54 million Americans dead. Begin storing food now. Plan for three waves of about 8 weeks apiece, which will interrupt regular commerce and social mixing. That's 24 weeks, 168 days, of food and water storage. Plus medications for dealing with symptoms when you or family members get sick. Water storage tanks are here (http://www.plastic-mart.com/class.php?cat=9).
Good reference for this whole subject is at the Flu Wiki (http://www.fluwikie.com/).
ON topic: LNT = PNF (Pay No Fees)
Merry Christmas, all!:sun
Darwin again
12-24-2007, 22:06
Capitalism, like Rand's selfish Objectivism, is based on enlightened self-interest rather than the hedonistic self-interest y'all point to when criticizing it. Enlightened self-interest breeds sustainability.
But like everything else, philosophy is hard to practice because human nature gets in the way. And free will is a bitch.
Rand was a great philosopher but a mediocre economist...Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is the perfect antithesis to Atlas Shrugged (at 1/6th the length). Take what's good and leave the rest.
The Ayn Randianism works fine until you've gotta call a cop or paramedic or fireman to save your self-interested butt. :rolleyes:
The Ayn Randianism works fine until you've gotta call a cop or paramedic or fireman to save your self-interested butt. :rolleyes:Yeah, except there's nothing in objectivism about getting rid of firemen. :rolleyes:
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-26-2007, 08:11
As Bfitz notes, enlightened objectivism would have safeguards such as fire protection because self-interested folks don't fancy their self-interested butts burning to death.
How do y'all see the philosophy applying to long-distance hiking on the AT? While I could easily see the applications on some of the more difficult and solitary trails, the AT is more of a social walk with tons of support than a long-distance hike.
Just Jeff
12-26-2007, 08:36
That's one of the things I never liked about Rand's books, actually. She says to pursue your own interests no matter what, but her ideal pursuit of interests always involved producing stuff. I got it - producing is great and achievements are man's greatest virtue - but every great achievement in her books is about business and production, or artistic production. What if my self-interested arse wants to hike for 6 months a year and produce nothing but methane and footprints?
I settled it by saying that, as long as I'm not mooching or looting, it's still compatible with Objectivism. I'm producing enough to sustain myself...so it's kinda like Hugh Akston.
Had a lovely little day today.
All the dads went sliding with all the kids.
Lots and lots and lots of fresh air and little fresh faces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8SMsMnA1cI&feature=related
Darwin again
12-26-2007, 20:31
Yeah, except there's nothing in objectivism about getting rid of firemen. :rolleyes:
Ah, a literalist. How expected....:rolleyes:
I read that Atlas Shrugged, back in 1983.
Being an engineer, I thought it was great, but it was just a novel.
When did it gain quasi-religious status?
Just Jeff
12-27-2007, 08:16
For a long time, and it's not like it used to be. What's funny - she had a loyal following, cult-like, called The Collective. Did you not read the damn book?! That's the exact OPPOSITE of what she's saying!! Sheesh - some people's kids...
Philosophy classes study Objectivism - Atlas Shrugged is the most well-known work on the topic, even though she has other books about it. Textbooks, even.
Regardless of the specifics of Ayn Rands formulation, I personally think everyone can agree that self interest is the single most motivating force in human activity. This is logical, evolutionarily speaking. The kind of enlightened self interest that looks to long term benefits, or intangible benefits is key here. As far as producing something worthwhile, the idea of cooperation is key, when we all work together we can produce more and learn how to effect greater productivity through cooperation. Or to put it simply...everyone benefits from everyone benefitting. This isn't Ayn Rand, this is just simple logic. Now, the human impulse to create something less tangible as just jeff points out is also involved here. Self interest causes us to "sacrifice" for our children, our families, our society, art, etc. because we also have emotional self interest. But ultimately, humanity is cooperating on building something even bigger...CIVILIZATION. This is a project, humanities fountainhead, and we derive emotional benefit from a civilization that has aesthetic qualities that fit with our moral preferences such as caring for the less fortunate, allowing for endeavors with less "tangible" but no less important benefits such as hiking or building conciousness or awareness etc. Civilization doesn't just happen, we are it's creators, and should derive pride from it, and should participate in the cooperative effort of making it better and recognize how it serves both our tangible and emotional self interest.
"self interest is the single most motivating force"
True, but that is really the point isn't it.
Motiving force is neccessary, but insufficient.
We will always need something more.
Self-interests may build and destroy civilizations, but they don't define them.
The essence of civilization is empathy.
if self interest defined our lives i picture this scenario -
the family breadwinner (literally, and figuratively) comes home from 'work', throws the food (or $$) on the floor and watches the family kill, maim, and overpower one another for dinner. (assume the breadwinner hid or ate her fair share on the way home)
at some point the weakest will die off, or the family will smarten up and beat the piss out of the bread winner after discovering she's been hording food.
of course, this is not how we typically treat our families... but it is how we tend to react to each other on the road, at the store, at work, and in line to purchase those wonderful products that make my life so worth living.
mine, mine, mine. my parking space, my ticket, my space at the shelter, my trail - so play by my rules. my right to carry a weapon (and use it), my right to buy whatever i want even if it externalizes the nasties and kills people and resources in far off lands, my right to 'take care of my family'... etc. etc.
and, for what its worth, sustainability is a bleak outlook for life. nature is not sustainable - it is abundant. to paraphrase mcdonough - imagine if a cherry tree was sustainable - how many blossoms would it produce? or a river? or your marriage or relationships, or sex life ... how bleak a world would that be? we certainly wouldn't be walking long trails in the woods if we wanted to live 'sustainably' - we'd be choosing the job or our 'work' with the least impact on the environment and harm to our fellow woman and man, learning to grow as much of our own food as we could, and campaigning to build a sensible society based on equity and justice. maybe we'd find ways to wander long distances and connect with other cultures and landscapes - but it would probably be lower on our list of things we needed to do to survive. we certainly would eschew the 'diposable' income that allows us to jet and drive to all parts of the globe so we can 'recreate' (and why do we spend so much time re-creating... why don't we spend time 'creating'. are our normal lives so miserable that we need time off from our reality?) - and it would probably start at our doorstep and end at our doorstep - how many of use know the landscapes in far off lands or states or counties better than we know the creek down the road? or the watershed we live in? or the river just over that ridge? or even the culvert under the road?
Nature is abundant. So don't spoil it.
Christmas, with Christ and Christmas trees and all that, is a wonderful metaphor for both abundance and sustainability. Done right it is both. Done wrong it is neither. It is foolish to talk about whether or not Christmas can be sustainable. Christmas IS sustainability. If it isn't sustainable, it isn't Christmas.
chopping down living organisms so we can decorate them for a few weeks in our house is sustainable?
the notion of a magical man that can bring gifts to all the good little girls and boys (without apparent ramifications) is sustainable?
using the figurehead of organized religion that historically excludes, goes to war, promoted empire, was controlled by politicians, and promotes 'dominion' over the earth is sustainable?
chopping down living organisms so we can decorate them for a few weeks in our house is sustainable?
the notion of a magical man that can bring gifts to all the good little girls and boys (without apparent ramifications) is sustainable?
using the figurehead of organized religion that historically excludes, goes to war, promoted empire, was controlled by politicians, and promotes 'dominion' over the earth is sustainable?It's all in the way that it is done, and where it is done. Here is the simple test. If you aren't doing it sustainably, then you are doing it wrong.
warraghiyagey
12-27-2007, 16:35
It's all in the way that it is done, and where it is done. Here is the simple test. If you aren't doing it sustainably, then you are doing it wrong.
Actually, from a sustainability perspective, the Christmas tree business has a very high sustainability rate. They're planting every spring.
Like my earthy Arbor Day type friends always say - 'Save a tree, eat a beaver.'
Christmas, with Christ and Christmas trees and all that, is a wonderful metaphor for both abundance and sustainability. Done right it is both. Done wrong it is neither. It is foolish to talk about whether or not Christmas can be sustainable. Christmas IS sustainability. If it isn't sustainable, it isn't Christmas.
who was talking about christmas?
who was talking about christmas?This thread is about Sustainable Hiking. Chistmas is about Sustainability, because Chistmas IS Sustainability. Thus this thread is about Chistmas. :sun
Do try and keep up. :D
how again is xmas about sustainability?
please inform me. i don't see it, no matter how or where i 'do it'.
CoyoteWhips
12-27-2007, 17:59
This thread is about Sustainable Hiking. Chistmas is about Sustainability, because Chistmas IS Sustainability. Thus this thread is about Chistmas. :sun
Do try and keep up. :D
Jesus saves.
The most sustainable of the messiahs, really.
The Christmas tree tradition -- as silly as it is to drag a thing into your house and watch it die -- really is sustainability. The trees are farmed and often recycled. We have a power plant just outside of the city that burns Christmas trees. Always smells like pine on that part of the road.
Those Hanukkah people are really good a conserving oil, though.
warraghiyagey
12-27-2007, 18:01
how again is xmas about sustainability?
please inform me. i don't see it, no matter how or where i 'do it'.
Yeah, that was a head-scratcher for me too, although if I remeber correctly, it's Ayn Rand's fault.
:rolleyes:
The Christmas tree tradition -- as silly as it is to drag a thing into your house and watch it die -- really is sustainability. The trees are farmed and often recycled. We have a power plant just outside of the city that burns Christmas trees. Always smells like pine on that part of the road.
how much energy does it take to grow the thing, drive the family out to chop it down, drag it into the house, then dispose of it? we'll even assume that the family is driving around in a holier than thou hybrid...
not to mention all the hoopla, media, ads, shopping sprees, and plastic crap that will get used for 6 months and tossed that will be placed under it in more dead trees to wrap up our disposable plastic lifestyles and make it all look shimmering and pretty...
why not just let the thing grow in peace to filter the air and help maintain the soil and keep it from eroding away when the next subdivision goes in?
"It may have struck you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's a big relationship between this marvelous time of year and living in a one-party state.You can't go anywhere without listening to the same music. You can't go anywhere without hearing the name of the Great Leader, and his son, the Dear Leader....All broadcasts, all songs, all jokes, all references are, just for that magic few weeks, just exactly like living in North Korea."
thats from Hitchens, who I find amusing in small doses in a crusty old professor sort of way - but this passage particularly made me smile...
He forgot to add in the Major Party Leader Mr. Claus and his merry band of party faithful third world worker elves who embark on a seemingly impossible quest each year to bestow the good consumers of the world with holiday cheer in the form of bountiful buzzing and ringing and whirring goodies - all neatly packaged and wrapped in a fantasy world where there are no consequences to the endless consumption of toys, or gadgets, or hiking gear, or eggnog... :)
Where were we.
Oh, sustainability and hiking. And Rand and Atlas Shrugged. And XMas.
OK. I didn't want to have to do this to you guys but you left me little choice. :D
More to follow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
"The date of the celebration is traditional, and is not considered to be his actual date of birth. Christmas festivities often combine the commemoration of Jesus' birth with various cultural customs, many of which have been influenced by earlier winter festivals. Although a Christian holiday, it is also observed as a cultural holiday by many non-Christians."
"After the conversion of Anglo-Saxon Britain in the very early 7th century, Christmas was referred to as geol, the name of the pre-Christian solstice festival from which the current English word 'Yule' is derived. The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned on Christmas Day in 800. Around the 12th century, the remnants of the former Saturnalian traditions of the Romans were transferred to the Twelve Days of Christmas (25 December – 5 January). Christmas during the Middle Ages was a public festival, incorporating ivy, holly, and other evergreens, as well as gift-giving. Modern traditions have come to include the display of Nativity scenes, Holly and Christmas trees, the exchange of gifts and cards, and the arrival of Father Christmas or Santa Claus on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning. Popular Christmas themes include the promotion of goodwill and peace.
Symbols:
Birth of Christ, Nativity Scenes, Winter Solstice, Candles, Yule Log, Evergreen Trees, Christmas Trees, Holly, Mistletoe. ???
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2933
"The present writer in inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too."
LITURGY AND CUSTOM
The calendar
The fixing of this date fixed those too of Circumcision and Presentation ; of Expectation and, perhaps, Annunciation B.V.M. ; and of Nativity and Conception of the Baptist (cf. Thurston in Amer. Eccl. Rev., December, 1898). Till the tenth century Christmas counted, in papal reckoning, as the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, as it still does in Bulls ; Boniface VIII (1294-1303) restored temporarily this usage, to which Germany held longest.
Popular merry-making
Codex Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December; though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the "twelve days" from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63-64, orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the "Laws of King Cnut", fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.
The three Masses
The Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries give three Masses to this feast, and these, with a special and sublime martyrology, and dispensation, if necessary, from abstinence, still mark our usage. Though Rome gives three Masses to the Nativity only, Ildefonsus, a Spanish bishop, in 845, alludes to a triple mass on Nativity, Easter, Whitsun, and Transfiguration (P.L., CVI, 888). These Masses, at midnight, dawn, and in die , were mystically connected with aboriginal, Judaic, and Christian dispensations, or (as by St. Thomas, Summa Theologica III:83:2 ) to the triple "birth" of Christ: in Eternity, in Time, and in the Soul. Liturgical colours varied: black, white, red, or (e.g. at Narbonne) red, white, violet were used (Durand, Rat. Div. Off., VI, 13). The Gloria was at first sung only in the first Mass of this day.
The historical origin of this triple Mass is probably as follows (cf. Thurston, in Amer. Eccl. Rev., January, 1899; Grisar, Anal. Rom., I, 595; Geschichte Roms . . . im Mittelalter I, 607, 397; Civ. Catt., 21 September, 1895, etc.): The first Mass, celebrated at the Oratorium Pręsepis in St. Mary Major -- a church probably immediately assimilated to the Bethlehem basilica -- and the third, at St. Peter's, reproduced in Rome the double Christmas Office mentioned by Etheria (see above) at Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The second Mass was celebrated by the pope in the " chapel royal" of the Byzantine Court officials on the Palatine, i.e. St. Anastasia's church, originally called, like the basilica at Constantinople, Anastasis, and like it built at first to reproduce the Jerusalem Anastasis basilica -- and like it, finally, in abandoning the name "Anastasis" for that of the martyr St. Anastasia. The second Mass would therefore be a papal compliment to the imperial church on its patronal feast. The three stations are thus accounted for, for by 1143 (cf. Ord. Romani in P. L., LXXVIII, 1032) the pope abandoned distant St. Peter's, and said the third Mass at the high altar of St. Mary Major. At this third Mass Leo III inaugurated, in 800, by the coronation of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire. The day became a favourite for court ceremonies, and on it, e.g., William of Normandy was crowned at Westminster.
Dramatic presentations
The history of the dedication of the Oratorium Pręsepis in the Liberian basilica, of the relics there kept and their imitations, does not belong to this discussion [cf. C RIB ; R ELICS . The data are well set out by Bonaccorsi (Il Natale, Rome, 1903, ch. iv)], but the practice of giving dramatic, or at least spectacular, expression to the incidents of the Nativity early gave rise to more or less liturgical mysteries. The ordinaria of Rouen and of Reims, for instance, place the officium pastorum immediately after the Te Deum and before Mass (cf. Ducange, Gloss. med. et inf. Lat., s.v. Pastores); the latter Church celebrated a second "prophetical" mystery after Tierce, in which Virgil and the Sibyl join with Old Testament prophets in honouring Christ. (For Virgil and Nativity play and prophecy see authorities in Comparetti, "Virgil in Middles Ages", p. 310 sqq.) "To out-herod Herod ", i.e. to over-act, dates from Herod's violence in these plays.
The crib (creche) or nativity scene
St. Francis of Assisi in 1223 originated the crib of today by laicizing a hitherto ecclesiastical custom, henceforward extra-liturgical and popular. The presence of ox and ass is due to a misinterpretation of Isaias i:3 and Habacuc 3:2 ("Itala" version), though they appear in the unique fourth-century "Nativity" discovered in the St. Sebastian catacombs in 1877. The ass on which Balaam rode in the Reims mystery won for the feast the title Festum Asinorum ( Ducange, op. cit., s.v. Festum).
Hymns and carols
The degeneration of these plays in part occasioned the diffusion of noels, pastorali, and carols, to which was accorded, at times, a quasi-liturgical position. Prudentius, in the fourth century, is the first (and in that century alone) to hymn the Nativity, for the "Vox clara" ( hymn for Lauds in Advent ) and "Christe Redemptor" ( Vespers and Matins of Christmas) cannot be assigned to Ambrose. "A solis ortu" is certainly, however, by Sedulius (fifth century). The earliest German Weihnachtslieder date from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the earliest noels from the eleventh, the earliest carols from the thirteenth. The famous "Stabat Mater Speciosa" is attributed to Jacopone da Todi (1230-1306); "Adeste Fideles" is, at the earliest, of the seventeenth century. These essentially popular airs, and even words, must, however, have existed long before they were put down in writing.
Cards and presents
Pagan customs centering round the January calends gravitated to Christmas. Tiele (Yule and Christmas, London, 1899) has collected many interesting examples. The strenę ( eacute;trennes ) of the Roman 1 January (bitterly condemned by Tertullian, de Idol., xiv and x, and by Maximus of Turin, Hom. ciii, de Kal. gentil., in P. L., LVII, 492, etc.) survive as Christmas presents, cards, boxes.
The yule log
The calend fires were a scandal even to Rome, and St. Boniface obtained from Pope Zachary their abolition. But probably the Yule-log in its many forms was originally lit only in view of the cold season. Only in 1577 did it become a public ceremony in England ; its popularity, however, grew immense, especially in Provence; in Tuscany, Christmas is simply called ceppo (block, log -- Bonaccorsi, op. cit., p. 145, n. 2). Besides, it became connected with other usages; in England, a tenant had the right to feed at his lord's expense as long as a wheel, i.e. a round, of wood, given by him, would burn, the landlord gave to a tenant a load of wood on the birth of a child; Kindsfuss was a present given to children on the birth of a brother or sister, and even to the farm animals on that of Christ, the universal little brother (Tiele, op. cit., p. 95 sqq.).
Greenery
Gervase of Tilbury (thirteen century) says that in England grain is exposed on Christmas night to gain fertility from the dew which falls in response to "Rorate Cęli"; the tradition that trees and flowers blossomed on this night is first quoted from an Arab geographer of the tenth century, and extended to England. In a thirteenth-century French epic, candles are seen on the flowering tree. In England it was Joseph of Arimathea's rod which flowered at Glastonbury and elsewhere; when 3 September became 14 September, in 1752, 2000 people watched to see if the Quainton thorn ( cratagus pręcox ) would blow on Christmas New Style; and as it did not, they refused to keep the New Style festival. From this belief of the calends practice of greenery decorations (forbidden by Archbishop Martin of Braga, c. 575, P. L., LXXIII -- mistletoe was bequeathed by the Druids ) developed the Christmas tree, first definitely mentioned in 1605 at Strasburg, and introduced into France and England in 1840 only, by Princess Helena of Mecklenburg and the Prince Consort respectively.
The mysterious visitor
Only with great caution should the mysterious benefactor of Christmas night — Knecht Ruprecht, Pelzmärtel on a wooden horse, St. Martin on a white charger, St. Nicholas and his "reformed" equivalent, Father Christmas — be ascribed to the stepping of a saint into the shoes of Woden, who, with his wife Berchta, descended on the nights between 25 December and 6 January, on a white horse to bless earth and men. Fires and blazing wheels starred the hills, houses were adorned, trials suspended and feasts celebrated (cf. Bonaccorse, op. cit., p. 151). Knecht Ruprecht, at any rate (first found in a mystery of 1668 and condemned in 1680 as a devil ) was only a servant of the Holy Child.
Non-Catholic observances
But no doubt aboriginal Christian nuclei attracted pagan accretions. For the calend mumming; the extraordinary and obscene Modranicht ; the cake in honour of Mary's "afterbirth", condemned (692) at the Trullan Council, canon 79; the Tabulę Fortunę (food and drink offered to obtain increase, and condemned in 743), see Tiele, op. cit., ch. viii, ix -- Tiele's data are perhaps of greater value than his deductions -- and Ducange (op. cit., s. vv. Cervula and Kalendę).
In England, Christmas was forbidden by Act of Parliament in 1644; the day was to be a fast and a market day; shops were compelled to be open; plum puddings and mince pies condemned as heathen. The conservatives resisted; at Canterbury blood was shed; but after the Restoration Dissenters continued to call Yuletide "Fooltide".
There is no clear 'official' connection, but an infinite number of popular traditions which now form a strong association between the celebration of Birth of Christ, and other modern religious celebrations with more even more ancient and everlasting traditions celebrating the longest night of the year, the new beginning which follows with the new day, eternal hope and the promise of coming Spring and eternal life. Thus, despite the best efforts of the Christian Church, they couldn't stop Christmas from coming. Now there is Sustainability for you.
"For yonder breaks a new and glorious morne"
sustainababbleLet's just say the tradition continues, and leave it at that. ;)
Or not...
http://www.candlegrove.com/home.html
"Five thousand years of human history--maybe more--have enfolded this season in rich garb--many layers of celebration, folklore and tradition. Here's where you get to unwrap the gift. We'll be adding more every day throughout the holiday season. "
you've copied and pasted a bunch of text.
christianity co-opted all major holidays from many of the religions that it stomped on in the name of 'redemption', 'eternal life', and 'salvation'.
you can see the marks of it all over the world.
i'm not sure what your point is.
Just Jeff
12-27-2007, 19:25
For all of you who claim you're not self-interested, send ALL of your profits to charity. All of them...for the betterment of your fellow man, even the ones who don't deserve it.
Better yet, not even profits. Sacrifice your car to charity, b/c it's in society's best interest for the homeless folks to eat more than it's in society's best interest for you to drive to work when you can walk.
Until I see everyone giving away all their stuff, they'll have no credibility in saying they're not self-interested. And that's only one form of self-interest - not even the enlightened kind.
you've copied and pasted a bunch of text.
christianity co-opted all major holidays from many of the religions that it stomped on in the name of 'redemption', 'eternal life', and 'salvation'.
you can see the marks of it all over the world.
i'm not sure what your point is.Well all those traditional celebrations are connected with winter solstice, which in the Northern Hemisphere is when days start getting longer, 'rebirth of the sun'. It is as strong and ancient and everlasting a natural symbol of renewal and renewability as we are ever going to get on this Earth. I really don't think I have to make this point. I think the sun does this very well on its own. If you want to know more about why the Christian Churches chose to connect the 'Birth of Christ' with the 'Rebirth of the Son', ask them. I am just saying that the Christian Churches and all other religions, modern and ancient, did not make Christmas what it is today. Like most things renewable and sustainable, that came directly from the sun, from creation. That's just the natural order of things.
Christmas = Sustainability.
To be more clear, Christmas is a celebration of the possibility of sustainable life, life on earth through the Sun, and eternal life through more spiritual creations and beings.
Just Jeff
12-27-2007, 19:47
To be more clear, Christmas is a celebration of the possibility of sustainable life, life on earth through the Sun, and eternal life through more spiritual creations and beings.
JAK, that's a very insightful statement and a very skillful way to bring the thread back on topic. Not that I think it'll work :D but it was skillful nonetheless!
CoyoteWhips
12-27-2007, 19:49
I'd think you more sustainable religions would be your hippy pagans. They're all about organic recycling natural living.
For all of you who claim you're not self-interested, send ALL of your profits to charity. All of them...for the betterment of your fellow man, even the ones who don't deserve it.
Better yet, not even profits. Sacrifice your car to charity, b/c it's in society's best interest for the homeless folks to eat more than it's in society's best interest for you to drive to work when you can walk.
Until I see everyone giving away all their stuff, they'll have no credibility in saying they're not self-interested. And that's only one form of self-interest - not even the enlightened kind.Not everyone needs to be as one-dimensional as you would want them to be. Self interests may drive us, but every idiot that has seen or felt the sunrise and sunset knows that there has to be more to the story. We all have to breath. We all have to eat and drink. We all seek shelter and offspring. What then? If you think the mystery of life can be wrapped up in a simple paperback, or any book, you are delusional.
I'd think you more sustainable religions would be your hippy pagans. They're all about organic recycling natural living.Well the enduring nature of these hippy pagans is a testament in itself I suppose. They've always been around in one form or another. When all these various pagan religions were mainstream I am sure there were plenty of radical hippies on the fringes dancing to the beat of their own drum. Still, regardless of the ages or the beat, whether we are mainstream or otherwise, the song remains the same. One could even argue that the human condition preceeds us.
For all of you who claim you're not self-interested, send ALL of your profits to charity. All of them...for the betterment of your fellow man, even the ones who don't deserve it.
Better yet, not even profits. Sacrifice your car to charity, b/c it's in society's best interest for the homeless folks to eat more than it's in society's best interest for you to drive to work when you can walk.
Until I see everyone giving away all their stuff, they'll have no credibility in saying they're not self-interested. And that's only one form of self-interest - not even the enlightened kind.
who is claiming that? in this thread? i doubt anyone able to practice non self interest would be surfing and posting on the interwebs - seems they'd have more important things to do with their time than sustainabbling about christmas having a link to sustainability. ;)
A Pict Song
ROME never looks where she treads.
Always her heavy hooves fall,
On our stomachs, our hearts or our heads;
And Rome never heeds when we bawl.
Her sentries pass on—that is all,
And we gather behind them in hordes,
And plot to reconquer the Wall,
With only our tongues for our swords.
We are the Little Folk—we!
Too little to love or to hate.
Leave us alone and you’ll see
How we can drag down the State!
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot at the root!
We are the taint in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!
Mistletoe killing an oak—
Rats gnawing cables in two—
Moths making holes in a cloak—
How they must love what they do!.
Yes—and we Little Folk too,
We are busy as they—
Working our works out of view—
Watch, and you’ll see it some day!
No indeed! We are not strong,
But we know Peoples that are.
Yes, and we’ll guide them along,
To smash and destroy you in War!
We shall be slaves just the same?
Yes, we have always been slaves,
But you—you will die of the shame,
And then we shall dance on your graves!
We are the Little Folk—we!
Too little to love or to hate.
Leave us alone and you’ll see
How we can drag down the State!
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot at the root!
We are the taint in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!
- Rudyard Kipling
If you think the mystery of life can be wrapped up in a simple paperback, or any book, you are delusional.
and you as well, by presuming it cannot.
and you as well, by presuming it cannot.All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.
and you as well, by presuming it cannot.
Pray tell. Can I get it on Amazon?
To be more clear, Christmas is a celebration of the possibility of sustainable life, life on earth through the Sun, and eternal life through more spiritual creations and beings.
so i can use up this planet just as fast as i can, cuz the good lord will forgive my misdeeds if done in his name (and i say the pre-requisite quantity of holy be thy name prayers) and i'll live forever in the golden palaces of never never land?
Pray tell. Can I get it on Amazon?
Amazon has everything. I'm sure they have it.
All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.
then why make the statement you did. it was far more than a generalization - you called someone delusional - which i would argue is what we all are...
Amazon has everything. I'm sure they have it.
I need the ISBN number. Pleeeeze? :D
I need the ISBN number. Pleeeeze? :D
actually, i just did a search for it. (http://www.amazon.com/30-Minute-Celebrity-Makeover-Miracle-Achieve/dp/047017403X/ref=xarw?pf_rd_p=345095401&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=390920011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1JZ8YKHYVWTXE82FDK52)
its all hidden in there between the ab crunches and botox injections, but really, celebrity makeovers = sustainability and the secret of life
trust me. :D
Darwin again
12-27-2007, 20:24
then why make the statement you did. it was far more than a generalization - you called someone delusional - which i would argue is what we all are...
Christmas perfectly illustrates the sustainability of mass delusion, now Bigger and Better and driven by corporate profiteers and electronic advertising. The scam is infinite in depth and breadth until the resources run out and they will. Where will your Santa Claus be then? People are in denial about this truth. Talk to people about peak oil or peak resources and you get almost visceral negative responses because nobody wants to even try to understand that things will not be This Good or Better for ever and ever and ever. The idea is absurd on its face.
Planet in Peril = Wrong
People in Peril= Right
Christmas perfectly illustrates the sustainability of mass delusion, now Bigger and Better and driven by corporate profiteers and electronic advertising. The scam is infinite in depth and breadth until the resources run out and they will. Where will your Santa Claus be then? People are in denial about this truth. Talk to people about peak oil or peak resources and you get almost visceral negative responses because nobody wants to even try to understand that things will not be This Good or Better for ever and ever and ever. The idea is absurd on its face.
Planet in Peril = Wrong
People in Peril= Right
i couldn't agree more.
we have a model for infinite growth in a finite world. (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)
it cannot go on forever.
i couldn't agree more.
we have a model for infinite growth in a finite world. (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)
it cannot go on forever.
Great link. Thanks.
I need the ISBN number. Pleeeeze? :D
What you are searching for (http://www.amazon.com/Monty-Pythons-Meaning-Carol-Cleveland/dp/B000A2UBNE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1198818296&sr=8-1)
i couldn't agree more.
we have a model for infinite growth in a finite world. (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)
it cannot go on forever.Great video. Thanks.
Great video. Thanks.
:)
Glad you liked it.
Oversimplified for sure - but for 20 minutes, a great intro to some of the problems we face.
Just watched the video, then realized this thread did absolutely nothing toward answering the original query 10 pages ago.
One of the points in the video is that leisure time has decreased and that so much of it is taken up with stimulating demand for consumption. So it seems that hiking by definition gets you away from the consumption cycle and helps sustainability.
Just watched the video, then realized this thread did absolutely nothing toward answering the original query 10 pages ago.
One of the points in the video is that leisure time has decreased and that so much of it is taken up with stimulating demand for consumption. So it seems that hiking by definition gets you away from the consumption cycle and helps sustainability.
so long as your work time doesn't need to be so demanding to fuel and pay for the hiking time, i agree... but working so much to take time off so you can jet around the world hiking and climbing and playing doesn't really fit into sustainability's definitions either.
we need local solutions to our consumption / playing / working / lifestyles.
we need local solutions to our consumption / playing / working / lifestyles.
I would agree; however, the desire to travel and to explore is not so easily denied. For example, a thru-hike is not "local."
Sustainable local/regional travel would do so much to reducing the impacts of long-distance travel (fly somewhere, then DON'T rent a car...) and sure would do a lot to help section- and thru-hiking.
But people want cars, which is a very big reason we don't have the passenger travel network we once did in the USA.
CoyoteWhips
12-31-2007, 13:16
But people want cars, which is a very big reason we don't have the passenger travel network we once did in the USA.
Wouldn't it be great if our response to oil financed terrorism had been putting those $billions into eliminating the US dependence on foreign oil? Take away the US market and oil goes down to $20 a barrel.
If it didn't take two or three hours to run to the market, I'd use my city bus system. The local solution to people who can't afford cars is subsidized taxi service. This time of year you can always see a half dozen of them huddled by the supermarket entrance with their shopping carts, havin' a smoke, waiting for the cab.
I would agree; however, the desire to travel and to explore is not so easily denied. For example, a thru-hike is not "local."
There are many different kinds of A.T. thru-hikes, some of which involve less consumption of resources than others.
Sustainable local/regional travel would do so much to reducing the impacts of long-distance travel (fly somewhere, then DON'T rent a car...) and sure would do a lot to help section- and thru-hiking.
You mean like BARTA, Bieber and Vermont Transit?;)
Exploring locations near home rather than some exotic, heavily-promoted locations is an option too. Considerable time and resources are expended travelling to exotic locations only to turn around and return home. There's still much I'd like to explore within hour's drive of where I live.
I want to know when actual rail travel from Reading to Philly will become a reality. Enough of the talk already.
I like the concept of the Schuylkill River Trail. Now there's a trail that has the potential to generate some revenue. It's also close to where people live and there's so much to see and learn.
But people want cars, which is a very big reason we don't have the passenger travel network we once did in the USA.
In some ways, I think we need to return the way we once lived, what we once learned and abandoned. We need to rethink the way we live and what we value before there isn't anything worth caring about anymore.
I would agree; however, the desire to travel and to explore is not so easily denied. For example, a thru-hike is not "local."
Sustainable local/regional travel would do so much to reducing the impacts of long-distance travel (fly somewhere, then DON'T rent a car...) and sure would do a lot to help section- and thru-hiking.
But people want cars, which is a very big reason we don't have the passenger travel network we once did in the USA.
true, people 'want' cars. but where did that come from? from GM buying up greyhound and the streetcars and running them into the ground? from colusion between developers, higway builders, and the automakers to make cars a 'need' to live a 'wonderful' life by pulling people away from the city, where a car doesn't make much sense, to the suburbs, where everything is spread way way out and the parking lot is the most identifiable piece of environmental change we've intitiated on the landscape?
many homes have more square footage set aside for the auto than they have room for out of town guests and family. we're backwards on this, and big business and government aren't going to fix it - there is too much easy money in it. imagine taking the $$ we spent on developing all the roads and parking lots and have pumped it into the cities when they needed it most - into schools, and alternative energy, and into better public transportation, and greening up parks and streets and water and pollution? would we still live where we can walk to work, play, and school? it would be a very different world. you might be able to take a train to bear mountain and get on a remote trail that leads into the wilderness... and repeat it in many cities around the country - but in many cases, you need to travel hours from city center to find any sort of real 'open space' - and you are lucky to find 'wild' space without travelling quite far.
If it didn't take two or three hours to run to the market, I'd use my city bus system. The local solution to people who can't afford cars is subsidized taxi service.
When I was a boy, I could ride my bicycle to the market in town and often did; now I drive to any of several supermarkets. I can limit trips to the market and I could and should make more of an effort. I could take public transportation there. If I had to walk, I'm sure I would reduce the frequency of trips there.
I can walk to work if I want to and have, but it takes about an hour one-way.
I can take public transportation to the A.T. and may soon be able to walk there on footpaths save for about 2 miles. I like knowing it's there, but what I really would like to see is a network of trails in my own town to facilitate travel by foot or bicycles which would incorporate circuits that could be used for fitness or recreational walking.
I can take public transportation to the A.T. and may soon be able to walk there on footpaths save for about 2 miles. I like knowing it's there, but what I really would like to see is circuits in my own town that facilitate travel by foot or bicycles.
and our cities and towns starting to be redesigned for people... not these big machines that we've cooked up to motor us all over the planet. at some point steel and glass and plastic overtook skin and bone in our design of community.
i live in a fairly bike friendly town. there are many options for staying close to home and walking or riding to the store or the market. occassionally i travel by bike to a nearby town that is designed around the auto - and just trying to park at one megaplaza and walk to the next is near suicide.
at some point we will have to decide that people are more important than stuff.
Suburbs really are an awful idea. Or rather, what's awful is the total dependance on cars for even the simplest tasks (eg. grocery shopping.) We need to walk more.
Suburbs really are an awful idea. Or rather, what's awful is the total dependance on cars for even the simplest tasks (eg. grocery shopping.) We need to walk more.
at some point an incredibly adaptable, mobile, intelligent, (and i'd add often times arrogant) creature became inseperable with a complex, energy consuming machine for the even the simplest of tasks. sad really.
walking and cycling are great ways to get to know your local part of town, and to expand your fitness within the confines of normal, everyday life.
but i'm biased. i own too many bicycles, ride too many miles, and take great pleasure in knowing that i can traverse town fully loaded with groceries, dog and cat food, building supplies, whatever... under my own power.
i also drive, and browse internet forums. and use a laptop made overseas, and have outdoor gear that was probably made by young children in developing countries.
complex world we live in... its a slow process of untangling our lives for sure...
Earlier this year (2007) I was Googleing(sp) the local metro transportation system to get a map of the local bus routes so I could start using the bus system to get around (due to medical problems, I've recently had to give up driving).
Anyway, when my 35 yr old daughter found out what I was doing, she was HORRIFIED at the idea of me even considering using public transportation. I explained that before moving to Oklahoma, I used the local bus in Colorado quite often to get around since the bus stop was right in front of my place and sometimes it was just easier than driving (fighting traffic, finding a parking space, etc.).
Just a difference in attitudes, I guess. :mad:
I've used public transportation (trains, buses) to get to/from several of my section hikes. It's not always fast or pleasant but it beats worrying about a car at the trailhead for days or weeks at a time. I've also used my bicycle to complete several AT sections (get to start from end or vice-versa, after or before the hike.) It's all part of the adventure.
Appalachian Tater
01-01-2008, 18:21
Suburbs really are an awful idea. Or rather, what's awful is the total dependance on cars for even the simplest tasks (eg. grocery shopping.) We need to walk more.
The original suburbs were built around streetcar lines and were ideal places to raise a family compared to the crowded and dirty cities.
The original suburbs were built around streetcar lines and were ideal places to raise a family compared to the crowded and dirty cities.
and then the streetcar lines were run into the ground... and we have 'sprawl'... and now suburbs mean 30-40 miles from center city, as opposed to maybe 5-10 miles out. many inner ring suburbs still hold houses with charm, neighborhoods you can walk, and tend to go through boom and bust phases. the suburbs that we get now are full of cookie cutter mcmansions and are isolated, cut off unless you own a private auto to travel to work and pick up groceries.
so much energy was expended developing the suburbs - but with a change of focus perhaps those dirty, crime ridden cities filled with diversity of thought, people, industry, work, play, etc. could have been helped... but the quick buck was just down the road, on the old farm, around the bend.