Rawfle Copter... FList?
So, two new things. One: I am making a Live Journal post. Two: I am making a Live Journal post while on the toilet. And I won't wash my hands. Or I guess I will. Yep, don't really know what I'm doing with this whole blog thing. I read like fifty things in the NYT about blogs and wondered why someone so into free information through technology wouldn't have one. So... here it is. I'll try and make it as interesting as I can. I have help. Yay.
Well, as I said before I was reading the NYT and I read about something other than blogs, but still about the internet. It's about this guy, Stewart Brand. He seems pretty awesome and I tend to agree with a lot of the things he says about the two schools of environmentalists. There's what he calls the romantic, pessemistic environmentalists and then there are the realistic, scientific ones. They're both important for popularizing the issues of environmentalism, but I tend to find myself on the realistic side. The article talks about how Brand thinks the romantic movement is wrong about a few things, mostly nuclear power and genetically modified foods. I'm not sure if they're wrong. It's hard to put all of those people into one category. I think it's good to worry about those things, but not to be fully against them. Stuff like mixing starfish flesh with bread or whatever freaks me out, but there are a lot of good things that come out of genetically modified foods. In countries with very little food a lot has been done to make land rear three times as much food than is "natural." And that's good. Gen modified food is better than none, but it's still good to be weary. The article also brings up the problem of calling food gen modified, since most food has been genetically modified by humans for thousands of years. It's a good thing for people to keep in mind when thinking about the issue. Most of what we eat has been modified in much the same way they're doing it now. It just took a lot longer to do before. So ya, here's the article.
Here.
I think that will be all for my first post. No one will read it. But I'm ok with that.
Well, as I said before I was reading the NYT and I read about something other than blogs, but still about the internet. It's about this guy, Stewart Brand. He seems pretty awesome and I tend to agree with a lot of the things he says about the two schools of environmentalists. There's what he calls the romantic, pessemistic environmentalists and then there are the realistic, scientific ones. They're both important for popularizing the issues of environmentalism, but I tend to find myself on the realistic side. The article talks about how Brand thinks the romantic movement is wrong about a few things, mostly nuclear power and genetically modified foods. I'm not sure if they're wrong. It's hard to put all of those people into one category. I think it's good to worry about those things, but not to be fully against them. Stuff like mixing starfish flesh with bread or whatever freaks me out, but there are a lot of good things that come out of genetically modified foods. In countries with very little food a lot has been done to make land rear three times as much food than is "natural." And that's good. Gen modified food is better than none, but it's still good to be weary. The article also brings up the problem of calling food gen modified, since most food has been genetically modified by humans for thousands of years. It's a good thing for people to keep in mind when thinking about the issue. Most of what we eat has been modified in much the same way they're doing it now. It just took a lot longer to do before. So ya, here's the article.
Here.
I think that will be all for my first post. No one will read it. But I'm ok with that.