2008年3月12日星期三

"Business as Usual"


'...in 1992, a remarkable document called World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was signed by more than 1,500 senior scientists, including more than half of all Nobel prizewinners alive at that time.

Here is some of what the document said: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society . . . and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."

The document goes on to list the critical areas of the atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, species extinction, and overpopulation. Then the words grow even more urgent: "No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. . .

A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated."

This is a frightening document; eminent scientists do not often sign such a strongly worded missive. But if the Scientists' Warning is frightening, the response of the media in North America was terrifying - there was no response...

Instead we hear excuses to ignore the warnings: it will ruin the economy; technology will solve the problem; it is not fair when other countries are not included; there are other priorities demanding immediate attention, etc. And so we turn our backs on the very strategy that got us to where we are.

Business as usual

For decades, scientists in the US had pointed out that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. The city lies in an area that is prone to annual hurricanes, half the city is below sea level, and a force 5 hurricane was bound to hit the city, so drastic measures had to be implemented immediately to avoid disaster. All the while, politicians and businesspeople countered that it would be economically ruinous to take precautionary action, and carried on with business as usual - no doubt crossing their fingers that nothing would happen during their tenure. We all know what did happen when Hurricane Katrina hit the city in 2005 and confirmed all the predictions scientists had made.

The need to look ahead and manoeuvre to exploit opportunities and avoid threats continues to be just as critical in modern society. The challenge is to find why we are rejecting foresight, why we can't see what the real threats are that confront us.'

Article: The Guardian by David Suzuki
Photo: Unidentified ancient tree, BC, c. 1895. University of British Columbia

2008年3月10日星期一

「垃圾」的誘惑

劇某才子說,現代社會已沒有修理的概念。新的比舊的更便宜,誰會bother去修理呢?於是堆填區填滿了,都往內地出口去了。

家裏的電腦差點兒也去了。

買了4、5年,是蠻舊了,可是還可以修。不是沒有掙扎。但是很多新產品才有的功能對我來說根本就沒用,花錢買一件沒用的東西兼製造電子垃圾?還是算了。

最近手電筒(2年多)也出問題了。 還可以修嗎?或者應該說... 還可以抵擋誘惑嗎
?

2008年2月29日星期五

孩子記憶沒有星


孩子記憶沒有星 

我聽過一個很美的故事﹕星星是一盞盞懸在天上的燈,夜了,天使飛得很倦了,會憑藉一閃一閃的亮光,在漆黑中尋覓歸途。 

可是,倘若天使流落到我們的小島,這個故事將不得不換上一個淒美結局——星河燦爛不再,星路消失了,折翼天使悵惘地望滿城的A貨「星光」,迷路了。 

回不了家,可以找愛迪生算帳嗎? 

仍然記得,20多年前一次露營,被彷彿摸得到的漫天星火,觸動了。那一夜,大伙兒席地為,「流星呀!流星呀!」的驚歎此起彼落,還有看到人造衛星在天際的一邊慢慢移到另一邊的興奮。大自然帶來的震撼,從此烙印在心。然而,這樣的星空奇遇,跟我家的小天使注定失諸交臂——就像全世界五分一人口那樣。那些「一閃一閃小星星,一顆一顆亮晶晶」的歌詞,跟暴龍和聖誕老人一樣,注定成為傳說。因為我們用燒遍全城的燈火,謀殺了頂上的星空,所以,孩子的記憶當中,將不再有星星的份兒。他的星星只能畫在書上、印在幻燈片上;「紙上談星」,或許很快便成為新的詞彙。

By 朱漢強(hkchu@foe.org.hk) on 明報 2008年2月28日

2008年2月28日星期四

Too hungry, too destructive, too many


"Too hungry, too destructive, too many," followed by "South Africa to begin elephant cull." This is the title used in The Guardian.

Wonder if it is not meant for another species... like homo sapiens?

2008年2月5日星期二

2008年2月4日星期一

生命中不能缺乏的...

當半個中國正被風雪埋沒的時候,也當某些網站獲得成千上萬的點擊率,香港的報紙沒有忘記報導中央對我們的關懷:就算情況怎樣嚴峻,香港都會有穩定的豬、牛供應。人們焦慮、寒冷、無家可歸,動物在路上倒下、凍死,香港(報紙/人)還是沒有忘記我们的猪肉牛肉。

是離題了嗎?

也許。

也許不。

2008年1月22日星期二

有沒有用

今天又有科學家跑出來說什麼兩棲動物瀕絕種。值得留意的是文中沒有提到這對人類的影響。無論是動物還是植物,大部分這類型的報導都會有物種滅絕=癌症、老人癡呆症等等絕望,好像如果對人類沒有影響、用處,誰會關心甚麼要消失?

我想問如果沒有影響、用處就不重要,那人們為何追求快樂?快樂有什麼用?「專家」可能會說這可提升生產力,從而提高收入。那提高收入又有什麼用處?答案很可能是(看官請自行判斷)財富可令人快樂。

Reference: 明報 2008年1月22日