Comments on: Wall-Eyed http://bentangle.com/2008/07/wall-eyed/ The world from my point of view Sun, 18 Sep 2011 01:19:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Olaf http://bentangle.com/2008/07/wall-eyed/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Olaf Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:58:42 +0000 http://bentangle.com/?p=7#comment-24 Big thanks. Good idea. I'll become <a href="http://bride-makeup.ru" rel="nofollow"></a>your regular reader and subscribe on RSS. Big thanks. Good idea. I’ll become your regular reader and subscribe on RSS.

]]> By: AlexM http://bentangle.com/2008/07/wall-eyed/comment-page-1/#comment-16 AlexM Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:11:32 +0000 http://bentangle.com/?p=7#comment-16 Your blog is interesting! Keep up the good work! Your blog is interesting!

Keep up the good work!

]]> By: SilentBen http://bentangle.com/2008/07/wall-eyed/comment-page-1/#comment-3 SilentBen Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:50:00 +0000 http://bentangle.com/?p=7#comment-3 Your points are salient, but I think you are taking me too literally. When I speak of the the living Earth, I refer to more than just the rock we are sitting on, but the ecosystem that has developed on it. And I don't mean to trivialize efforts to preserve a balance, but rather point out that the balance we need to preserve is not so much to save the Earth, but ourselves. Certainly if we wipe ourselves out, the ecosystem will not be the same, but I doubt it would be desolated by our doing (although it is possible) - there will still be some life left and that life will heal and evolve and the Earth will "live" on. But the important point here is that if we continue to live as we do, we most likely will not be able to sustain ourselves for as long as we'd like to think we can. In a way, I think that the outlook of Wall-E is optimistic. But I hope that it is realistically so, because if we don't make an effort soon, no amount of technology may be able to turn the tide. Your points are salient, but I think you are taking me too literally. When I speak of the the living Earth, I refer to more than just the rock we are sitting on, but the ecosystem that has developed on it. And I don’t mean to trivialize efforts to preserve a balance, but rather point out that the balance we need to preserve is not so much to save the Earth, but ourselves. Certainly if we wipe ourselves out, the ecosystem will not be the same, but I doubt it would be desolated by our doing (although it is possible) – there will still be some life left and that life will heal and evolve and the Earth will “live” on. But the important point here is that if we continue to live as we do, we most likely will not be able to sustain ourselves for as long as we’d like to think we can. In a way, I think that the outlook of Wall-E is optimistic. But I hope that it is realistically so, because if we don’t make an effort soon, no amount of technology may be able to turn the tide.

]]> By: Corina http://bentangle.com/2008/07/wall-eyed/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Corina Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:21:18 +0000 http://bentangle.com/?p=7#comment-2 Here is a point that I think that you are missing. The Earth will not live on in spite of us. The Earth does not live. It is a rock, a dynamic rock, spitting fire, out gassing, active, yet it does not live. The ecology of the earth is a delicate balance. It is an extraordinary thing that the factors to support life came together on this tiny rock. If, as you suggest, manage to wipe the slate clean through a nuclear holocaust, do you honestly think that those amazing combination of factors might once again present itself, life returning? It may, but I think that you take for granted the true amazing journey the earth took coalescing during those billions of years. And is it the point? You simply are giving ammunition to those that believe that those of us trying to limit our footprint (and I know that you try to limit yours as well), are hindering their civil liberties and their way of life. To them, simply the words "living green" is a threat, a personal affront to them. So, while I understand your point in saying that sometimes we give ourselves too much importance, I respectfully disagree in this case. We have more power than we should when it deals with the health of the planet. It is in our hands what we do with that power. Here is a point that I think that you are missing. The Earth will not live on in spite of us. The Earth does not live. It is a rock, a dynamic rock, spitting fire, out gassing, active, yet it does not live. The ecology of the earth is a delicate balance. It is an extraordinary thing that the factors to support life came together on this tiny rock. If, as you suggest, manage to wipe the slate clean through a nuclear holocaust, do you honestly think that those amazing combination of factors might once again present itself, life returning? It may, but I think that you take for granted the true amazing journey the earth took coalescing during those billions of years. And is it the point? You simply are giving ammunition to those that believe that those of us trying to limit our footprint (and I know that you try to limit yours as well), are hindering their civil liberties and their way of life. To them, simply the words “living green” is a threat, a personal affront to them. So, while I understand your point in saying that sometimes we give ourselves too much importance, I respectfully disagree in this case. We have more power than we should when it deals with the health of the planet. It is in our hands what we do with that power.

]]>