Absolutely. We're all in favour of that, so there's probably little need to discuss that any further.JL wrote:One is self-examination, which is good but I think if it goes too far it becomes self-absorption and gets in the way of ever actually looking at things objectively and doing something.
I think your suggestion is apt and relevant. Others seem more convinced by the idea that, as Ireland is not a big net polluter, we can forget about all that and build all the high rises and fly-overs that we like. I'd love to stay and talk, only my Lamborghini Diablo Roadster awaits.JL wrote:The other is about what we are trying to achieve and not missing opportunities. My view is that we should be looking 50 years into the future (designing for climate change, a post-carbon economy and aiming for the best and most elegant technological and ecological urban and architectural designs) and not 50 years into the past (a world where high rises and fly-overs are the Next Big Thing).
I think we can do all that. I won't even argue the semantics of exactly how many different statement you've mixed up in that single statement, or we'll be up the creek without being able to see the wood for the trees.mickletterfrack wrote:Id like to have kept to the original thread kept our egos and sensitivities out of this and not argue semantics.
In fairness, you were more overreacting to the use of the word 'ignorant'. If you were a Mongolia yak farmer reading the statement you've just made, the equivalent response would be for you to say 'well I think you're ignorant and very fat too'.mickletterfrack wrote: by your logic the yak farmer in Mogolia with a carbon footprint in the +200 range should be condemed for his ignorance too.
I'm not taking any high ground. I'm not excluding myself from the statement.mickletterfrack wrote:.Im not going to stand by and let someone take some kind of educated high-ground calling Irish people ignorant.
And I'm proud to be an Oki from Muskogee. But the point is surely that ignorance means you won't know whether you're doing harm or not, so the low emission status is purely accidental. Hence, our penchant for developing a car dependant lifestyle because Hobbits will always be able to afford oil.mickletterfrack wrote: Id prefer to be ignorant and not-recyling with low emissions than educated recycling but with a high-carbon footprint.
A useful vision.mickletterfrack wrote: Get the whole nation behind a grand concept of an eco city, improve design and cut down emmissions two birds with one quill.
Now you listen to me, Samwise Gamgee. Donâ€™t be giving yourself airs and graces and talking like you knows what you donâ€™t. Thatâ€™s all stuff to do with Big Folk, and thereâ€™s no need for Hobbits to go meddling in things that donâ€™t concern them.JL wrote:Something to note on this issue is that it is not a matter of eco-awareness. Peak oil is going to happen, very likely in the next 10 years according to a lot of projections. So a low carbon economy will not be an option but a fact. The question will be the impact on our society in the transition. Design and planning has a key role in deciding to what extent we can mitigate disruption to our way of life.
That strikes me as something explicable by the hypothesis that weâ€™re ignorant and stupid. However, we of course should not say that even if it is true. It was stupid and ignorant of me to think otherwise but then, hey, Iâ€™m Irish.JL wrote:I remember a fantastic interview around June 2000 on RTE â€“ interviewer asked a couple of market traders in Dublin about their preparations for the Euro. Response? â€œNah, itâ€™ll never happen!â€
You're stealing my lines. Probably a wise decision in the circumstances.mickletterfrack wrote: I didnt get any of the counter-points you were trying to make earlier they were so poorly presented ahhh ignorance IS bliss,
I'm sure I would if it was possible to have a personal difference emerge on an anonymous forum.mickletterfrack wrote:send me an email if you want to discuss our personal differences outside this forum, others arent interested Im sure.
schuhart wrote: It was stupid and ignorant of me to think otherwise but then, hey, Iâ€™m Irish.
If we jump forward 50 years, what opportunites should we try and exploit between now and then?
Originally Posted by mickletterfrack
send me an email if you want to discuss our personal differences outside this forum, others arent interested Im sure.
Response posted by Schuhart
I'm sure I would if it was possible to have a personal difference emerge on an anonymous forum.
Originally posted by JL
it's people ranting on about subjects they don't really know anything about and not being bothered to go and do some research.
I think youâ€™re addressing the point that you wish Iâ€™d made, rather than the point actually made. And at the heart of it, you are simply reacting at an emotional level to the word â€˜ignorantâ€™. Why do the PDs come out with a whole load of baloney about their plans for a â€˜new heart for Dublinâ€™ while simultaneously participating in a Government that has no commitment to planning in any substantial sense having undermined its own spatial strategy? Its only another example of a more general question. Why is public debate conducted in a language of fantasy?ihateawake wrote: to simply dismiss ireland as a collective pool of ignorance is an easy, unhelpful and unproductive statement.... continue to wallow in <b>your</b> ignorance for as long as you like, but it certainly wont change anything you disapprove of in Ireland
For some reason, I feel you know.mickletterfrack wrote:Schuhart , what are you babbling on about.... what do you mean I stole your lines...
Iâ€™m not offended a bit, although I did get a PM from a Mongolian Yak farmer who really took offence at you calling them ignorant.mickletterfrack wrote:theres options on the forum to email or send private msgs if I have offended your delicate sensibilities.