Engineering?

[Chuck(G)]

Joe, if the truth be told, anything on this BBS can be made to be political, off-topic or not. Why does Germany seem to have a thriving tuba business when the US is barely able to stagger along? Is lacquer more environmentally-friendly than silverplate?

I do think that things that affect us all, are deserving of discussion--and I think we can do it without going into bug-eyed red-faced screaming partisan politics.

Or we can sit here and discuss BBb vs. CC, rotary vs. piston, lacquer vs. silver, where to dump your spit, what oil to use, whether or not to give Bydlo to a euphonium, how wonderful this month's new instrument is, what mouthpiece to use and how to avoid taking your instrument to a repair tech till we drop dead of boredom.

Off topic, we can discuss cars, food and off-color jokes, I suppose.

Heaven knows, music gets short enough shrift on this BBS.

[windshieldbug]

What happened to dinosaurs?

Sam Neill did!

[Joe Baker]

Joe, if the truth be told, anything on this BBS can be made to be political, off-topic or not.

I said exactly the same thing in a thread the other day. I just don't really understand the anti-politics rule; why politics? I've seen plenty of heated debate about cars, bicycles, and monster-weights, but there are no rules against those topics.

But, as of this moment I'm going back on the wagon, and apologizing to Sean for breaking the rules. But I value my freedom of speech too much to voluntarily give it up.
_____________________________________
Joe Baker, whose principals are leaving him with very little choice but to just quit coming here.

[tofu]

[tubeast]

I liked that remark on whether global warming was a such big a deal.
It just depends on whether you´d like to see our lifestyles and societies altered. For one thing I´m convinced that man is not smart enough to fully understand and control an ecosystem more complex than, say, an aquarium. Probably not even that. If we WERE able to understand what keeps the world going, we wouldn´t be wondering whether or not it´s a good thing to decrease our CO2-output. We´d know, and we´d all agree on the matter.

Our (mankind´s) problem is that our technology has progressed faster than our knowledge about its consequences.
To me, both groups are equally suspicious (Right term ? I mean I think there´s something fishy in their arguments):
Those who claim fuel cells and regenerative energy sources will prevent global warming as well as those who claim we (again, mankind)´ll be able to deal with global warming when it occurs, be it of natural origin or not.

At this time, fusion power seems to be THE answer to all energy problems. As was the case with nuclear energy sixty years ago. Who knows what problems will arise when we´re able to control fusion reactors.
Should we go for it ? I think yes. There´s a chance it might work, and doing it is the only way for us to find out.

End of sermon.

[MaryAnn]

The choices we make, as a world population, will shape our future.

I don't believe those choices are largely controllable. A good-sized volcano eruption can put more particulates into the air than can mankind.

The issue is this: Are we developing the capability to deal with the effects that we see?

I think you made some assumptions as to what I meant by "choices," based on what you think my political views are. I definitely see it as a choice to develop the capability to deal with the effects we see.

I also see it as a choice to dumb down our education system and a choice to allow chemicals free run into the environment based on simple-exposure studies. We'll reap the consequences for these and other choices down the line, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Personally I think Nature can whack us as badly as we can whack ourselves, but wouldn't it be nice if the only whackings we have to deal with are those dealt out by Nature?

MA

[Rick Denney]

I think you made some assumptions as to what I meant by "choices," based on what you think my political views are. I definitely see it as a choice to develop the capability to deal with the effects we see.

I also see it as a choice to dumb down our education system and a choice to allow chemicals free run into the environment based on simple-exposure studies. We'll reap the consequences for these and other choices down the line, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Personally I think Nature can whack us as badly as we can whack ourselves, but wouldn't it be nice if the only whackings we have to deal with are those dealt out by Nature?

My assumption was based on the way your wrote your post. I think it was a pretty easy assumption to make but you can tell me if I assumed wrongly.

We have dumbed down our education system because as a society we value self-esteem (even if it's illusory) more than excellence. That isn't a choice but rather a whole series of choices based on a whole series of effects, many of which are unconnected. That's the problem with the simple analyses I see on the Discovery of National Geographic channels. But 75 years ago, education was no better on average. It was better for the excellent students, and the students who were not excellent weren't there in the first place. They were making Chuck happy by being apprenticed to a trade.

On the subject of chemicals, we always have to balance the good an the bad, knowing too little about either (I know you said something along these lines so no need to accuse me of making more assumptions, heh, heh). Some chemicals have turned out to be dangerous, and moreso for some than others. Yet average lifespans have increased substantially since chemicals have emerge into wide use, and most people are more vigorous to greater ages even if they need exercise as we are constantly reminded. The chemicals have been part of the technological advancement that has made it possible for average lifespan to increase. Examples abound, and here's just one: Food preservatives may not be particularly nutritious, but with few exceptions they do a lot less harm than rot and starvation. Refrigerants may be greenhouse gases and hey may cause problems because of that, but lots of people have been able to eat fresh food consistently because of it. And so on.

Rick "noting that the retirement age used to be 60--when people were thought to be old" Denney

[MartyNeilan]

Sounds logical to me.

[windshieldbug]

Don't forget your TubeNet Decoder watch...

[LoyalTubist]

Back in the days when Soeharto was President of Indonesia (when I lived there), Bob Hasan was a popular Indonesian politician with a background in engineering and real estate "development." He claimed that he was doing nothing wrong with tearing down the jungle, replacing it with factories, mines, and large cities. His rationale was that my beloved Mojave Desert was once a jungle that was torn down by the people who moved there.

[MaryAnn]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that young hoodlums had extremely high self-esteem. May not be a quality we should value as much as we do....

And I've never liked the definition of self-esteem anyway, as it's used in the schools. Self esteem, the REAL kind, is gotten from working your fuzzy lil butt off achieving something that was gosh darn difficult.

Like, my engineering degree that I started at 32 and finished at 39. THAT gave me some self-esteem that all my wonderful musical talent didn't give me. I was born with the latter and worked for the former.

MA