Ableton Forum

Well what are you waiting for?

Get on it.

Sustainable "grass fed goat dairy" is fantastic food. The products have no relation to cow dairy, and have been a staple for thousands of years in the mediterranean/middle east. I simply can't get enough protein from plants exclusively. I am; no beef, no fish. Free-range no corn foul is ok. I never order any kind of foul/chicken in a restaurant unless they specify the same. Which is never. They might say organic but that's not good enough these days. The place I get my goat-whey and colostrum uses a rotating field grass farm exclusively for the happy goats. Mt. Capra Farms.

you betcha.

The "Big-Gulp" demographic does more.

Book Title: “Stop Signs — Cars and Capitalism on the road to economic, social and ecological decay.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y74XX0

“The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices lists the purchase of a personal car or light truck as the single most damaging consumer behaviour. Put bluntly, the car is “the ecologist’s worst nightmare.”

“A single car uses 120,000 gallons (454,000 litres) of water, generates 29 tons of solid waste as well as 1,200 million cubic yards of air emissions, all before the first test drive.”

“Today’s car uses an average of 1,840 pounds (835 kilos) of steel and 300 pounds (136 kilos) of aluminium.”

“A new car contains about 200 pounds (91kilos) of plastic, a material that generates significant pollution in production and is more difficult to recycle than metal.”

The book includes a detailed run down of the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine when combined with the physics required to propel one tonne of steel forward, or the mass of resources and infrastructure (roads, parking spaces, petrol stations, spare parts, etc) needed to make car travel so viable and ultimately addictive. 'All' these are covered in the book, and makes for disturbing reading.

For the record, I have been vegetarian for 23 years, because I never liked the taste of meat, so it's no big deal. I was diagnosed with a B12 deficiency five years ago and I now have to take daily supplements. If I could stomach meat, I would rather eat it over taking supplements... ie, we have a massive rabbit problem in Australia, and it's rabbit city where I live.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Exactly. Cars are there to make profits for capitalists, but they are destroying the planet, even before they are driven. Half the CO2 emissions caused by a car come during production. They are not even an efficient form of transport in a city, a tram/metro/light rail miles quicker.

Sorry, but I don't think that the planet will be destroyed by cars. Destruction is due to (1) war (not only nuclear bombs spread everywhere, but even military chemical material: for instance depleted uranium, spread by the U.S.A. army and causing devastating pollution and hundred thousands dead for cancer among serbia, iraq and african population); (2) capitalism. Again: people want cars, they need them and like them. Tram, metro etc. can be useful in big cities like London, Paris, New York etc., but not anyone lives there. Most of people live in small cities, they need cars, in most cases it is a question of independence and/or survival. So, in my opinion, this idea of yours is not right, you can't order people "no, this is not allowed, use tram or ride a bike". The ideal solution for me would be the one I said before (kill capitalists and military servants, give bread, freedom and culture to the people through ethical science), but I understand it's pure utopia. At the same time I don't like Your solution, it sounds like this to me:

myrnova wrote:ethical science

LoopStationZebra wrote:

myrnova wrote:ethical science

I just used the google translator, what's wrong with this term? Something like "urban dictionary" definition? It means "rimming", "blow job" or something like this in America? In Italy it's when a scientist is for human progress and refuses to work for war, military technology, capitalistic crimes, etc.

myrnova wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Exactly. Cars are there to make profits for capitalists, but they are destroying the planet, even before they are driven. Half the CO2 emissions caused by a car come during production. They are not even an efficient form of transport in a city, a tram/metro/light rail miles quicker.

Sorry, but I don't think that the planet will be destroyed by cars. Destruction is due to (1) war (not only nuclear bombs spread everywhere, but even military chemical material: for instance depleted uranium, spread by the U.S.A. army and causing devastating pollution and hundred thousands dead for cancer among serbia, iraq and african population); (2) capitalism. Again: people want cars, they need them and like them. Tram, metro etc. can be useful in big cities like London, Paris, New York etc., but not anyone lives there. Most of people live in small cities, they need cars, in most cases it is a question of independence and/or survival. So, in my opinion, this idea of yours is not right, you can't order people "no, this is not allowed, use tram or ride a bike". The ideal solution for me would be the one I said before (kill capitalists and military servants, give bread, freedom and culture to the people through ethical science), but I understand it's pure utopia. At the same time I don't like Your solution, it sounds like this to me:

I agree with you Mynova, to some extent.... I don't want to live in a world where my rights are completely dissolved, aka, no freedom. It's bad enough as it is. That's why I try to raise the awareness of those around me (via what ever means possible), whist backing up my words with my actions.

A continual eroding of our freedom is where we are heading, and those in power understand how to keep us happily entertained and unaware, like the farmer who tends his 'free' range chickens.

My point is this, there are things that people may want, that are causing things that they don't want. For, example, you don't want 'war' or 'capitalism' but you do want 'cars'. 'Cars' do not equate to individual 'freedom' (but I realise many mistakenly believe that they do) and they really are the foundation of 'Capitalism' whose market forces propel the wealthier nations into 'war' with the often poorer but 'naturally resourced' nations (because they can win, and they get booty).

Given the photo you've posted, are you disabled?? You do realise that the number people in wheelchairs is relatively minor to those that are able bodied. You do realise that people in wheelchairs don't generally drive, and that in most wealthy nations (where car ownership is massive) there are many forms of public transport that they're able to have access to? There will be some exceptions to all this, but it'll be a very small percentage and I for one don't see any issue in aiding those people whilst the able bodied and consciously aware people challenge capitalism by "not feeding the monster".

Oh, and I'm definitely against your idea of killing people.

(Your English is quite good, so consider reading the book on Cars and Capitalism that I've already linked to, if you are really interested in understanding the world)

Wait... I never said "i like cars" or "i want cars". Infact I don't give a damn about cars. I just claimed PEOPLE want cars, because they are useful, comfortable and sometimes even indispensable, expecially in small towns or when you have disabled or ill relatives who cannot be independent.

Claiming "people want cars" does not mean I justify cars' pollution or cars' rich corporations. It's just a sort of "respect", because I don't feel like "judging" about needs and/or tastes. I think some inventions like car, washing machine, radio, TV, computer, fridge etc. are very important and help to live a better life.

As for fridge, which once contained freon (dangerous for ozone), industries should change technology for cars, too: no more oil, but water/hydrogen. In order to do this capitalists must be destroyed, not cars.

Regarding the picture: i work with disabled people and I understand well what "progress" means: for me it's the contrary of war and capitalism. I don't think capitalists and soldiers are "heroes", "fighting for peace" and "helping people to live better", for me they are just criminals.

myrnova wrote:Wait... I never said "i like cars" or "i want cars". Infact I don't give a damn about cars. I just claimed PEOPLE want cars, because they are useful, comfortable and sometimes even indispensable, expecially in small towns or when you have disabled or ill relatives who cannot be independent.

Claiming people want cars does not mean I justify car's pollution or car's industries. It's just a sort of "respect", because I don't feel like to "judge" about needs and/or tastes. I think some inventions like car, washing machine, radio, TV, computer, fridge etc. are very important and help to live a better life.

As for fridge, which once contained freon (dangerous for ozone), industries should change technology for cars, too: no more oil, but water/hydrogen. In order to do this capitalists must be destroyed, not cars.

Regarding the picture: i work with disabled people and I understand well what "progress" means: for me it's the contrary of war and capitalism. I don't think capitalists and soldiers are "heroes", "fighting for peace" and "helping people to live better", for me are just criminals.

Yes, I have worked in the disability field too. What I said about cars stand. I agree, people need the freedom to work things out for themselves, ie, not to be forced by rule of law. I consider challenging people thinking to be a perfectly acceptable approach.

It's incredibly important if we want a more equitable world and one that remains inhabitable for all life that we learn to discern the difference between 'want' and 'need'. When an intelligent and emotionally mature person is presented with the facts, they will make the right choice. Cars need massive amounts of oil, in their construction and day to day running. Oil is an important resource, it's currently helping to feed the growing worlds population, but we burn it recklessly by engaging in private car ownership.

So, some more info on cars from the book;

Only 3 % of the fuel you put in your car propels you forward, the rest is burned off in heat and the physics of moving your personal metal cage.

“The engine in most automobiles is between 20 and 25 percent efficient,” notes Mark Eberhart, “meaning that the remaining 27-80 percent of the input energy is turned to heat before reaching the drive train.”

In addition to the car’s inefficient use of gasoline, these 3000-pound metal boxes carry on average one and a half people, approximately 300 pounds – a mere 10 percent of the vehicle’s weight. Let’s do the math: If only 30 percent of the gasoline energy is used by a vehicle carrying 10 percent of its weight, then only 3 percent of the fuel’s energy actually moves what needs to be moved.




Book Title: “Stop Signs — Cars and Capitalism on the road to economic, social and ecological decay.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y74XX0

I understand what you mean, but I doubt it will work, expecially because of the brand-new "economies" (china, india, brazil): everyone there wants to drive a car now. They don't give a damn about pollution, i guess... They just want comfort and "freedom". So: better change technology (clean hydrogen), rather than hoping people there will renounce what the rich west has always had. And of course that wouldn't be enough for our poor planet to be safe, just think of nuclear tests and power stations ready to blow up sooner or later and destroy everything. Not to mention nuclear waste in africa and southern Italy (mafia)...

myrnova wrote: In Italy it's when a scientist is for human progress and refuses to work for war, military technology, capitalistic crimes, etc.

Which is exactly why Italy is only about 2 or 3 steps away from Third World status.

Have fun with that.

LoopStationZebra wrote:

myrnova wrote: In Italy it's when a scientist is for human progress and refuses to work for war, military technology, capitalistic crimes, etc.

Which is exactly why Italy is only about 2 or 3 steps away from Third World status.

Have fun with that.

(the american guy here seems to forget WHY a "Third World" exists... )

I help you: starts with "U." and ends with "S."

The Third World exists because Free Market Capitalism hasn't arrived there yet.

LoopStationZebra wrote:The Third World exists because Free Market Capitalism hasn't arrived there yet.

The third world exists because first world nations need something to inflate their economies with.