Gregory A Minahan

Someone is shy

Gregory A hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Gregory A Minahan
Posted over 1 year ago
Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
The scientific ability to revive species that have succumbed to the onslaught of humanity is invaluable. As a solution to the further extinction of additional species, however, it is moot ...until we negotiate within our own species how to alleviate that very onslaught of humanity that is throwing all other species out of kilter. There is nothing sacrosanct about any particular species. They come and go all the time ...particularly at the minute level. Still, it seems a given that the overabundance of the human species is disproportionately at the core of altogether too many other specie extinctions. Extinctions continue daily; sometimes at the conspicuous level of a mammal, an aquatic predator, or a bee; most often at the invisible level of the microbe. Yet our own species has yet to even begin to deal with the responsibility inherent in the fact that we are now not only a species, but a society. We have yet to seriously attempt to self-regulate our own fecundity sufficiently to relieve the pressure upon our fellow species. China tried for a while, but has only recently capitulated to the demand for more bodies to feed its new-found commu-capitalist machine. It truly boils down to space (...the final frontier), geographic, demographic, and economic. Cattle can only do their grass seed disseminating thing if there is sufficient non-humanized space for them in which to eat and shit. The poaching of elephant tusks will only end when there are is no longer a fringe of unemployed, unneeded humanity desperate for a means to survive. The balance of natural evolution with the evolution of human society can only be maintained when there is sufficient planetary real estate allocated to each. We can only ever succeed in retaining or recreating at-risk species if we learn to preserve the requisite space for them to thrive by halting the encroachment of humanity. i would love to chat with Mr Brand about this over a glass of sherry.
Noface
Gregory A Minahan
Posted over 1 year ago
Robin Nagle: What I discovered in New York City trash
Lovely presentation! Thank you for your effort and intimate research. It seems to me that what you are addressing is the ultimate relationship between growth and sustainability. Sustainability is a term to which we have already become acclimated as a political brand. But what it finally refers to is maintenance. This is why your research is so powerful. Processing trash is the essence of sustainability, because it maintains our ability to grow. Yet is is hidden within the mundane task of simply disappearing waste. "Getting rid of" is the immediate solution to an environmental need that blindly presupposes the question of: "to where", in a world in which "to where" is a diminishing coodity. The world around us is devoted to the idea of growth. Yet, it is inevitable that growth will run up against resources. As clever as we may be, there is only so much you can do to sustain an ever-increasing population with a finite set of resources. Sooner or later, for better or worse, we will need to address the idea that at least 90% of our efforts need be devoted to sustainability ...i.e. maintenance of what we already have. We grow together upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us. Ennobilizing the human infrastructure that maintains our growth economy is a valiant effort. There might come a day when those who serve to maintain the infrastructure we already share will be as valued as those who open up new paths to growth. There is so much work to be done, and only 10% has anything to do with enterpreneurialism or growth. The rest is processing the waste of too many people. It is all necessary, yet the balance of priorities is seriously out of kilter. Thanks again for your research. G
Noface
Gregory A Minahan
Posted almost 3 years ago
If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?
It seems to me that the whole drama is much more temporally variable. We speak of the big band "happening" all at once, which, of course, begs the question of what came before. Then we try and break down what may have "happened" in the first units of time, which runs roughshod over our own simultaneous supposition that time, like space, was only just being created. How do you measure something with something that is yet nonexistent? Time and space are somehow identical. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot use one to measure the other. Imagine instead that the whole process is ongoing. The bang is forever "happening". Time, along with space, is not so much expanding as accumulating. If Einstein was on the mark in supposing that time slows down as we approach the speed of light, then we might conclude that time halts once the speed of light is reached. A photon traveling, naturally, at the speed of light would take "no time at all" to wander freely through the universe. In fact, it might roam playfully about CREATING the universe, outside of time as we know it, accumulating both space and time in its abandon. Then that photon might step into time at will to perceive and enjoy its own creation. Just a playful little analogy ...but it helps me to break free of the philosophical conundrums with which science often leaves us.