Opinion: A Word On Today's Society

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Opinion: A Word On Today's Society

I recently read Michael Larabel's article concerning the Chernobyl disaster, as well as the comments that followed it, and, after writing the text I felt I wanted to write, I would like to share it - and to know your thoughts. It is inspired in the accident and its consequences, but covers a broader field: society and its individual dimension - which, in my opinion, being the first source of all the problems, is usually avoided, being the discussions and the treatments targeted instead to its symptoms. I would like to bring attention to it again...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY3MzU

[Calinou]

Highlighted words in an article, for once.

It slightly sounds like the guest is talking against Michael…

[Szzz]

If you want to save energy you must first analyze where it is mostly consumed. I doubt that supermarkets consume so much power. Datacenters probably consume more, therefore you should stop using Internet to stop supporting them. And if you will not go to casino than you will sit at home and consume some power there (light, computer).

[nirvanix]

I agree that being personally responsible for your energy consumption is the best way to make a difference. I know quite a few folks around me that always talk talk about the evil oil companies at the coffee shop, then they get in their truck and drive home to their natural gas heated house! Change starts in your own life.

[kalrish]

It slightly sounds like the guest is talking against Michael?

That was not my intention at all.

If you want to save energy you must first analyze where it is mostly consumed. I doubt that supermarkets consume so much power. Datacenters probably consume more, therefore you should stop using Internet to stop supporting them. And if you will not go to casino than you will sit at home and consume some power there (light, computer).

Supermarkets and casinos were only examples. I haven't got any numbers, but I bet that, if we added shops, commercial centres, advertisements, and the rest, they would make a very big amount of energy. And, by the way, the Web is, as you mention it, another field for quotidian irresponsible. Computers, in general, host more holes than one would imagine. It may sound stupid, but the only solution is to stop using them, or to use them as less as possible - that's what I do. The problems of technology, the shadows behind it, is that, while being so "wonderful" and having such a potential to improve our lives, hides slavery; nowadays, it is impossible to study everything, so there's no other option than to rely. If we were to be prudents, we would wait until we can truly assimilate all these changes that technology queues, keeping ourselves from them as a safety measure.

A word on pretended needs. Remember yourselves several years ago, in the "epoch" when there weren't these "smartphones". You didn't know them. Probably, you were as happy as you're now, if not more. And nowadays, almost everyone considers those devices necessary. Of course, the same could be said of forks or hammers, but neither forks nor hammers take such attention. So: be careful. Don't trust those that appeal to "progress" and the "need for technology", because they're just trying to maintain this crazy order for their benefit. You don't really need it - it has just stolen freedom from you.

It's interesting to see how unhappy people are -in general-, despite all the things they have. Resorting to Nietzsche and Hesse, people are only refusing what would truly satisfy them -culture, I believe-, taking false refuge in all sorts of things.

[pipe13]

Thanks Kalrish. I always get misty-eyed when geeks go idealistic. Joke. I do, and also recognize your advocacy of something a bit beyond coffee-house idealism. Obligatory bumper sticker on the obligatory dogged-out mid-80's Volvo wagon at this month's obligatory Democratic county convention: "Get involved -- the world is run by those who show up!"

[freeman]

If you seek to be true humans, beware of your actions. Be honest in every small sphere of your lives, and you'll be walking insignias of true freedom.
Do you want a conclusion? Well, if you do, you'll be disappointed: The truth is in you. In each of you.

PERSON as a fiction by itself cannot "exist? nowhere else other than within a STATE, which is also a fiction by itself.
From standing on some geographical area maybe it would be possible to formulate the right of a man to join the certain society, but the obligation on this never and under any circumstances. In addition, if on these basis the society does not allow its member to leave, then it is neither free, nor a society.

[Blahblah]

I disagree with the article. While there are many ways one can reduce their personal energy usage, and certainly there are a great number of ways that many large businesses can become more energy efficient; this does not solve the problem.
When a new piece of technology becomes commonplace, it changes the conditions required for an individual to survive. 100 years ago, cars were not absolutely necessary and many people still traveled by horse. In the modern world however, there are many places where owning a vehicle is a necessity. The point is, people are not using more energy out of choice. It is a symptom of living in the present that people must travel long distances in gas-powered vehicles, communicate and perform work through computers, refrigerate their food, use lighting fixtures to work at odd times in the day, etc. As you mention in the article, it seems too much focus is on debating what source of energy will be used rather than how much will be used. That is the way it has to be though; regardless if everyone in the world became more energy conscious that won't stop the world trending towards more energy usage. It can't be stopped anymore than the progress of technology can be stopped.
If there ever was a time when people should be debating what energy source to expand on, it is now.

[tuubi]

If you want to save energy you must first analyze where it is mostly consumed.

Why? This is as stupid as saying you shouldn't bother curing the common cold if you can't cure cancer and AIDS as well. Or like saying you're not really helping by giving to charity unless you give everything you own. Every little bit helps. Cynicism doesn't.

We don't have to give up everything we enjoy to bring our personal energy consumption down to more sustainable levels. Just do what you can. Switch to more efficient led lighting and maybe schedule a personal "Earth Hour" a couple of times a week like we do. Prefer local produce to imported stuff. Use public transport and maybe walk to the corner shop instead of driving. Turn off that TV you're not watching and that second monitor you're not actually using at the moment. As a consumer, buy from businesses you see making an effort (but do not buy into the ever-popular greenwashing bullshit). You don't actually lose anything and you still contribute.

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Spoken like a true tyrant

a broader field: society and its individual dimension - which, in my opinion, being the first source of all the problems

Of course, blame the individual. Dictators have been blaming individuals for thousands of years, starving them, throwing them into ovens, gassing them, mass graves, serfdom and servitude as far as the eye can see.

The irony is that Chernobyl was built not by a free people, it was built by a tyrannical communist thug regime that built zero controls and safeguards into it because *GASP* they like all dictatorships do not care about the individual.

This article isn't thoughtful, its pathetic. Dictatorship caused the problem - collectivism is the source of all evil - and the individual is who takes the blame.

The individual is not problem, the individual is the solution to the problem.