Here's another innovation portending a more sustainable future:

Chinese researchers say they have invented a cheap and eco-friendly way to keep city-dwellers warm in winter and cool in summer — using untreated sewage.

Their device extracts heat from raw sewage that has been temporarily diverted on its way to the processing plant. It can also make air conditioning units run more efficiently, and absorb the heat they remove from buildings.

The device can reduce the cost of heating and air conditioning systems by 20 per cent, says lead researcher Sun Dexing, a professor in the environmental science department at Harbin Institute of Technology. It is also environmentally friendly as it produces no pollution and uses no chemicals.

Here's the link: www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm

So what do you think: Are the Chinese going to surpass American and European ingenuity?

I'm a Canadian living in Hong Kong, and everyday I see how neccessity is the mother of invention when it comes to sustaining large populations. The Chinese will be the technology leaders of the future becasue they HAVE to be if they want to lead better lives.
posted by:
Jay
offline Jay
Hong Kong
  • Jay, this is old news and is a relatively standard approach if you are using a heat pump based hyrdraulic distribution system.

    Read my profile and ask me the question again. :-)

    The chinese may be outside the norm in many ways but they are also way outside the norm on the long term effects of their efforts.

    Their huge dam project is one example, it is already an environmental disaster and is going to get worse.

    The erosion they are causing spreads far out to sea and can be seen in satellite photos.
    • Jay
      Jay
      offline 8
      Well, James, you most certainly ARE thinking outside the box. Congratulations on all your efforts. I too support you vision of a holistic civilisation, but sometimes you need to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.

      Indeed the Three Gorges Project has caused damage, but it's also allowing millions of children to have lighting to do their homework under.

      Your profile says: "The two biggest problems I see with solving these problems are education and hope. People need a lot more of both. "

      The damn was a neccessary evil, which has brought a better living to hundreds of millions of people who were literally in the dark. It provides both education, via the electricity that powers the schools, and hope, via helping prevent the annual flooding problems that would destroy so many people's livelihoods each year.

      When you prioritize the problems facing humanity on a massive scale in China, soil erosion can wait a little longer before being addressed. Perhaps one day, China can "recondition" the damage just as you say The Realms of Legend is doing for the strip mine. There is always hope--the Chinese are actually much better at long-term planning than most democarcies where a new administration alters course every four years.

      I'm not sure what erosion pictures you have seen. Here's the satellite photos from Google Earth: www.googleearthhacks.com/dlfil...es-Dam

      It actually doesn't look that bad from above. But that's not really the point.

      The point is that we need to develop better sources of energy. I think the Chinese have a tremendous opportunity to leap-frog the West. Check out this article in Wired: www.wired.com/wired/archi...4/china.html

      Also I like the idea of using the sun for our energy (that's what it's there for), but not the sort of solar power we've been accustomed to thinking about: www.portension.com/2005/07/...rica.html

      But I'm sure this is all old news to someone like you.
      • Well let's see. Thanks. We are doing all we can.

        On the Dam, I think you will find before long that they have some hidden problems that are not being addressed. Not just the erosion caused right now. As a long time engineer who has built some dams I have serious concerns about the amount of weight and stress they are dealing with and the capacity of the geological strata to sustain it. Other engineers have expressed similar concerns.

        There is also the problem of the energy being used wastefully in the growing consumer and militaristic orientation of the chinese government. That is also a big part of why they want electricity production capacity in particular, for working high energy metals whose primary current use is for weaponry.

        Then there is the intrinsic problem with large dams as an environmental disaster in their own right and how they destroy the ecology of the river.

        There is the problem of sedimentation and maintenance, both of which lead to unexpected disasters.

        "It actually doesn't look that bad from above. But that's not really the point." Have you considered the scale of the sediments lost to make so large a picture? We are talking about enough topsoil loss to make a smear that stretches miles out to sea and is destroying the coastal eco-system.

        Last on the dam for now, there is the potential disaster of what can happen if it is targetted or falls prey to some natural disaster. The loss of life downriver will be enormous.

        To me it looks like their government is selling them out so they can make the mistake of trying to emulate a western consumerist lifestyle even as some people in the west are wising up to the consequences of that lifestyle.

        Their energy guru Wan is wrong about a few points such as Hydrogen being only a storage medium. Yes many schemes around now call for wasteful methods of making hydrogen and in those cases his statement is true but there are other methods that are much more efficienct and do not use other energy sources to make hydrogen. He comes close to it in his comments about natural gas being easily converted to hydrogen but there is a more efficient route and one that china is rapidly closing the door on as it destroys the organic capacity of it's land, and that is biological production from natural sources which emulate the formation of natural gas in the first place.

        While the Chinese may be better at forcing change en-masse because of their totalitarian approach, that change is not necessarily for the better if they are making the mistake of reaching for a consumer oriented lifestyle while throwing away their cultural heritage and the vitality of a great deal of their soil.

        I am the first person to admit that there are many hings the Chinese do right, such as controlling population growth, immigration and birth rates, as well as being some of the foremost authorities on small scale hydro projects and biogas, but in this particular case I firmly believe they are making a big mistake and are rapidly heading towards becoming one of the most environmentally disasterous nations on the planet.
        • Sorry, I missed a part I should have replied to.

          Yes, the technologies in the article are rather old, you can find the info about them online in several other places. All of them are mentioned in things like popular mechanics over 30 years ago.
          • Jay
            Jay
            offline 8
            It seems I keep coming across what appear to be amazing new breakthroughs that have actually been around for sometime. Yet, it almost every instance, civilization seems to have turned a blind eye towards them in favor of a status quo that clearly is failing.

            For example, the Dam that we've been talking about is part of the "modern" approach to centralized electrical energy production and distribution. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is based on the Maxwell-Heaviside model.

            Maxwell's model is hardly visionary and 140 years old --- Maxwell's seminal paper was published in 1865, before the discovery of the atom, the nucleus, the electron, etc. Before the growth of megacities.

            Yet, for a long time, we've understood how a distributed electrical energy production system could work better, and could even be employed cost-effectively. The UK is just starting to wake up to this old idea, according to the beeb: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/progr...3231549.stm

            And the "old idea" vault is full of even more amazing discoveries that should have been put into practive decades ago: A Nobel prize was awarded in 1957 for substantiating the process for extracting free Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum, yet not one current Electrical Engineering or Classical Electromagnetics textbook mentions it.

            On a seperate note, James, why are you so convinced the Chinese are militarizing? You say: "That is also a big part of why they want electricity production capacity in particular, for working high energy metals whose primary current use is for weaponry." Moreover, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you make it sound like they have intentions to use their military to launch an unprovoked invasion. What makes you think this?

            The Chinese put a fraction of the resources into their military that the US does. The US has spent more on the operations in Iraq (an unprovoked invasion) this week than the PLA will see all year. For the most part, the PLA are a bunch of starving bachelors with no hope of finding a bride due to the one-child population-control policy. They join the army to ensure they get fed. They are trained in kung-fu, and rescuing people from floods. Most aren't even issued a rifle (there are just too many of them to make this affordable with current spending levels). They spend more time filling sandbags than they do practicing military operations. The Chinese military is so far behind the rest of the world that they are embarrassed to deploy themselves even for Peace Keeping operations. Any spending the Chinese are doing on their military is simply to bring themselves into the 21st century, something every nation has the right to do in order to defend themselves--you never know when the Americans might decide to invade.

            But mostly they want electricity for the same reason the rest of us do: to surf the Internet.
            • >And the "old idea" vault is full of even more amazing discoveries that should have been put into practive decades ago: A Nobel prize was awarded in 1957 for substantiating the process for extracting free Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum, yet not one current Electrical Engineering or Classical Electromagnetics textbook mentions it.

              It is also full of ideas which seem okay on the surface but have not yet been proven scientificly valid and in many cases that is because they simply are not and will not be. They only look good on paper. So far the Vacuum energy stuff or zero point stuff is one such idea. It is unlikely to ever prove valid.

              On the Chinese, just take a look at their posture and growth areas over the last decade. I don't have figures on what they spend as compared to GNP, so I cannot say what percentage is used or compare to the US.

              What I do know for a fact though is that many chinese industries are owned directly by the Red Army and factions of it which use false fronts. This has been a documented fact for over a decade and they have used to to gain access to american industries and resources for quite some time.
              • Jay
                Jay
                offline 8

                The Red Army doesn't own so much any more

                Thu, July 21, 2005 - 11:42 PM
                The trend you speak of has actually been reversed in the last decade. Since the reforms inplemented under Jiang Zemin and furthered by now President Hu, the PLA are being disentangled from all non-military enterprise. It's all part of sweeping reforms China has implemented across all State-Owned Enterprises. The corruption was killing their economy. The reforms are making a big difference--the Chinese economy continues to grow at better than 7%.

                The new mantra in China is all about private enterprise. Make money, get rich, go to Disneyland Hong Kong. Great article in Time recently: www.time.com/time/archiv...4115,00.html

                Things have really changed in China, but most people in the US haven't been brought up to speed. For example, yesterday China revalued its currency, de-pegging it from the flagging US dollar and re-pegging it to a more progressive bundle of currencies. This isn't militaristic posturing--this is business.

                And when it comes to buying American industries, well, money talks. That's the American way. And Chinese money just got more valuable. Again, they aren't doing this in any mean or militaristic way, it's far more capitalistic and cold-blooded than that.
                • Re: The Red Army doesn't own so much any more

                  Fri, July 22, 2005 - 9:39 AM
                  If you think the change over is all that clean then I have some swamp land in florida for you real cheap. :-)

                  The chinese never do things in single layers. I guarantee they have multiple sleepers and those funds are still being funneled. An entire nation does not change that quickly except in outward appearances. It is one shell game I am not buying.

                  As for their money being more valuable, that is all just international manipulation anyway, all for the favor of the big bank cartels. It's all a big scam to manipulate the balance of trade and power by the money industry such as the world bank. You want to talk about corruption read about some of the stunts they have pulled and the disasters they have caused.

                  Anyway, having dealt directly with the chinese in the past I would be very slow to accept any such radical changes as being anything other than cosmetic.

                  Of course the people to blame for their sudden growth are the american consumer who keeps buying from Pac rim countries rather than pay a little more for locally made and higher quality material that is usually produced under much higher standards for labor, morality and the environment.

                  So that alone is one huge thing people can do. Stop buying Pac rim merchandise.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Jay
                    Jay
                    offline 8

                    Pac Rim Merchandise Spreads the WEalth

                    Fri, July 22, 2005 - 8:54 PM
                    But doesn't the flow of capital from rich nations to poor nations help create a more egalitarian world? People in China are better off today than they were during their long period of isolation.

                    Why do so many Americans feel they would be better off if they too traded only with themselves? History shows that policy always fails.

                    And as for labor, morality and environmental standards--ahem, the US is hardly the poster-child. More Chinese factories comply to ISO 13000 than US factories--which is why WalMart buys everything in China: the standards are incredibly stringent now, and US labor unions have failed to keep pace. China has ratified Kyoto, the US hasn't (because it is the worlds worst polluter), and I have no idea what morality you're talking about? Are you some sort of Religious Right-winger?

                    Your China facts are out of date. I don't know when you last worked with the Chinese, but if it was recent you'd see the change is much deeper and more real than your "cosmetic" estimate. I live in Hong Kong and follow the change on a daily basis. I assure you it's as real as it gets.

                    I have no idea where this "sleeper" idea of yours comes from either--perhaps, you've been brainwashed by your gov't to believe everyone is out to get Americans. To even propose something so unsubstantiated is nothing more than the sort of fearmongering that's keeping the Neo-Conservatives in control of the US gov't.

                    I'd expected more from someone as out-of-the-box as you. The US has nothing to fear from recognizable nation-states--no attackable coutnry is so stupid to pick a losing fight with America. The threats to all our safety, from Bali to London, come from decentralized extremist networks--not Chinese capitalism.

                    I'm starting to see you, James, as quite conservative, despite your efforts to create social change. How do you describe your political viewpoint?

                    BTW: Whatcha askin' for your swamp land? ;)
                    • Pac Rim is an environmental disaster zone.

                      Sun, July 24, 2005 - 4:14 AM
                      First, I want to point out that you are pushing the limits to where I will not converse with you further, both with your sniping in this article as well as the cracks in the SciFi list. I have real things to do in the world and don't need to waste my time on someone who is going to pull an attitude and jump to rash judgements. I don't know if you think I was trying to pick on you before or something but I can assure you I was not. I was just calling it as I see it.

                      So let me answer one of your last questions first. I am neither liberal nor conservative, I am independent, and that applies to religion as well as politics. I serve only one goal and that is the future of our species and I really don't care what agenda a certain party, government or religion is pursuing except in the context of what it means to humanity. Implying anything else is just looking for an arguement.

                      >But doesn't the flow of capital from rich nations to poor nations help create a more egalitarian world? People in China are better off today than they were during their long period of isolation.

                      On the surface this would seem the case, however, the methods taken to obtain the material for trade are extremely disasterous. Every Pac Rim country has had huge systems of exploitation of natural resources that are causing massive problems in the region, and the two biggest, China and Japan are often behind the problems in the other smaller countries that they have convinced to supply them with resources one way or another.

                      Also, you need to realize that Hong Kong is the showpiece of China. What you see and experience there is not the reality for the rest of the country.

                      I will also not argue about the US and what it does wrong, which I am sure we would largely agree on, neither do I condone the purchasing policies of Walmart with regard to buying the cheapest supplies regardless of their long term impact. However the blame for that still rests on the american consumer who demands such things. If they were more commited to quality and low environmental impact as well as the issues of human treatment then Walmart would change.

                      The sleeper comment comes from long time experience with companies and nations that claim to change. People hold onto hidden agendas a lot longer than you might think.

                      As for fear mongering and whether it is substanciated or not would depend on how much you pay attention to the facts that come from the rest of the world around you and the comments made quite recently by top chinese officials.

                      So watch the snide personal attacks or I will make a few observations of my own about what your attitude indicates your motives are. It's great that you love where you live but you have to look at both the good and the bad and China is not the tame lion it is making itself out to be and there are chinese who are not happy about it either and when not repressed have made it known via the press and internet as well.

                      The chinese are as real a threat as they have ever been and they are still interfering in other nations and are part of the problems of the world. For example they have indicated fairly strongly that they not only have many of the backpack nukes that used to belong to the former soviet union but that many of them, originally between 200 and 300, are already on US soil. Check the recent material relative to who will own Hong Kong in the future.

                      This problem is also amplified by the sheer number of people it has. If the average chinese person became even 1/4 as wasteful as some americans are the global damage would be 4-8 times greater.

                      China has also been violating it's own ban on untest GM rice by distributing large quantities of it through it's so called university research programs and there is plenty of testimony by chinese people and university staff to support that as well.

                      China is instrumental in supplying material to dangerous entities around the world without concern for the safety and well being of other nations and a good search of recent news articles from around the world will prove it. So once again that proves that they are still doing what they have been doing since at least the early sixties. Several south american countries are also more involved with the terrorist nations than people are lead to believe. Those countries have long standing ties to China as well.

                      Terrorism is not a stand alone option, it is backed by nations, and china has been and still is one of them. There is plenty of documentation even from non-US sources to prove it. When Chinese made AKs less than 6 months old are in the hands of terrorists there is only one way that happens, with the help of the government.

                      You can find all of this on the net if you look around. This is all from stuff I have found within the last 6 months.

                      >BTW: Whatcha askin' for your swamp land? ;)

                      Well actually I do have a few acres of very nice wetland, and I'm serious, but it is in Ohio, not Florida. I am looking for roughly 90K for it because it is all wetland meadow loaded with Marsh Mallow, Elderberry, Willow, Raspberry, and other flowering and edible plants, and it has to stay that way on the deed and into the future. There is also about 2 acres of farmland and a 3 BR house and yard with it has all been managing organicly for 6 years and fallow for about 5 before that. A family of four can live a very nice organic lifestyle on it if they are so inclined.

                      If you know dwarf snow peas, and that they grow about 24" high on the bush, then you will equally surprised to note that on this land I have grown them to where they were reaching over top of a six foot high snow fence and that my melon plants were over 24' wide. It has proven an excellent test bed for proving my methods.

                      So that said, the tone of any reply will determine if there will be any further conversation. It's your ball.
                      • Jay
                        Jay
                        offline 8

                        A better attitude for a better future

                        Sun, July 24, 2005 - 6:26 AM
                        Yeah, you're right, my attitude last week was sub-standard and uncalled for. Sorry. I shall endeavor to be more constructive in our further discussions. I too share the goal for a better future for humanity. And I too have little use for uncompromising labels.

                        However, it is clear that we have different perspectives on the new world order. Your past experiences, as you mention, prevent you from trusting the change that I'm so convinced is real. Fair enough.

                        I, perhaps, am less concerned than you about the means to the ends. I only want to continue to see people, who were living on dirt floors a year ago, now buying new mattresses, TVs and refrigerators. Yes, we can agree that there have been some serious ecological price tags, and, yes, the increasing sociological challenges that come from rapid modernisation. But, perhaps with new wealth comes better education and eventually the wherewithal to correct the problems facing the developing nations--as well as the so-called developed ones.

                        We obviously can find no shortage of information on the Net to support any scenario--the future is funny that way. I'm familiar with all the scenarios you describe. Yes, I too can find loads of data to support them. I used to adhere to very similar views back in the early 90s, before I moved to this part of the world.

                        In the past decade of living here, through good times and bad, my outlook for the future as changed based not just on what's happening in HK, but also from many forrays into China, Thailand, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, India, Vietnam and even to Cuba.

                        As a journalist reporting on socio-economic change, I've seen the good, bad and the ugly of globalisation and modernisation. I have no delusions about how bad things can get if something isn't done soon. But I have also seen the most amazing feats of human inginuity in overcoming the challenges of poverty, lack of education, lack of clean water, lack of human rights. Trade brings peace and prosperity, albeit far from the perfect utopian ideal of such things. It also brings new technology that allows people to leapfrog into the 21st century in the most surprising ways.

                        Wherever I see millions of poeple with a gleam in their eyes for the promise of the future, I see the answer to every problem you put in their path.

                        You are free to feel threatened by anyone you want, for whatever reasons you believe in. I can't tell you for certain that there isn't some super-secret plan for China, or India, or Japan, or Tanzania or wherever to try to take over the world. (I'm only certain that the US has such a plan.)

                        I can be sure, however, that in today's world, any unprovoked attack by a nation-state against any other nation-state, especially if it involved nukes, would result in an ass-kicking from the global community (the US is the obvious exception to this rule--they can act with impunity, which of course, really pisses off most people outside America).

                        You're land in Ohio sounds idealic. I've only got a rooftop garden where I sustain as much greenery as possible in the middle of the concrete jungle. I wish it was mandatory for every building in every city in world to have a garden on top of it. My plants have been really thriving with all the sun they've been getting the last couple weeks, which is the knock-on effect of a typhoon that's been tearing up Taiwan--which just goes to show how what looks good to one person in one place, looks like Hell on Earth to another.

                        I do hope we can continue to discuss matters of the future.
                        • Re: A better attitude for a better future

                          Wed, July 27, 2005 - 8:40 AM
                          Glad to hear you are feeling better and we can stick to our mutual interest in making the world better.

                          Even when people come at things from different angles there are some times when it illuminates important topics to consider.

                          My thought on the improved quality of life issues is that it is primarily material issues only while in the process there will be a huge increase in pollution, disease, stress and social problems. The western way of life does not work and for any nation to attempt to emulate it is highly foolish.

                          What good does it do people to have had the chance to buy more stuff if they end up dying early from cancer, stroke, heart attack or other ailment or if their society goes down the tubes because it has followed the false panacea of consumerism?

                          It is ironic that a way of life that has served well in very many ways for such a long time is being systematicly dismantled by their own government and in a way that emulates a system that is proving to be a dead end and a harmful one as well.

                          The entire mantra that wealth brings enlightenment and education is provably false. Look at the decline in intellectual and skill based prowess in the USA. That alone proves that wealth actually leads to degeneration and stupidity.

                          The idea that wealth leads to better quality of life is one which only serves the multinational corporations and their pawns, the world bank and IMF.
                          • Jay
                            Jay
                            offline 8

                            Re: A better attitude for a better future

                            Wed, July 27, 2005 - 7:37 PM
                            Wealth does improve your quality of life. Certainly it also brings new challenges. But if I have to choose between having the financial stability to provide comfort for my family, or worry about where the next meal is coming from, or where we are going to sleep--I choose wealth.

                            So would every other mother and father on the planet.

                            So, while the multi-national globalization plague may be slowly destroying (or maybe just transforming) humanity on a macro scale, it is no doubt providing a more comfortable life for a lot more people--assuming they look after themselves sufficiently to ward off any early cancers, strokes or heart attacks.

                            And even if they do succumb to such ailments as a result of increased pollution, disease, stress, and social problems, greater wealth usually means better healthcare. (Don't get me wrong--I think everyone, rich or poor, should have the best healthcare possible.)

                            The decline of intellectual and skill-based prowess in the USA is caused by many factors, of which--perhaps in the broadest sense--welath may be the root, but the decline likely has more to do with the failure of the education system combined with the massive cultural tax that everyone has to pay on ideas as a result of runaway copyright/patent laws. And from watching Fox News.

                            Wealth and stupidity do reign together.

                            There's an interesting article by Lawrence Lessig, titled "People Own Ideas" about how Brazil is overcoming poverty challenges through free-software thinking: www.technologyreview.com/artic...le.asp

                            The article demonstrates a bit of what I'm talking about--with a little weath, say enough to get your hands on a computer, suddenly massive opportunites errupt for places that just yesterday looked hopeless.

                            Soon, with the help of MIT's $100 laptop project (laptop.media.mit.edu/) the opportunities for more people to find the sort of comfort wealth provides: a roof overhead, and food on the table.
                            • Re: A better attitude for a better future

                              Thu, July 28, 2005 - 4:41 AM
                              This is still a matter of degree. An automobile has nothing to do with the level of basic living you are speaking of.

                              The increase in consumerism and energy use is unsupportable even with sustainable methods. Even the chinese admit that all they are doing is slowing the rate of increase.

                              This still boils down to a system that is destined to collapse on a global scale.

                              As it stands now, with the current level of sustainable technologies, IF they were applied on a widespread basis, we are still going to be several times above the maximum sustainable population.

                              Our best hope across the board is to increase the speed of the spread of those technologies while doing all we can to reduce population growth, and I strong support the chinese efforts in that regard, while also doing all we can to fight the move towards a consumer lifestyle that the ultra-wealthy are pushing for so they can turn the entire world into a bigger customer base.
                              • Jay
                                Jay
                                offline 8

                                A Matter of Degrees

                                Thu, July 28, 2005 - 7:22 AM
                                You're right--the basic living stuff I see happening in the developing world is different from the conspicuous consumption (although that disease HAS infected every teenager in Asia). I'm not advocating a bling SUV in every driveway--hell, I don't even want to see everyone have a driveway. I like dense urbanisation--it controls population growth while minimizing the amount of land occupied by humanity. And if--and that's a big if--we can employ some advanced urban planning, we can live in harmony with the natural world surrounding cities.

                                "Destined to collapse" sounds like a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think, James? Humanity has been undergoing a continuous transformation for a long time, and at every stage people have shouted that the end is nigh. It's not. Neccesity is the master of invention. The "maximum sustainable" population really depends on how clever we can become at sustaining ourselves--and when the lives of your loved ones are one the line, you can come up with all sorts of means to sustain their lives (this is why labour is cheap in my part of the world).

                                But you're right, that the more we waste on useless fad and fashion--pop culture jetsum--the faster we slip down the slope towards failure--if not socio-economic failure, then at last some sort of cultural failure where our children are incapable of doing anything but watching and/or participating in Reality TV. <shutter>

                                The concept of the marketplace is not, in itself, evil. Buying and selling goods will continue to work well for people for a long time to come. And even the new challenges of a making the global market place a level playing field are not insurmountable. Many good people are making positive progress towards REAL fair trade.

                                I agree with your line of thought about the ultra-wealthy: the biggest challenge is in closing the wealth gap--which is easier said than done. It's a problem we've had for as long as we've had civilization--and it probably pre-dates that. Ancient philosophers have pondered it. Modern economists have modeled it a million different ways. With 5% of the population holding 95% of the wealth, everyone can clearly see we need to find a way to break free from the consumer lifestyle imposed by the 5%. (Unless of course you belong to the powerful 5%, who are happy with things the way they are.)

                                But that doesn't mean that the other 95% of the people shouldn't use what little capital they have to advance the well-being of their families. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't cash in on stupid American teenagers needing 20 pairs of shoes. For the short term, it's helping make the poor a little less desperate in places. And, maybe you're right, the long-term could still bite us in the ass--yet, for the poor, it's a chance they have to take.

                                It's truly a matter of degrees, and making the seperation between those degrees as small as possible should be one of the main goals of humanity in the 21st century. Neccessity is demanding we come up with some new ideas.
                                • Re: A Matter of Degrees

                                  Thu, July 28, 2005 - 10:01 AM
                                  I see we agree mostly as usual, with the exception of a few details.

                                  It's actually less than 1% controlling over 99% of the wealth. The "tribe of 12" being the key figures in it all. This is a group of ultra wealth families who control the largest amounts of stock in the largest corporations and who meet on a regular basis to plan their economic and social agendas for the world. It is where the idea of the Illuminatti comes from, at least one form of the idea.

                                  Speaking out against them is a big part of what sunk Margeret Thatcher.

                                  They have a very exclusive and heavily guarded mountain top resort that is very much like something out of a comic book or sci fi novel.

                                  Do a search on "Bilderberg". It can be highly enlightening.

Recent topics in "Creating a Sustainable Future"