Thanks to Mr Lee I saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' over the weekend. Granted that the graphs are impressive and it is actually a BIG deal the damage we are causing to our planet. There is something that I however don't get. The 'movie' was distributed by one of the big houses (was it Universal?) and the theme song even won an Oscar. When did the US began attacking the US? One might say that having Michael Moore's documentaries in Blockbuster is actually a proof of the freedom of speech... but 'the US and A' are legendary for their calculated steps. What lies behind this massive 'consciousness attacks'?
I read a study from Bristol University about why people fall in love. Same yadda-yadda on lust-love-oxytocin-adaptation, but there was an interesting experiment:
- Find a complete stranger.
- Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.
- Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.
York psychologist, Professor Arthur Arun, has been studying why people fall in love. He asked his subjects to carry out the above 3 steps and found that many of his couples felt deeply attracted after the 34 minute experiment. Two of his subjects later got married.
The 'Inconvenient Truth' movie made me think that USA is playing politics' neurolinguistics - the provocations are not really provocations, all the effects are measured. If you see the movie thinking 'why is it so accessible?' and remember that the US refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, then Al Gore and all his good intentions look rather suspicious. And more due to the huge amount of money put into making his speeches known.
Despite Iraq, the petrol era seems to have reached an end due to the development of other non-fossil fuels, such as ethanol (which by the way, caused a shortage of corn in the US, hence the prices of corn in Mexico increased dramatically). Here's my hypothesis: the 'save the rainforest' Al Gore's speech wants to make oil less popular to drive the attention of the world from the producing countries and vindicate the US as the good guys. Bush beat Gore. And Bush is a petrol guy. It is about time for him to be the bad guy.
Anyway. Better to focus my attention on something else than world's evil mechanisms.
Carpe Diem=Seize the Day. Carp in Denim=Fish in pants.
2 comments:
Ok. But I do not get what´s wrong about whacking about Mr. Bush´s
administration... What is startling to me is the magnitude of the problem,
the brief time it has had to evolve into something that big and
threatening...
What´s terrifying about that is the fact that it is a problem with an
exponential growth rate, similar to that fable of the inventor of chess, who
was granted anything he wished for as a prize. He asked only for a grain of
wheat, and the double of that for every succesive square of the chessboard.
Apparently not being very much, the final number is so high that none of the
wheat ever produced on Earth would have sufficed.
Bringing analogy to that, I think this is critical, because in problems
involving an exponential growth rate such as this, it is not much time
between a problem becoming apparent and the same problem becoming
overwhelming.
Biofuels have proven themselves not successful when they imply growing a
primary crop, such as corn. Given the fact that corn has been the main
ingredient in amerindian diet for a couple thousand years, it is also
anthropologically disastrous.
Biofuels might be useful to think as a byproduct of nonedible parts of crops
which might be subject to fermentation, or manures from household animals.
But dedicating arable land for a primary diverts that agricultural land to
the production of fuel, not food.
Consider the fact that population increases steadily, but arable land does
not.
And also the fact that agricultural production now is heavily dependent on
oil to make it feasible (and affordable).
It might be wiser to reconsider the consumerist attitude which prevails not
only in the US, but in most of the western hemisphere. It is frightening to
think that 5 percent of the world population consumes 35% of its resources.
I think the problem has not only been pointed out by Mr. Gore, and I also
think it is pretty hard data that which was addressed on the film. This
obviously is non sustainable any more, and the catastrophic scenarios at
this given growth rate are not too far fetched.
If mankind is to trascend into something, it must gain global conscience and
act as soon as possible, understanding that he is a piece in the scheme of
things, and not the omnipotent cornerstone of it.
Please let me know of your finest opinion, and note what is it that you do
not find convincing about those facts. It would help me to fine tune this
opinions.
Lalo,
Your point on the biofuels is exponentially scarier if you add it to the equation of the environmental deterioration. I have never said that I am against the major damage we're causing to our very tired Earth. After seeing the documentary, I thought: 'Now what?' Meaning that other than saving energy, I have no clue how to contribute to a bigger extent.
Once cleared that my intention was not to minimise the problem exposed by Gore, would like to ask you again why hasn't the wide difussion of 'An Inconvenient Truth' not changed the minds of the main producer of CO2? Living in a country that uses a good deal of eolic power, and where the use of cars is heavily discouraged, seems that the following step should not be hard to take - this society is mature enought to agree and do something about it. But the US has always been a teenager - moody, agressive, deeply into stuff that might damage himself. How to make the US listen? Can also think about the 'less developed' countries, the ones that have not been favoured with education. How to create conscious there?
I really like the message of 'An inconvenient truth', but I don't trust the messenger.
Post a Comment