Album: Into The WildAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 3369
Length: 3:51
Plays (last 30 days): 3
share
tweet
We have a greed with which we have agreed
And you think you have to want more than you need
Until you have it all, you won't be free
Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me
When you want more than you have, you think you need
And when you think more than you want, your thoughts begin to bleed
I think I need to find a bigger place
Cause when you have more than you think, you need more space
Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Society, crazy indeed
Hope you're not lonely without me
There's those thinking more or less, less is more
But if less is more, how you keepin score?
Means for every point you make your level drops
Kinda like you're startin' from the top
And you can't do that
Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Society, crazy indeed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Society, have mercy on me
I hope you're not angry if I disagree
Society, you're crazy indeed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Jonas_the_Bold wrote:
Everyone thinks they need their own mud hut these days, back in my great grandfather's day we were perfectly happy living 20 to a hide tent. And what's with this agriculture thing, how much food do we seriously need? I prefered the hunter gatherer way, sure you were likely to starve and all.
And don't get me started on everyone wanting to heat their own huts. In my great grandfather's day we were perfectly happy huddling together for warmth under some pelts all winter, eating the scraps of meat that hadn't frozen yet. You should see how happy the surviving children were every spring. These days the spoiled brats running around in their own personal clothing and eating warm food in the winter take not freezing to death completely for granted.
...what we want more of may be misplaced at times, but wanting more everything for everyone is the reason for all progress, so while I like this song I think Eddie Vedder's completely and totally wrong.
freddyfender wrote:
You completely miss the point. He isn't referring to having a roof over your head or the means to heat it. It is the forever quest to accumulate a bunch of stuff just for stuff's sake. You build a strawman argument and then fall flat on your mud hut.
Exactly. concentrate on the line "until you have it all, you won't be free" for a bit, or "when you want more than you have, you think you need" and maybe you'll begin to understand. (or then again, maybe not...)
Okay, I'm going to disagree...in part. I always considered Vedder sort of a hired gun, the imported vocalist who raised a good band (Pearl Jam) into one that meant something. However, he always had a voice, and I would think something other, better than goat-like. What I didn't know about Vedder was his talent as a songwriter, which this album ably, and to me surprisingly, demonstrated. Guy's good.
People talk about people's voices and not the important thing: How they use it.
Everyone thinks they need their own mud hut these days, back in my great grandfather's day we were perfectly happy living 20 to a hide tent. And what's with this agriculture thing, how much food do we seriously need? I prefered the hunter gatherer way, sure you were likely to starve and all.
And don't get me started on everyone wanting to heat their own huts. In my great grandfather's day we were perfectly happy huddling together for warmth under some pelts all winter, eating the scraps of meat that hadn't frozen yet. You should see how happy the surviving children were every spring. These days the spoiled brats running around in their own personal clothing and eating warm food in the winter take not freezing to death completely for granted.
...what we want more of may be misplaced at times, but wanting more everything for everyone is the reason for all progress, so while I like this song I think Eddie Vedder's completely and totally wrong.
You completely miss the point. He isn't referring to having a roof over your head or the means to heat it. It is the forever quest to accumulate a bunch of stuff just for stuff's sake. You build a strawman argument and then fall flat on your mud hut.
LOVE all the songs on this album. So fine. As is the film. 🙏 Sean Penn, too.
Agree! Sean Penn's direction of the movie (his directorial debut no less) and Eddie's songwriting & singing faithfully capture the spirit of the Krakauer book. Into the Wild album blows me away every time I hear it. Need to watch the film again, it's fantastic.
Fair enough :) If it's any consolation, I think Pearl Jam and Nirvana, in particular, were as digusted by the term "grunge" and general commercialization (flannel etc.) that followed it. With some perspective, it's easier to appreciate PJ's place in the general history of rock and roll.
I think I only own one Pearl Jam record but this album gets played a lot so it's always a good idea to give em another try and put preconceptions aside.
and to add to my appreciation for the conversation, @TJOpootertoot, I can happily announce my continued enjoyment of this soundtrack, and Eddie Vedder in general. Long Live RP and all the listeners/commenters here!!
Okay, I'm going to disagree...in part. I always considered Vedder sort of a hired gun, the imported vocalist who raised a good band (Pearl Jam) into one that meant something. However, he always had a voice, and I would think something other, better than goat-like. What I didn't know about Vedder was his talent as a songwriter, which this album ably, and to me surprisingly, demonstrated. Guy's good.
Can you imagine a duet with Stevie Nicks?
Jerry Hannan is a great writer, but Eddie's voice is that of a goat.
g reatest
o f
a ll
t imes
And when you think more than you want, your thoughts begin to bleed
I think I need to find a bigger place
Cause when you have more than you think, you need more space
If we could only learn from wisdom like this. We crazy indeed.
Except that the book was full of lies to start with.
What lies?! I hung on every word of that novel...
I think you are making too much out of that.
I've read the book "Into the Wild".
It gives more of the story than a movie can,
And yes, the movie adjusts the story a little.
But movies almost always have to do that in order to tell the story in a short period of time.
The film still does the real life story justice.
Except that the book was full of lies to start with.
just went from 9 to 10
I'll fill your vacated 9 with my +1 from 8....maybe one day I'll be at a 10...though these damn lyrics are hitting me right in the head and heart today....LLRP!!
just went from 9 to 10
Fair enough :) If it's any consolation, I think Pearl Jam and Nirvana, in particular, were as digusted by the term "grunge" and general commercialization (flannel etc.) that followed it. With some perspective, it's easier to appreciate PJ's place in the general history of rock and roll.
I think I only own one Pearl Jam record but this album gets played a lot so it's always a good idea to give em another try and put preconceptions aside.
I'm with you! And somewhere along the line I went 7 to 8 on this one...LLRP!!
Aren't you late for your Nitpicker's Anonymous meeting?
Plus, I love Eddie....joking...
By "grunge" I refer to a lot of the associations I built on the 90s music style made famous by the Seattle bands, which got SO much attention, spawning fashion styles too, yuckityyuck....I suppose having heard some of those bands before they were famous (and before "grunge" was a term) as a young Seattle area teen made it that much harder to enjoy them once they became POPular.
So to finish my thought on the original post, I'd say growing older gives one perspective, and helps shed some old misconceptions. While I probably won't all of a sudden start liking "grunge" I can say that I won't immediately dismiss it (or work done by "grunge" artists like EV) just because of the association I have to it. I'm finding it hard to express on the song comments so I'll just leave it at LONG LIVE RP and PEACE!!
Fair enough :) If it's any consolation, I think Pearl Jam and Nirvana, in particular, were as digusted by the term "grunge" and general commercialization (flannel etc.) that followed it. With some perspective, it's easier to appreciate PJ's place in the general history of rock and roll.
I think I only own one Pearl Jam record but this album gets played a lot so it's always a good idea to give em another try and put preconceptions aside.
-Krakauer was the writer but McCandless was the kid in real life (and in the movie).
-I also think it's a great movie, despite having very mixed feelings of what McCandless actually did and the naievete that led him to die too soon.
-I was never a big Pearl Jam fan but it's hard not to respect their general integrity and any way you slice it, I find people who think he sings like a goat no more incisive than those who point out Bob Dylan "can't sing." This song isn't remotely "grunge" (it isn't even written by Vedder) and the singing is very subdued and appropriate.
-IMHO his work on this soundtrack is exceptional and it's a shame he didn't at least get an Oscar nomination (this song wasn't "original," nor was "Hard Sun" but there's not a weak track on the album).
By "grunge" I refer to a lot of the associations I built on the 90s music style made famous by the Seattle bands, which got SO much attention, spawning fashion styles too, yuckityyuck....I suppose having heard some of those bands before they were famous (and before "grunge" was a term) as a young Seattle area teen made it that much harder to enjoy them once they became POPular.
So to finish my thought on the original post, I'd say growing older gives one perspective, and helps shed some old misconceptions. While I probably won't all of a sudden start liking "grunge" I can say that I won't immediately dismiss it (or work done by "grunge" artists like EV) just because of the association I have to it. I'm finding it hard to express on the song comments so I'll just leave it at LONG LIVE RP and PEACE!!
-Krakauer was the writer but McCandless was the kid in real life (and in the movie).
-I also think it's a great movie, despite having very mixed feelings of what McCandless actually did and the naievete that led him to die too soon.
-I was never a big Pearl Jam fan but it's hard not to respect their general integrity and any way you slice it, I find people who think he sings like a goat no more incisive than those who point out Bob Dylan "can't sing." This song isn't remotely "grunge" (it isn't even written by Vedder) and the singing is very subdued and appropriate.
-IMHO his work on this soundtrack is exceptional and it's a shame he didn't at least get an Oscar nomination (this song wasn't "original," nor was "Hard Sun" but there's not a weak track on the album).
Please don't insult the goat.
Apparently, the meme bandwagon jumpers flock to any EV/PJ tune.
Here's hoping they live long enough to learn not to groupthink.
Please don't insult the goat.
Another reason I might have avoided the film for so long is my general dislike for EV/PJ, which is still pretty strong; I have rated this track a 7, which might be the highest rating I've given for anything "grunge."
Long Live RP!
Exactly! 10 for the same reasons as yours !
why do you say that? Couldn't it have been done while they were filming?
Okay, I'm going to disagree...in part. I always considered Vedder sort of a hired gun, the imported vocalist who raised a good band (Pearl Jam) into one that meant something. However, he always had a voice, and I would think something other, better than goat-like. What I didn't know about Vedder was his talent as a songwriter, which this album ably, and to me surprisingly, demonstrated. Guy's good.
I can say few movies haunted me as much as this one. On some deep level I relate too much to the fantasy of that kind of quest...on another level I have horrific visions of a similar tragic outcome. Except I wouldn't be near as poetic
C'ya!
(Only? Best? same difference here)
..'just cause a person has money doesn't mean they have to be a douche-bag. don't you think a social conscience is good to see in rich people?
I think that rich people need to tread very lightly and quietly. They have free speech as you and I, it is just tacky for them to use it on a public level not to mention potentially dangerous to their person as the wealth distribution continues to flow to so few people.
ð
ð
https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/how-chris-mccandless-died.html
Let me see how to make that a link. I used to know.
Interesting.
Thanks BillG for pointing this out via your commentary between songs...
But society isn't a choice-making entity. To the extent that it is real at all, it is an emergent semi-stable dynamic that cannot make choices. Because it has no choice-making mechanism.
Some groups of people can "agree" or submit to a de-facto process by which individuals subscribe to the groups process, and they act together as-if the group decided, because if the individuals don't act with the group, the group leaves them. We have various names for these groups: Family, tribe, club, community, company, team, corporation.
But government is NOT a group that people agree to participate with formally. One big fallacy of "social contract" thinking is that somehow, social contracts could give rise to governments. The problem is, there is never really an entity called society that can enter into a contract with any individual. So when governments are formed by collective action, at best all you really get is a cartoon of a social contract. (This is the best use of John Rawls "A Theory of Justice." Mr. Rawls attempted to answer the question how should we constitute ourselves when "we" is a moving intangible fiction. Many people interpret Rawls to be saying once you get a fair constitution, then you have to stick with it, even if it means shooting people. But my interpretation of Rawls is that he says once you get a constitution, you still have to keep trying to keep it "fair" because every day the actions of the institutions we have constituted depart farther and farther from what "we" might now be interested in. So do not shoot people, instead, let them do what they want and keep seeking to understand the new ways of flourishing. It will always be messy, and the institutions, to support flourishing, must be subordinate and out of the way of peaceful liberty, and always catching up).
I'm not belittling the US Constitution or the Magna Carta in calling them cartoons. A cartoon is a partial, over-simplified representation of something that is not yet rendered fully. If it were really possible for the collective of people governed to be unanimous, then at that moment the collective would be fully rendered, but for that instant only, for that fleeting purpose which called the vote. But in the next microsecond, the next proposed purpose would be questioned by somebody, and the entity-like nature of the collective would again be disrupted.
Sorry Eddie. Your song makes me think, but I think you are confused. But if what you really want to complain about is corporatism (collusion between corporations and gun-toting governments) then I'd say: Nice try, keep at it.
You're a little cranky.
But society isn't a choice-making entity. To the extent that it is real at all, it is an emergent semi-stable dynamic that cannot make choices. Because it has no choice-making mechanism.
Some groups of people can "agree" or submit to a de-facto process by which individuals subscribe to the groups process, and they act together as-if the group decided, because if the individuals don't act with the group, the group leaves them. We have various names for these groups: Family, tribe, club, community, company, team, corporation.
But government is NOT a group that people agree to participate with formally. One big fallacy of "social contract" thinking is that somehow, social contracts could give rise to governments. The problem is, there is never really an entity called society that can enter into a contract with any individual. So when governments are formed by collective action, at best all you really get is a cartoon of a social contract. (This is the best use of John Rawls "A Theory of Justice." Mr. Rawls attempted to answer the question how should we constitute ourselves when "we" is a moving intangible fiction. Many people interpret Rawls to be saying once you get a fair constitution, then you have to stick with it, even if it means shooting people. But my interpretation of Rawls is that he says once you get a constitution, you still have to keep trying to keep it "fair" because every day the actions of the institutions we have constituted depart farther and farther from what "we" might now be interested in. So do not shoot people, instead, let them do what they want and keep seeking to understand the new ways of flourishing. It will always be messy, and the institutions, to support flourishing, must be subordinate and out of the way of peaceful liberty, and always catching up).
I'm not belittling the US Constitution or the Magna Carta in calling them cartoons. A cartoon is a partial, over-simplified representation of something that is not yet rendered fully. If it were really possible for the collective of people governed to be unanimous, then at that moment the collective would be fully rendered, but for that instant only, for that fleeting purpose which called the vote. But in the next microsecond, the next proposed purpose would be questioned by somebody, and the entity-like nature of the collective would again be disrupted.
Sorry Eddie. Your song makes me think, but I think you are confused. But if what you really want to complain about is corporatism (collusion between corporations and gun-toting governments) then I'd say: Nice try, keep at it.
Calling a fatally unlucky person "an obviously worthless twat" (and worse)... stay classy, internet!
"Fatally unlucky" would have been if it had happened to him while he was still going to school at Emory or something. This was a case of fatally unprepared, naive, and arguably just plain dumb.
..'just cause a person has money doesn't mean they have to be a douche-bag. don't you think a social conscience is good to see in rich people?
https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/how-chris-mccandless-died.html
https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/how-chris-mccandless-died.html
Let me see how to make that a link. I used to know.
marvelous...
https://f-ckingc-nts.com/people/10-true-facts-about-chris-mccandless/
Calling a fatally unlucky person "an obviously worthless twat" (and worse)... stay classy, internet!
Sossity, you're a woman.
Likewise and I much prefer that effort.
I met the family and the author at a book signing. I really felt bad for the family.They still look scarred and yes you never get over it.
Actually it was a book signing for Into Thin Air,but they were there.
7 8 I know this song resembles a lot Blowing in the Wind, but it has its own personality...Sossity, you're a woman.
Additionally, if anyone had ever said I'd enjoy an album of ukulele songs I would have looked at them like they were crazy, but that one is a winner too.
As is the movie. CERTAINLY!
Listen up, "Nicky LOW"...
here comes Eddy!
https://f-ckingc-nts.com/people/10-true-facts-about-chris-mccandless/
I can see what you are trying to say, but I seriously disagree. In a world where resources are already strained to the limit, how can more people be a good thing? The Great Lakes, the source of fresh water for millions of people is at it's lowest average level ever recorded, food is getting harder and harder to get in non-industrialized nations, global oil reserves are running down where the majority of what is left is harder to extract and of lesser quality (not that burning more oil is a good thing anyway), and expanding populations are threatening biodiversity all over the world. Can you explain to me how that is a good thing?
As to your point about it being obvious that science will address the issues that concern environmentalists... I wouldn't say that is the case. Environmentalists have been screaming since the 70s that we are harming the globe with emissions and little has been done about that. Water desalinization works, but it's cost effective to serve as a primary water source for places like Vegas that is fighting over water supplies with it's neighbors. Sure, cars and trucks are belching less smog into the air, but there are more cars on the road than ever, so I'd call that a wash. What about pesticides and animal waste getting into the local water supplies? If we have more people, we will need more chemicals to grow more food and more animals to eat (and since animals shit and that shit has to go somewhere...)
Do you really think that more and more people are prospering? Look at the divide between the rich and poor. Look at the shrinking middle class. Look at the ever widening racial education gap. This is not prospering, this is surviving, barely. And it's getting worse world wide.
And how can you say that the decline of populations in liberal democracies is the biggest threat to humanity? Would you really hold up the US as the bastion of human achievement? Our "democracy" spends more time shooting itself in the foot as it does actually accomplishing anything. We are our own biggest threat. We make better weapons to kill each other, which breeds hatred and resentment world wide, which leads to terrorism (to point to your 911 reference).
There are MUCH bigger problems facing humanity then lower populations in democratic nations.
I do agree however with your arguments about materialism.
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. (Woody Allen).
People will quickly change their tune about climate change when we really start seeing the effects. We'll get through it. No one ever said it would be easy. I have actually worked on real-life environmental regulation in my career and read the trumpeted "peer-reviewed" literature on a serious environmental issue. Many of these claims are simply not supported. The proponents have ulterior political motives that go way beyond the issues at hand. They cannot be trusted. It needs objective study. Look, I am not going to say that it's all a hoax, but you simply cannot trust these sources in these cases. You cannot trust the deniers either, no doubt. I think it's pretty obvious that the planet is warming and it is very likely caused by man. It will eventually cause problems. People put their money where their mouths are, though, and the people in Manhattan and Florida are not believers, you can see that reflected in the property values there near the coast. People are not lying when they are rightly skeptical of this whole thing. I am a born skeptic too, so I cannot help it.
Think about what you are saying with your Club of Rome argument. It is logically spurious. The problem you say is that people are (or will be) suffering, and that this can only be alleviated by eliminating those people. I could be more generous and say that the proposed solution is to discourage reproduction. Either way, the message is clear: people are bad, or a nuisance, or something. Whenever I hear this utter rubbish I want to use the snarky comeback: Take up Michael Jackson's advice and start with the man in the mirror. You are free to remove yourself from our midst. Put your theory into practice and off yourself to help the world's population problem. Insane, I know. I say that to point out the insanity of the Club of Rome proposition.
Yes, people are prospering. If not, how is it that they are reproducing so much and living so long? Your argument seems to say that because there are poor people, and income gaps, then the solution is less people. What? I guess therefore you are going to ask poor people to simply not exist, or not reproduce, just because they have less income than the rich? For real? You point out valid issues of social justice and then link it to over-population. It's like saying: Because you will not live as well as another, it is better that you not exist at all. Most population growth is among the less developed (economically) nations.
As for the USA statements you make. The easy retort is that, like always, people around the world want to come here, and in fact in droves they risk their lives to come here. That has not changed in over 200 years and won't change soon. You see a practically non-existent emigration rate from the US and the USA consistently enjoys the world's highest rates in patriotism surveys. Meaning, US citizens love the US more than any other country's citizens love their own. We have a very difficult time uprooting our military bases from foreign countries. Despite what they say, they really do want our protection. Don't be fooled by what you read from Leftist propaganda. It's all bluster what they say, and not worthy of serious consideration.
Last, material goods and wealth are largely illusory (so far as being a true good). Most people on the planet know this instinctively to some degree or other. They are happy. You cannot say on the one hand that materialism is bad (which is true, we agree), but then social justice requires more material goods for the poor. Again, you are prescribing something you admit is bad as a solution to right a wrong. I don't want to sound callous here, because as I said earlier, there is plenty to discuss regarding social justice and meaning in life. This song is a good starting point. I am sure we'd agree on a lot.
Is that you, Jimmy...?
Wonder what noises you're making?
Doing things more efficiently only leads to more usage of whatever it is you are making more efficient.
What concerns me is that birth rates among people from liberal democracies are declining. We need more people, not less, who will carry the torch.
It worries me that environmentalists do not see this. Environmentalism obfuscates the truly pressing issue facing mankind - the end of liberal democracy (think of 9/11). It seems rather obvious to me that science will address the issues that concern environmentalists. It does not seem at all obvious to me that environmentalists understand more serious threats to humanity.
To me, it's a peculiar logic that presupposes the existence of more human beings as a bad thing. More people are living and prospering than ever. This is called progress, this is good, unequivocally.
I don't think this song is about environmentalism at all though. Materialism is not fulfilling. It leads to an empty existence and there is plenty to talk about there. As in, how can we make our lives more meaningful? Pursuing more and more material things is not the way. That is what this song is saying.
"Luxury, so far as it reaches the people, will do good to the race of people; it will strengthen and multiply them. Sir, no nation was ever hurt by luxury; for, as I said before; it can reach but a very few. - Samuel Johnson
I can see what you are trying to say, but I seriously disagree. In a world where resources are already strained to the limit, how can more people be a good thing? The Great Lakes, the source of fresh water for millions of people is at it's lowest average level ever recorded, food is getting harder and harder to get in non-industrialized nations, global oil reserves are running down where the majority of what is left is harder to extract and of lesser quality (not that burning more oil is a good thing anyway), and expanding populations are threatening biodiversity all over the world. Can you explain to me how that is a good thing?
As to your point about it being obvious that science will address the issues that concern environmentalists... I wouldn't say that is the case. Environmentalists have been screaming since the 70s that we are harming the globe with emissions and little has been done about that. Water desalinization works, but it's cost effective to serve as a primary water source for places like Vegas that is fighting over water supplies with it's neighbors. Sure, cars and trucks are belching less smog into the air, but there are more cars on the road than ever, so I'd call that a wash. What about pesticides and animal waste getting into the local water supplies? If we have more people, we will need more chemicals to grow more food and more animals to eat (and since animals shit and that shit has to go somewhere...)
Do you really think that more and more people are prospering? Look at the divide between the rich and poor. Look at the shrinking middle class. Look at the ever widening racial education gap. This is not prospering, this is surviving, barely. And it's getting worse world wide.
And how can you say that the decline of populations in liberal democracies is the biggest threat to humanity? Would you really hold up the US as the bastion of human achievement? Our "democracy" spends more time shooting itself in the foot as it does actually accomplishing anything. We are our own biggest threat. We make better weapons to kill each other, which breeds hatred and resentment world wide, which leads to terrorism (to point to your 9\11 reference).
There are MUCH bigger problems facing humanity then lower populations in democratic nations.
I do agree however with your arguments about materialism.
with his Mother and Father. His actions were a reaction to that
situation. I know what he thought he was trying to say, but the sad
truth a young life was wasted, for what...... nothing.
Jonas, do a little research. Wanting more everything for everyone is the reason we are headed for a cliff. "It would take more than five Earths to be able to sustain the world population if everyone consumed resources at the same rate as the United States, according to the New Economics Foundation (NEF)."
Yes, to stave off the disaster we do have to reduce our expectations, but we don't have to live in a cave. We can buy a lot of time by simply doing things smarter and more efficiently.
Doing things more efficiently only leads to more usage of whatever it is you are making more efficient.
What concerns me is that birth rates among people from liberal democracies are declining. We need more people, not less, who will carry the torch.
It worries me that environmentalists do not see this. Environmentalism obfuscates the truly pressing issue facing mankind - the end of liberal democracy (think of 9/11). It seems rather obvious to me that science will address the issues that concern environmentalists. It does not seem at all obvious to me that environmentalists understand more serious threats to humanity.
To me, it's a peculiar logic that presupposes the existence of more human beings as a bad thing. More people are living and prospering than ever. This is called progress, this is good, unequivocally.
I don't think this song is about environmentalism at all though. Materialism is not fulfilling. It leads to an empty existence and there is plenty to talk about there. As in, how can we make our lives more meaningful? Pursuing more and more material things is not the way. That is what this song is saying.
"Luxury, so far as it reaches the people, will do good to the race of people; it will strengthen and multiply them. Sir, no nation was ever hurt by luxury; for, as I said before; it can reach but a very few. - Samuel Johnson
I'm assuming you are talking about solar power. Currently, solar does not have a positive ROI in terms of energy (in many cases it does have positive ROI in terms of money though). This is because current solar panels require rare metals to produce, and although these metals aren't really "rare" now, if our current energy supply was entirely in the form of solar panels we wouldn't have nearly enough of these rare metals. Thus, as more and more panels get produced eventually these rare metals will become scarce and cause the price of creating solar panels to rise. However, they are working on ways to produce solar panels without these rare metals, but these panels aren't very efficient yet. I don't know much about these new panels, they may or may not have a positive energy ROI. At any rate, my point is that what you suggest wouldn't solve all of our problems until we have panels with positive energy ROI.
RP has introduced me to many new2me musicians... I am grateful... life is very empty without music and new ideas, new stream of thought, new means of expressing the view of strangers...and we're no so very different after all... are we-?
Damn straight, once the easy oil dries up and it will within a few decades, we might get a sad little lesson in "the least available resource constrains carrying capacity of an ecosystem". Whether it turns out to be food sans oil inputs to the food chain (reducing yields dramatically) or whatever else, we're gonna wish Eddie and all the other rich leftie rock stars had hit us over the head with musical 2x4's when there was still time to get our collective act together. You aren't going to see any reasonable adjustment to the other side of the Hubbert Curve that doesn't involve major wars and chaos, I don't care how many Farm Aids we throw together. Several billion deaths will not be a pretty sight. So whine/growl away Eddie, give it your best shot. All bets off if an energy solution from outside the current physics paradigm emerges (Blacklight Power, Steorn, whatever).
You can have it all today—without oil, coal, Steorn, or Blacklight Power. All you need to do is say: "I agree to pay fifteen cents for a kilowatt hour for electricity," and all your problems are solved. But you're too cheap to say that. Well, not you personally, of course. You are obviously an enlightened and generous soul. I mean: "you" the statistical consumer. You cheap bastard.
People know perfectly-well how to harvest energy—as much as you could ever want, forever. The problem is: It's cheaper to dig black rocks out of the ground and burn them. Good job...ya buncha cheapskates.
What would a world with fifteen cent electricity look like? It would look like the world today, except Civilization would be sustainable, the atmosphere would be stable, there would be less black goop in the water, and various West Virginia mountains would continue to be mountains. And your electricity bill would be higher. Boo freakin' hoo. You cheap bastard.
Eddie Vedder should write a song called "Boo Freakin' Hoo, You Cheap Bastard." That would be awesome!
Bosami wrote:
The movie is great - the book as well. (The book is actually better but you don't get the songs of Vedder.)
The book is better simply because it's YOUR imagination and the references to your life, your experiences that help to paint this picture of finding oneself in the wilderness.
I lived in the west as a child, and although I never hitchhiked across this country, I did ride across it in the back of a Volkswagen Squareback 4 times (and we did not take the highways but rode the backroads of this great country). Images that will forever change a soul. Better than today with our kids glued to the DVD player attached to the ceiling of the minivan!
As a teenager, I lived in Northern New York. Cold winters. Images of being truly lost in the woods. Night is falling. It's 20 below zero. And your five miles from home. Soaking wet from falling through the ice on your cross country skis. Life is getting short. Cold is getting closer to your bones. Not going to succumb. Don't lay down on the snow. Keep fighting. Go see your mother. She's worried. Standing by the window waiting for her son.
I am lucky. This poor kid was not. But he made alot of wrong choices. You don't escape mankind by sleeping in an abandoned schoolbus. But the author paints a very good story. Jon Krakauer wrote a very, very good book. Books are meant to be read. Not watched on TV or in the movies by others that read the book. Read first, watch later, make your own interpretation.
Take the Bourne Identity Series. Very good movies. But even better books. Much better books.
Read people. Read books. Let's not lose our literary heritage.
I thought the movie was great until I found out how much of it was lies to make a more interesting story. Thankfully the music is truthful.
I think you are making too much out of that.
I've read the book "Into the Wild".
It gives more of the story than a movie can,
And yes, the movie adjusts the story a little.
But movies almost always have to do that in order to tell the story in a short period of time.
The film still does the real life story justice.
Bosami wrote:
The movie is great - the book as well. (The book is actually better but you don't get the songs of Vedder.)
This album was given to me by the friend who told me about RP! Funny her name is Mary.
Jonas, do a little research. Wanting more everything for everyone is the reason we are headed for a cliff. "It would take more than five Earths to be able to sustain the world population if everyone consumed resources at the same rate as the United States, according to the New Economics Foundation (NEF)."
Yes, to stave off the disaster we do have to reduce our expectations, but we don't have to live in a cave. We can buy a lot of time by simply doing things smarter and more efficiently.
Damn straight, once the easy oil dries up and it will within a few decades, we might get a sad little lesson in "the least available resource constrains carrying capacity of an ecosystem". Whether it turns out to be food sans oil inputs to the food chain (reducing yields dramatically) or whatever else, we're gonna wish Eddie and all the other rich leftie rock stars had hit us over the head with musical 2x4's when there was still time to get our collective act together. You aren't going to see any reasonable adjustment to the other side of the Hubbert Curve that doesn't involve major wars and chaos, I don't care how many Farm Aids we throw together. Several billion deaths will not be a pretty sight. So whine/growl away Eddie, give it your best shot. All bets off if an energy solution from outside the current physics paradigm emerges (Blacklight Power, Steorn, whatever).