[shu]

I totally agree that humans and moose are not on the same level …. often I find much of nature exercises moral qualities far superior to humans. Also, I must be confused about man as I thought that a human is an immortal alien spiritual being, termed a thetan, that is trapped on planet Earth in a physical body and the thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is accepted in Scientology that lives preceding the thetan’s arrival on Earth lived in extraterrestrial cultures. However, on this point I could be wrong.

[shu]

It understand many state that the moose was butchered and given to local food banks. Of this fact, I plead complete ignorance. I am asking if those that state this how they know it to be true. Do the butchers voluntary their time or does someone pay for the service, and if so, who? Are the food banks able to accept wild game that may not be legally sold? Just very curious, love to hear some more detail is all.

[shu]

Of course it is sad and emotional event any time a life is lost, we would not consider ourselves human otherwise, but this is borderline crazy. Everyday birds, bugs, dogs, heck … humans are lost due to tragic preventable circumstances. Consider what the thread is about … a moose was called. I truly ponder if whether or not the same emotions would be solicited by the death of a living organism because of the moose in question … a bacterium, a brain worm … a human. My point, extremes don’t help in preventing ethical positions.

[shu]

this has got to be one of those stories that the truth is stranger than fiction. One can not make these stories up.

[shu]

As to the original question, do I trust BP?

Vague, but I assume it means do I trust British Petroleum to be a responsible corporate identity in my neighbourhood, yes? My answer … perhaps. I have not decided, though of course the recent situation does taint my reflection somewhat. I reflect.

I must discuss the economic model of risk introduced. I fail to see the principle being introduced but an argument that the numbers (prices) proposed are faulty. It seems the statement revolves around whether or not BP has calculated the prices (risk) within ‘acceptable’ parameters. BP is irrelevant. The shareholder’s, consumer’s and employees are the only humans in the equation. Second, does anyone seriously accept the principle that an infinite value should be placed upon life? It is a terrible tragedy that the company should be held liable for. Whether or not the government of the States has in place any clause(s) that allow wiggle room is another debate. Here in Canada we should be weary and attempt to progress beyond the fallacies of the past. (Think this was a discussion earlier concerning the topic of evolution and growth?!) Today, millions of Britons are being punished (pensioner’s) for holding company stock. As well, millions of Southerns are being subjected to ‘change’ because of the recent situation. The question I must ask, is whether or not anyone seriously considers the current United States administration to be suited to the task versus those of previous administration(s)? Is it not merely history repeating itself. All struggling to comprehend and muddle themselves through trying and difficult situations. I encourage the readers to enjoy themselves of recent John Stewart commentary on this matter. Truth be told, it is a crappy situation all around, of that there is little doubt. Who among us is willing to accept responsibility? Not me, though I own stock. Not me, though I drive a car. Not me, though I voted … and on and on. So, as to the question … does BP have a future here in the valley … perhaps, however, most likely not. Chances are they will become cash strapped and sell the rights. So what does that mean. Very little I suspect.

My opinion in the end is that we must grow, evolve. The sad reality of it all is that one of the greatest forces on natural selection and evolution is death. Moreover, mother nature is without callousness. Just is. Regulation is therefore just. The real question I summarize has got to be thus … what is the price you might place upon life?

(myself … bp should be brankrupt tomorrow, just as I would have jp morgan and citibank, etc.. I would include the automakers here in canada as well … but as I recall, I was near alone on those matters … thanks wildsight. Failure has got to be part of the model of progress though does not have to be reflective of pure natural selection. Let us take care of those that require it but allow for progress as well.)

[shu]

It is truly a disheartening and devastating situation unfolding, one with so many consequences that it may be years, surely generations, to truly understand the scope of it all. Under circumstances of such peril, loss and wrong it is only natural to expect knee jerk reactions. Never again, we hear. The caution, though, must come.

Corporations have ever right to lobby, for good or ill, just as people do. Exercising freedom of speech, as many great organizations, individuals and corporations do, for good or ill, should not be so causally disregarded. The whole concept of freedom of speech is not to protect that speech which we agree with, find tolerable or have no qualm with but with that very speech which may upset our centre. I may not care for the lobbying efforts made by certain corporations, organizations or individuals, but because they have the right to engage, I remain thankful that I do as well.

Finally, greed and profit are not synonyms. Perhaps, if this correlation is being made, it is an emotional response based upon a belief that if one profits another must suffer a loss. A profit being made does not always have to arrive from a zero sum game model, or winner take all. It has been my experience that more often than not a profit arises from a win win situation versus a win lose.

I only wish I belonged to a group of young, intelligent and enterprising engineers well versed in deep water drilling activities that discovered a realistic and efficient solution. Perhaps, a win win situation.

[shu]

I am truly apologetic for the double post …

"De-growth may work for those who make their living from government agencies, or outside sources. Those that make their living from the local economy must therefore be expendable. Actually our hospital, schools, city works, etc must necessarily shrink. Our population is at the cusp of imploding"

I wonder how you may refer to ‘our population’ and how you may know it will be ‘imploding’?

"Why do we have to grow or de-grow"

Finally, to answer this question that I somehow missed, I have to plead life. But perhaps I am interrupting grow with change, which may be a fallacy on my part.

[shu]

Two thoughts … and I quote …
"Investment follows the path of least resistance and potential success"
It just might be true that some investors seek higher returns and therefore seek riskier investments, perhaps not always the most successful. I believe the recent financial crisis bares this out extraordinarily well as many people sought higher returns in lieu of the higher risk associated with those investments. Or another example, those that engage in black market activities.

"Our society is conditioned to believe that growth is necessary for survival. This is not true."
I will assume you are discussing the economy here, as I think any mother with child would demonstrate the desire for growth of the off-spring. She may even say, thank goodness for the continuous growth. I know I am. But as for the economy … from a rudimentary point of view I may accept that idea provided I started out my employment history making a decent living wage, never having to adjust for inflation or the likes. Otherwise, I have come to require a continued growth, expansion of sorts. I wonder, many might assume economics as a zero sum game, perhaps more so when the earth is included, but I wonder. I always thought first world nations generally incur a population decrease, an increase in standard of living and an increase in environmental standards. Though we may have a long way to go, isn’t this a recipe for growth. sorry, success?

I suppose my inquiry rests in the underlining assumptions and beliefs I attempt to ascertain concerning our actions while we are on this wonderful orb? Sustainable de-growth seems to confuse me somewhat.

[shu]

"Accepting de-growth and planning for reality will generate harmony"

I am afraid this statement sounds a little to dogmatic for my liking and comes across almost as a fundamentalist response to our current modus operandi. Are you really saying that a consensus with this line of thinking with bring about peace and the utopia we all may seek? Cause I substitute a name or two in that sentence it morphs into something completely irrational.

In regards to mineral resource extraction and it’s finite supply, I offer this Macleans article but reserve any comment … http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/13/oils … the-shark/

There is something about the entire concept of sustainable de-growth that puts a sliver into my brain that I just can’t put my finger on. It feels like we need to be apologetic for the wonderful advances we have made in the last few generations, such as doubling the life expectancy, increasing our knowledge of the universe and bio-diversity of this planet, all in pursuit of more harmonious cohabitation with the environment. I hope most everyone would favour less harmful or destructive means of survival. I am reminded of those that ‘feel’ they were born in the wrong decade or century and lament over what could have been. I could not myself envision wishing for a life without the modern advances, knowledge we have gained and potential we titter on for a ‘simpler time’ (though probably much harder and shorter). To engage in issues which move us forward is to be applauded but to sit on the shoulders of the countless individuals that created this world and attempt to dismantle their achievements in an effort to reverse the clock on all of us, seems, well, missing the mark. Let us move forward, amending that which we can. I say grow and bloom.

[Author]

Posts