Doo Wop; That Thing; The Logics
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Trusted Clothes (Unpublished)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016
So, once again, we find ourselves in the roles of narrative-maker and reader. Is that breaking the fourth wall, third (?)? I don’t know. There are the aspects around natural fibres to begin with. Do you know about or have you heard about Lauryn Hill? Well, you should. Why? Hell if I know, but I get some joy listening to the music. Been listening to her while writing at times, annnnnd….cue the lyrics:
You act like you ain’t hear him then gave him a little trim
To begin, how you think you really gon’ pretend
Like you wasn’t down then you called him again
Plus when you give it up so easy you ain’t even fooling him
That’s pretty good, right? I think so. Let’s review what we know about fibres. Natural fibres are made of plant fibres, animal fibres, and mineral fibres.
I’ve written on some of these fibres in previous posts, and I had stated that natural fibres have only two categories: plant fibres and animal fibres. However, I was wrong. I recently learned about a new category: mineral fibres.
Civilizations around the world have used natural fibres, such as flax and wool, for millennia. Natural fibres are very different from synthetic, or man-made, fibres. Unlike natural fibres, synthetic fibres cannot decompose, which means they are polluting the environment. For instance, we have 4.54 trillion micro-plastics in our oceans, which affects the lifeforms in this ecosystem. In addition, we have a tremendous amount of plastics from synthetic fibres in landfills as well.
Synthetic fibres dominate – by more than two fold – the fibre industry. Natural fibres have less than half of the productive output in the global marketplace. That is concerning.
The productive cycle of synthetic fibres compared to the that of natural fibres is absurd.
While the production of the synthetic fibres takes time, once created, the fibres move directly on a one-way street to waste, whether into landfills or the ocean. Natural fibres, however, go back into the environment as they decompose, and then we harvest the fibres again.
Climate change is an immediate and ongoing concern. CO2 in the atmosphere is reflecting light from the sun back into the atmosphere at a higher rate annually. It is capturing certain wavelengths of light that would otherwise bounce off and go back into space. Long wavelength light is absorbed and re-emitted and stays within the Earth. We’re running the dumbest slow-cooker experiment in human history.
This is an alarming set of trends that started with the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution did improve our lives in many ways – in the developed nations. Nonetheless, the continuous burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor in overloading the Earth’s atmosphere with greenhouse gas emissions. Authors of professional reports and in the peer-reviewed academic journal articles have discussed these greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the Earth endlessly.
Of the experts who are spending their professional time researching the subject, 97% agree on the reality of global warming and its consequences. For instance, we are seeing glaciers and polar ice caps melting, extreme weather events, alarming transformations of the animal and human environments throughout the biosphere, and higher sea levels, which might sink coastal cities around the world by the end of this century.
So, we can see that the popular media, the academic world, and the general populace at large are increasingly throughout the world becoming more aware and active in terms of the knowledge and hoping to contribute to the reduction of the production of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. You may have heard of the phrase “carbon footprint.” That simply points to the measuring of peoples’ contributions to the global warming of the earth. It’s nothing esoteric. Nothing hard. It’s a simple trend line over time based on parts per millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is an extraordinarily strong positive correlation possibly because of the warming of the earth in addition to the concomitant effects that are listed before to do with melting of the glaciers, warming of the earth, sinking of the coastal cities and other populated places (usually the poor places of the world), rising sea levels, and other things. By which I mean, it’s obvious. I think the logic is another issue there was a famous logician named Kurt Gödel.
The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]
Said Kurt Gödel, which was pretty good, but not as punchy as this one:
But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.
Although, he shot himself in the foot with this one in contradistinction to the last one:
Reason and understanding concern two levels of concept. Dialectics and feelings are involved in reason.
Feelings ain’t so extraneous; or even with a hint of the metaphysical:
Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.
Or consider what a man named George Gilder (an American investor) to say about this man:
The progenitor of information theory, and perhaps the pivotal figure in the recent history of human thought, was Kurt Gödel, the eccentric Austriac genius and intimate of Einstein who drove determinism from its strongest and most indispensable redoubt; the coherence, consistency, and self-sufficiency of mathematics.
Gödel demonstrated that every logical scheme, including mathematics, is dependent upon axioms that it cannot prove and that cannot be reduced to the scheme itself.
With all this in mind, natural fibres in the natural fibre cycle, the synthetic or man-made one-way cycle, ethics, sustainability, environmentalism and environmental ethics, other global issues that could lead to ruin, and the importance of straightforward logic and not even the advanced form brought forth by Godel with the two incompleteness theorems, Tarski with the undefinability theorem, or any of the number of logics available (computational, formal, informal, mathematical, modal, philosophical, predicate, propositional, or – gasp! – non-computational).
The reasoning seems pretty clear. And I think if the ethic is pretty clear to, then the logic and reason is pretty clear, and therefore the feeling is pretty straightforward to me as well. It seems like an emotional imperative. Seems like enough fun. Rational does not preclude emotion. What do you think? About that thing? (Or those things.) We can change our habits and be ready for the future, and we can learn about it. Thankfully, it’s not hard to take it all in, that’s just life, right? Hill?:
This life is a process of learning.
And as with everything written, I could be wrong, incredibly wrong – think for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I’m human. I’m a writer. I have biases, fallibilities, and quirks – even some funny ones. My words aren’t gold, nor are they a calf. (And no bull!) Although, I will milk it.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 