Interested in how " to manage resources in an increasingly ecological manner, empowering people to improve their lifestyles and that of the communities they reside in", then you may use this website to make your views known, comment on others or to find contacts to people willing to participate in such an endeavour.

Note: I was informed recently July 2011, that people get to this site as opposed to the 'official site' and was asked to close this 'unofficial site'.

This site may close in a year or so, if and when the domain name renewal is due, so I may transfer the data to another site by then and link to that.

e or energy is a function of mass and the speed of light Einstein and others would have you believe, but just consider the following.

1. If any resource is to be able to sustain everything, then it has to be infinte. And as energy can exist as matter then the amount of matter would be infinite and the mass infinite.
2. With no indication of infinite matter, quite the contrary, mater seems to continualy degenerate. Degenertion does not necessarily imply a lack of resource, but given that degeneration or death seems to be brought on, then ???
3. If it is true then e is the only sustainable quality and can exist as a quantity of mass.
4. All forms, i.e. any quantum of mass is limited and it, or any use of it, is unsustainable.
5. To live within our means, i.e. the proper meaning of sustainability, means not to depend upon finite resources. Not just coal and uranium, but any form of energy that has been a product of energy decent, including sunlight.
6. The current transition initiates, wrongly and deceptively, pronounce that there are sustainable resources that we can exploit. You may even hear the term ' more sustainable' - but either it is or it is not. of course it can be both depending on perspective.
7. Most resources are finite and therefore the use of such is temporary. Not only is the use of such unsustainable, but the resource is generally destroyed in the process.
8. • Animals and plants cannot be brought back to life once consumed. If they could then we would have no problem with killing people either.
   • Sunlight is depended upon the quantity of hydrogen undergoing fusion in the sun. And it can be reasoned that the hydrogen, as far as the sun exists, is a basis of 'light' and so light is not to be regarded as a prime type of energy.
   • However without gravity the hydrogen would not coalesce and light would not be radiated.
   • So what is gravity, or attraction? Consider parking a car. If there is no space then you drive around. Once a space appears you can park. The emptiness, the space or vacuum is the gravity. Nothing is the prime mover, the source and sustainable form, or should that be un-form.
   • Sustainability is a product of inaction. If action is required to provide energy it is not sustainable. So give up consuming finite forms. Make space so that existing forms can survive. This is the goal of continuing conciousness.
   • Maintaining a future material need or form is untenable if it can only be achieved at the expense of another form or destructive action by design. Only through freeing the mind from desiring to enjoy at the expense of other forms, will love become sustainable and conciousness an immortal reality.

Mark Wade, of St. Beaudeax, is keen to show a film on fox hunting, no doubt prompted by David Cameron's promise to revoke the fox hunting ban. He is looking for venues and can be contacted on 01752 316077

Transition Plymouth indicates that some people of Plymouth are reviewing their attitude towards consumption. The average space needed to maintain the UK lifestyle is the equivalent of some 12 to 13 acres. Given there is only about 1.16 acres available per person in the UK some serious exploitation of those weaker than us goes on.

Fox hunting is an example of how people are not able to allow another species space to live freely. It's not we are being attacked by foxes, it's just a matter of over indulgence. If we can't allow room for the foxes then we have no will or ability to reduce our own consumption to any meaningful degree.

Transition means to moving away from such gross consumption. Leaving the foxes to theirs is one small step on the road to human evolution.

Read more »

Prof : James Lovelock : Transition to Oblivion

This post needs lots of editing

The professor's latest view is 'We can't save the planet'. Well at last he's beginning to show some common sense or should that be insense.

His first well acclaimed idea, of earth being a single body personal 'Gaia' the old Greek Goddess, had and still has devotees. The problems with this personality is that either she is rather more powerful than each of us, as we may think we are relative to each of our cells, or she may succumb to us as a disease, as we may to cancerous growths. Either way it must be clear that she if she is more powerful and can cure herself, it may be be by lancing the growth, unless she can find some new age crystal-healing, or maybe some other cosmic energy, in which case we can sit back and see what happens.

Alternatively she succumbs and dies. Rather unlikely as this predisposes that we know what life for Gaia is. Maybe merging with the sun in 4,5 billion years is all she wants and doesn't care about this mid-life development that pre-dates the great undying. After all there are minds abound, aboard spaceship earth, that will happily kill and die to get to heaven.

Gaia seems beyond our petty consumption, she has stars and space to consume or therein be consumed. A bit out of our reach, unless we evolve to control the Solar System before we are purged.

His second blast was in supporting Nuclear Power, as his view is that ecological alternatives will not work in time to save 'Mother Earth'. The two issue here are a) Why support our lifestyle at all, let alone nuclear power. Presumably as he wants to continue his indulgent lifestyle, and doesn't care much for other individuals. So what if theirs nuclear pollution, Gaia will survive, plants will survive, animals will evolve, some humans will exploit at the top of the chain. Lets just hope it's not a nuclear winter which will take a little longer to evolve out of. Then there's b) True, alternative use of resources won't work quick enough, so nuclear seems a better choice, but hey! neither will work as they both are expressions of sustaining, if not increasing the consumption other parts of Gaia.

Notice the use of the word 'sustaining' as if any consumption can be truly sustainable.

Now finally he sees 'We can't save the planet' at all. So James, we may as well use alternatives and dance around the faere rings, chanting and holding hands or crystals, as whatever we do it won't save Gaia. Nope she may not even like it or be aware of it, but some men and women do and are. he finally suggestlikewise he also suggests "enjoy life while you can". Well I really needed God to tell me too enjot myself. I though all my indulgences were just destroying the planet, what! they are, but never mind. Hmmm!!! let me dwell on that a bit more !!!!?????&&&$£$%^$$^*&amp$&%*&amp(*_)()(*&&*%^$%£"^%$%(**^&££$^ Ah! yes that's enough of that distraction.

Dear James.

Is old age creeping in. Is it too hard to change,too painful to try not had enough fun in your life. Maybe you are already dead and don't have a sustainable conciousness. Whatever!

The clue to sustainability is in the concept of Gaia, the notion of a conciousness other than the picky earthling that can only destroy to maintain it's flagging identity.

Gaia, Earth, God; they are all states of conciousness and joy is a part of conciousness that I wish to sustain. It can't be done by saving the planet or any part of it, even myself or my children. But if in trying to save anything I am happy, then at least I acknowledge conciousness. Now all I have to do is pay more attention to detail and not worry about the big picture provided in stereo by Walt Disney and his Angels. (Desire in here)

So hello James. It has taken you a long time to relax. I hope your earlier devotees got here sooner - as if I really care

To see or download the movies and/or the soundtrack, via the BBC article on his latest interview follow the link in the extended post:-

Read more »

Here is a world of difference.

Source is like energy, whereas resource is like wood and coal.

Take a river, or rather take not the river, let it flow.

The water in lakes and rivers may be a resource but the source of the water in both is beyond human development. The resources seem finite although the source may seem infinite.

The sun, or 'radiant energy', keeps a lot of H₂O in a liquid form, but the sun is not the source of H₂O, nor the source of energy.

The source of H₂O is not really the issue, and the sun, water, coal or other is only limited when taken as a resource. Even energy from the sun is limited albeit we have not reached a Peak of its use, yet. We will; or should that be we may or we might.

So let me tell of the source which is all there really is.

'Energy' can not be created or destroyed but becomes available as a resource in form or matter. Light is a vast form of energy, yet it is not matter. Light can descend into formal matter and one of those instances is the growing of trees.

It is the descent that is the limiting factor, not the source or the resource. The source is unbound, 'light' is infinite and without measure, descent is limited and channelled and matter is bound and finite. (light refers to radiant energy)

The problem for of human sustainability is how to untangle conciousness from finite matter and identify with unbounded energy. Technology can only show us that we have far to go, not how far to go. It cannot give us the will to travel. Signs on the road do not influence the reason for the journey. There has to be the will to choose a sustainable direction, then the signs will help you decide if you are still on the right path, but they will not tell you how far there is to go as time and distance cannot define the unbounded.

As animals growing by exploiting limited resources we compete not only with each other but with all other forms dependent on energy descent.. It is just crude politics and a scam to raise fear of the depletion of any resource. By definition if we use something as a resource it will diminish.

The transition is to turn away from the finite and beyond the light.

The only sustainable conciousness is in the unbounded. How you free yourself doesn't matter. But focusing on which resource to use will not change the rate of depletion but rather speed up its demise and that of conciousness too.

Unbind the desire and the will to live from exploiting finite resources. What else could you want?

Watch out for those Peak Oil freaks and those that use the term 'Energy Descent' as a way to go. They want you to worry more and use less so they can worry less and use more. Such 'Descent', meaning use less resources, can not be accomplished whilst we depend upon it for all our worldly goods.

However it is not beyond thinking that we will open up the channel of energy descent so there are more resources to exploit. This is the philosophers stone which ever way you look at it.

Roger

Read more »

Hi. Nicola

The aims I proposed were amended a little and I would like to comment on using the word 'resource' rather than 'energy'.

You proposed this change as you said it was one you (plural) used. I was keen not to be picky and it seemed acceptable to others, so I was quite happy.

However after some dozens of hours since, going over the aims, this change has the following impact on my thinking.

'Energy' as Diane put it, is often seen as electricity (She no doubt is a follower of the the Peak Oil motivators, and the aim with Peak Oil mentioned must have appeared a better argument {human resource} to use in an aim).

My response is that it is fine if many people see energy as electricity as it is the main resource for the common person. Each person will know the energy they use and will have to adapt to it's availability, be it nuclear, fossil or emotional.

As I do not intend be exclusive about the source or type of energy, Di's views were not a problem. Any source of energy was my thinking.

However resource is different than source.

Source is the origin, resource is the take.

A human being is a resource, as in the Matrix, but not a source of energy unless you are the Matrix with no human feelings, which society no doubt is. Woe you followers of Plymouth.

So if the word 'resource' is to be used it will have to be expounded at some point, maybe in the objectives, to ensure that where the term applies to humans and other living things a different approach should be taken.

Increasingly ecological may seem a satisfactory approach when dealing with a reduction in using finite resources such as sun, earth and moon and the rest of the material cosmos, but in can only be right to add the notion of the cessation of the use of living beings as resources.

Love

Roger