I think there is some problem over the use of the term "luxury" in relation to the things we have..on one hand, yes they can make our lives alot easier..on the other hand we have all worked much MORE than even simple indigenous hunter gatherer peoples.

I also see a problem with the idea that most people are able to put forth any sort of conscious "vote"..people are so brainwashed and unable to think properly these days that there are more like robots than independant thinking human beings..

We work more in our society than indigenous tribal peoples do..even with our "luxuries" we spend more time working our asses off for less quality of life..studies have shown that almost always indigenous peoples who live off the land in tribal societies work less..usually less than 20hrs per week on adverage, are happier in day to day life..there is not depression like there is in the west..there is not suicide..they are far less stressed than we are..

So what about all of this is a "luxury"?..I dont really see any of this as a luxury anymore..these things CAN be luxuries IF they exist within an egalitarian society..but that is no the case.

Yes, luxury's are a burden instead of a blessing. That was my initial point somewhere in this thread.

Ofcourse i don't make friends by saying that we're all spoiled beyond what's good for us. Especially when you're spoiled, you don't want to hear that you're spoiled.

Studies clearly show that once your wealth has reached a basic level, a further increase does no longer lead to greater happyness.

Eh, to be honest man, I've lost interest in discussing it, or trying to read those reports. I did attempt to.. But the task is just too tedious when I have more productive things I could be doing.

I still feel the way I did, and while I don't believe in reptiles, the moon matrix theory, or any of the garbage that Icke uses to sell books, I still enjoy checking out this forum because from time to time there are informed people discussing things in a way that stimulates my mind, and I think that some good things have been said in this - http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060213154&postcount=4 - particular thread that are relevant to our discussion. I just so happen to find it after reflecting on our talk, gotta love synchronicity.

What's the matter?

=

Would you please summarize what the reports say for me? Because if I read them, I'd hardly know what they were saying simply because I lack the attention span to read through that information, at least at the moment. Then I'll tell you what I think. Just tryna make you feel better.

water shortage and water diversion fucking up the water table are 2 different things BTW..it should be illegal to divert spring water as if it is a commodity for companies to sell back to masses of people. There have been enough communities displaced already due to companies comming in and bottling all the water..

The idea of a "water shortage" never makes sense..where the hell is the water going? There will always be water..the problem is that people eithe develope in areas of desert(like las vegas) or they get hung up on living in some ancestrial land whos water source is dried up..or the water source is polluted..some people have also had the more fertile lands they once inhabited occupied and end up being pushed into less hospitable areas..we have a long way to go..simply bringing people water to arid climates etc is a naive approach to take I think.

I think the highlighted segments are a great place for you to start (the ones that address the non-existent conflict you claimed exists within the scientific community in regards to climate change).

As to summarizing for you...I'm sorry, but that would not make me feel better in the least. This is the laziness I referenced earlier. This is the unwillingness to analyze critically on your part that I pointed out. There's no sense in me explaining/summarizing these papers to you for a very simple reason; you lack the initiative to even read papers that someone else has taken the time to find for you (including a brief excerpt)...I refer you to my earlier critiques of your position as "lazy and ill-informed."

I feel that there's nothing to be gained from summarizing, as I have a hard time believing that my summarizing will translate into anything meaningful (I can't expect you to analyze/apply my summary when you have yet to do anything with the resources I've provided). You irrationally cling to the notion that climate change is a myth despite not having a shred of evidence to this end. Why should I take more time to summarize something that I already took the time and effort to find and present you with? If you can't be bothered to read it and wish to remain ignorant to this universally accepted phenomenon, that's no skin off my back.