According to American Parents Going to the Dogs…, a recent Wall Street Journal article, a lot of baby boomer moms are successfully avoiding the “empty-nest” syndrome. Their children may have left home but the mothers are still managing schedules and acting as chauffeurs. Only now they’re not taking their children to various lessons and activities, they’re taking their dogs.
I think it’s a great idea. It makes it easier for the mothers to let go, which gives the young adults more freedom to live their own lives without parental interference. And, of course, the dogs love it. 🙂
What do you think? Have you ever had experience with the empty-nest syndrome, either as the parent or as the young adult?
Empty nest is only two months away for us! I have been pretending nothing will actually change, so I won’t need to face it until it is here.
My wife wants to travel some more, and that will be hard to do with a doggie.
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
Yes. When they all left the house was quiet. I like noise & activity. Nobody around. I like people, especially my own.
Opps I forgot. I don’t own them.
Looney,
I get the impression that traveling with a dog is a lot easier now than it used to be. The last two times Kaitlin and Torben came to visit (from the Chicago area to New Mexico) they took Sammy and Banshee with them. They’re (were, Banshee passed away several months ago) not small dogs. K and T didn’t seem to have that much trouble finding motels on the way and they stayed in a motel while they were here.
The funny thing about the article is one couple traveled 150 miles one weekend to take their dog to one of the events. So apparently having a dog can make one travel more rather than less. 🙂
How many children do you have?
bikehikebabe,
That must have been quite a change for you. I was lucky that I had found the best job of my life before Kaitlin left for college. It definitely made the transition easier. In your case a houseful of pets might have solved the noise and activity problem. 🙂
I got more into biking & hiking.
Jean, I have two of my own and have also been taking care of two nephews. My wife’s relatives live in Taiwan, Singapore and Indonesia. We would also like to see more of Europe. Thus, the complication of foreign travel with dogs.
But maybe I could find a way to settle down in New Mexico after the travel bug dies down and give myself to a dog who would lead me on runs down the various trails …
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
Fishin’ for an invite. You got one. I live in NM. Also I was born in Indonesia.
BHB, I don’t quite need an invite to be attracted to NM!
I am still wondering how it was that you were born on Sumatra. My understanding was that this was the most foreigner unfriendly part.
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
learn something new everyday–I’ve always said IN Sumatra. But after all it’s ON Sumatra, an island.
My father was working for Standard Oil. He invented the filter that makes the oil light instead of dark.
Looney,
I agree, foreign travel is a completely different matter. Around here people usually try to get a dog/house sitter if they’re going to be gone for any length of time. My daughter has also sometimes had her dogs housed in kennels for shorter trips. It’s not as nice for the dogs, but the other day while taking a walk Sammy saw the fellow who used to pick him up to take him to the kennel. Sammy insisted on going up to him and saying hello, so the experience couldn’t have been a bad one.
I agree that NM is a great place to have a dog. They love to go on hikes.
The other day I read an obituary of a local fellow who died of complications from chemotherapy. The obituary mentioned his dog who gave him great pleasure the past two years. The dog was always upbeat and a joy to have around. They enjoyed many walks together. That touched my heart.
Earlier today I learn from my mother (who is the family’s minefield of information) that my youngest sister is already consoling herself that when her husband (he is seventeen years older than her) has bitten the dust and her four children flown the nest her HORSE will be a great source of comfort to her. Luckily I wasn’t sitting down when hearing this otherwise I’d have fallen off my chair.
I never realised people plan that far ahead: I am happy to just wake up tomorrow morning. What is she talking about? Her youngest son has only just started school, secondly her husband might live into his nineties by which time Cornelia herself might be too old for the saddle. Indeed, the horse itself might be on its last hoof by then. Never mind … my original family makes me shake my head at the best of times.
My mother was great when I fell out of the nest (my father wasn’t; he hit the roof). There was not an ounce of guilt inducing sentimentality on her part. Her theory being that the greatest proof of love for your child is by letting him/her go without sniffles. Not that she doesn’t cry on the rare occasions I briefly return to the motherland.
As to cats and dogs, as much as they make me smile, once my son’s second cat has kicked the bucket that’ll be it for me. Not least because I can’t stand the worry what would become of a pet once I am not around any longer. That’s why I never acquired a baby tortoise or an elephant. They can live till 150.
U
Ursula,
I think your sister is a wise woman. She realizes her life will eventually drastically change and she’s mentally preparing for it. That frees her to enjoy the present while it’s still here. Sure she might change her mind. So what? She can just make other plans when the time comes.
Old habits die hard.
My youngest is six, so my empty nest is a long way off. I have loads of interests and don’t really live through my kids, love them though I do. I think I’ll be fine when the situations comes….
.-= gaelikaa´s last blog ..Back In Time… =-.
Jean, in response of yours to my comment. Wise? Maybe. What does it matter how one qualifies things? All in the eye of the beholder. One thing Cornelia most certainly is: Pragmatic with a big P.
May I say one thing, Jean, and I hope this won’t go down the wrong tube: You have a way of giving me feedback (sometimes, not always) I do struggle with. A bucket of cold water thrown at me couldn’t do a better job to deflate me.
U
Ursula, I don’t see a bucket of cold water here. Nothing about you. Just a different view about your sister. I know the feeling though. Tom does this to me all the time. (– Why can’t he agree with me!)
gaelikaa,
Having interests of your own, that’s the key. I have no doubt you will do just fine.
Ursula,
Interesting. My impression was you try to stir up controversy by expressing strong opinions. Yet you don’t like it when other people do the same? I’m clearly misreading you. More information would be greatly appreciated. Curiosity is my middle name. 🙂
My first thought was the old phrase, “You can dish it out, but can’t take it.” Of course I wouldn’t say that. I love you, U.
Jean manages to say, nicely & I’m not so crushed. But I sometimes think, why can’t she agree with me? However I dislike the syrupy, gushing ” please like me” responses I see on comments.
bikehikebabe,
Thank you. 🙂
I don’t have this experience
I am not sure how my Mother felt when it was decided that I leave home at 18 and go and live with an older sister – 12000mls away in UK! But I wasn’t worried it such an adventure away from severely tied apron strings…
I love living alone 90% of the time – as long as I go out at least 5 days of the week and view the world around me.
.-= Cathy in NZ´s last blog ..surprises! =-.
We had it first when Ranjan went to boarding school for three years. It happened again when he went down to Bangalore after college to work for a year. The two of us got used to it, I more than Urmeela. After he came back to Pune to take on another employment she was extremely happy. Since then he has stayed at home even during his five years of married life. This is quite common in India and since my ex daughter in law’s parents also lived close by, it was quite palatable when she moved out. Now my nest is three generations of men under one roof. A dog? No thank you.
.-= Rummuser´s last blog ..When Will They Ever Learn – II =-.
Cathy,
That must have been hard on your mother but a great adventure for you!
Rummuser,
Yes, your nest is not empty. 🙂 I think stay-at-home mothers are more apt to feel the house is empty when the children leave. Much more so when the husband and wife don’t live in an extended family.
Wheee, Fell onto this blog. Haven’t decided where to move on to. Harvard law school or Fix Me Beauty school here *which would be cheeper. decisions decisions
Gail,
Harvard Law School doesn’t sound like much fun to me. The people I’ve met from Harvard tended to be pretty snooty and lawyers aren’t known for their sense of humor.
Gail,
In fairness to Harvard graduates, Robert Sapolsky has a great sense of humor and is the opposite of arrogant. He’s famous for his study of stress in baboons and for his sense of humor. I especially love this picture of him:
Jean, lawyers have a sense of humour so dry that if you so much as sneeze in their vicinity there will be dust particles flying around. Bringing back fond memories of one the greatest guys I have ever had the pleasure to work for – some thirty years ago. He is long retired now.
You know the shit in your life has really hit the fan when your solicitor (no joke) prays for you. It happened to me two or three years ago when, all aquiver, I was sitting there hoping for some loophole in the legal system. He didn’t even charge me for his time – which worried me even more.
U
On my email List I get, but only from 3 lawyers, feedback to put me in my place when they disagree. Actually my friend from back home isn’t a lawyer but her father’s a lawyer, her husband’s a lawyer & her son is a lawyer. (lot of dust particles flying around)
Oh Gail, shut up. Stop trying to act smart.
Maybe y’all can give me some advice: I was taught to despise lawyers growing up, but over the years I have accumulated two dear friends who are lawyers. It is all a bit disconcerting. I cannot let go of the anti-lawyer meta-narrative that I grew up with, yet I would be broken hearted if something I did or said were to upset the relationship with my two lawyer friends. Any suggestions?
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
Say & do anything you want. Be YOU. Lawyer friends will tell you what they think, but they are loyal friends. You can’t get rid of ’em.
I was glad to leave the nest.
One son gone and the other hanging on because he cannot find affordable accommodation. He is being thoroughly spoiled by Lady Magpie.
Perhaps I should leave and find another nest?
About Baboons and stress: I’d be stressed if I suddenly saw a character like that sitting next to me… for a while at least.
As for Lawyers: There are Lawyers and there are Lawyers. Too many of the latter IMHO.
.-= Magpie 11´s last blog ..Modern Myths =-.
Ursula,
That’s almost as bad as when a doctor asked a fellow I knew, “Tell me, Mr. ____, do you believe in God?” The fellow passed on not too long afterward.
To be fair I’ve had a couple of lawyers with a sense of humor. One used to suggest in talks she gave, “To my loyal lawyer I leave all of my possessions.” It always got a laugh.
Gail,
I wonder how being surrounded by lawyers is different from being surrounded by scientists?
Looney,
If your friends know your background and that you like them personally I wouldn’t worry about it. You might suggest they tell you if you slip into old patterns. Ask for their help in changing a habit.
Magpie 11,
Don’t you just love that picture? I just ordered his book A Primates Memoir because of the picture.
Yes, there are lawyers and lawyers. We’ve had a few and some of them I really liked and appreciated.
You leave the nest? I don’t know about that but it sounds as if your wife isn’t doing your son a favor.
Looney, your narrative illustrates why one should never ask anyone “And what do YOU do?”. Prejudice will be yours.
I usually answer the question with “Nothing” and three months in – once we have established that there is potential for friendship – I drop bombshell that I am a Russian spy by which time it doesn’t matter.
U
Youngest is constantly looking for places to live. Cost these days is so high! He works hard actually. His 8 hour days end up as 12 and no chance of overtime pay…
Ursula…. and I’m Tsar of all the Russias (I pinched that from, IIRC, Dorothy Parker)
.-= Magpie 11´s last blog ..Modern Myths =-.
Ursula, aren’t Russian spies a bit commonplace?
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
Ursula, I should clarify that last comment:
Jean and BHB live near Los Alamos where everyone is a Russian spy, unless they are a French, Israeli or Chinese spy. The only way to make your neighbors raise their eyebrow is to tell them you are a spy for Burkina Faso.
Here in Fremont where I live, everyone has close Asian relatives. It they want a wife, they send an e-mail to Ramana to find out who is available. A novelty is when someone has lived here for three generations and all their relatives are local.
BHB, however, was born as a foreigner in Sumatra, which is truly a novelty!
.-= Looney´s last blog .. =-.
The novelty about Los Alamos is that I hear many different languages. I ask what it is, if I don’t know, so that I can identify spoken languages.
(We live IN Los Alamos.)
Looney,
Russian spies? How outdated. As I recall after the Cold War ended our government actually invited the Russians and Chinese to visit our laboratories. Then there was the Wen Ho Lee fiasco where we thought one scientist passed crucial information to the Chinese. My guess is now we’re more worried about terrorists and hacking, especially by the Chinese. It’s too hard to keep up. 🙂
How about a forcible “empty nest”? I have not seen my daughter since December and, before that, September. I did anything I could to keep us together as a family and miss her every day. Dogs could not replace her, and nothing will replace her lost innocence, either. I know it is quite commonplace for families to split, but that doesn’t make it any easier for me; I just hope she is happy without me.
Mark,
My heart goes out to you. How old is she?
Mark, my heart goes out to you too.
Thank you, Jean: she is eleven, going on twelve, and just forced to get used to her 7th school since starting. She has always been good at making friends, but it would be nice for her to be allowed to keep them.
Thank you also for your comment, bhb.
I don’t think global wairmng is not a threat at all but the environmentalists say it is.The reason behind it is given:-It is customary for old-fashioned religion to threaten those whose way of life is not to its satisfaction, with the prospect of hell in the afterlife. Substitute for the afterlife, life on earth in centuries to come, and it is possible to see that environmentalism and the rest of the left are now doing essentially the same thing. They hate the American way of life because of its comfort and luxury, which they contemptuously dismiss as “conspicuous consumption.” And to frighten people into abandoning it, they are threatening them with a global-wairmng version of hell.This is not yet so open and explicit as to be obvious to everyone. Nevertheless, it is clearly present. It is hinted at in allusions to the possibility of temperature increases beyond the likely range of 3.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit projected in the recent United Nations report on global wairmng. For example, according to The New York Times, “the report says there is a more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater wairmng, a risk that many experts say is far too high to ignore.”Environmentalist threats of hell can be expected to become more blatant and shrill if the movement’s present efforts to frighten the people of the United States into supporting its program of caps and reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions appear to be insufficient. Hell is the environmentalists’ ultimate threat.So let us assume that it were true that global wairmng might proceed to such an extent as to cause temperature and/or sea-level increases so great as to be simply intolerable or, indeed, literally to roast and boil the earth. Even so, it would still not follow that industrial civilization should be abandoned or in any way compromised. In that case, all that would be necessary is to seek out a different means of deliberately cooling the earth.It should be realized that the environmentalists’ policy of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is itself a policy of cooling the earth. But it is surely among the most stupid and self-destructive such policies imaginable. What it claims is that if we destroy our capacity to produce and operate refrigerators and air conditioners, we shall be better protected from hot weather than if we retain and enlarge that capacity. What it claims is that if we destroy the energy base needed to produce and operate the construction equipment required to build strong, well-made, comfortable houses for hundreds of millions of people, we shall be safer from hurricanes and floods than if we retain and enlarge that energy base. This is the meaning of the claim that retaining and enlarging this capacity will bring highly destructive global wairmng, while destroying it will avoid such global wairmng.In contrast to the policy of the environmentalists, there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists.Ironically, the core principle of one such method has been put forward by voices within the environmental movement itself, though not at all for this purpose. Years ago, back in the days of the Cold War, many environmentalists raised the specter of a “nuclear winter.” According to them, a large-scale atomic war could be expected to release so much particulate matter into the atmosphere as to block out sunlight and cause weather so severely cold that crops would not be able to grow.Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of the internet, describes the mechanism as follows:Large quantities of aerosol particles dispersed into the atmosphere would significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that reached the surface, and could potentially remain in the stratosphere for months or even years. The ash and dust would be carried by the midlatitude west-to-east winds, forming a uniform belt of particles encircling the northern hemisphere from 30b0 to 60b0 latitude (as the main targets of most nuclear war scenarios are located almost exclusively in these latitudes). The dust clouds would then block out much of the sun’s light, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically.Certainly, there is no case to be made for an atomic war. But there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70b0 latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. The detonation of these bombs would operate in the same manner as described above, but the effect would be a belt of particles starting at a latitude of 70b0 instead of 30b0. The presence of those particles would serve to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching most of the Arctic’s surface. The effect would be to maintain the frigid climate of the region and to prevent the further melting of its ice or, if necessary, to increase the amount of its ice. Moreover, the process could be conducted starting on a relatively small scale, and then proceed slowly. This would allow essential empirical observations to be made and also allow the process to be stopped at any time before it went too far.This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global wairmng and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global wairmng so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.If there is any remnant of the left of an earlier era, which still respected science and technology, and championed industrial civilization, it might be expected to offer additional possible solutions for excessive global wairmng, probably solutions of a kind requiring grandiose construction projects. For example, one might expect to hear from it proposals for ringing North Africa and Australia with desalinization plants powered by atomic energy. The purpose would be to bring massive amounts of fresh water to the Sahara Desert and the deserts of Australia, with the further purpose of making possible the growth of billions of trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Another possibility would be an alternative proposal simply to pump an amount of sea water into confined areas in those deserts sufficient to provide an outlet for a growing volume of global seawater other than heavily inhabited coastal regions. (I would not be ready to endorse any such costly proposals, but they would be a vast improvement over the left’s only current proposal, which is simply the crippling of industrial civilization.)Once people begin to put their minds to the problem, it is possible that a variety of effective and relatively low-cost solutions for global wairmng will be found. The two essential parameters of such a solution would be the recognition of the existence of possibly excessive global wairmng, on the one side, and unswerving loyalty to the value of the American standard of living and the American way of life, on the other. That is, more fundamentally, unswerving loyalty to the values of individual freedom, continuing economic progress, and the maintenance and further development of industrial civilization and its foundation of man-made power.Global wairmng is not a threat. But environmentalism’s destructive response to it is.In claims to want to act in the name of avoiding the risk of alleged dreadful dangers lying decades and centuries in the future. But its means of avoiding those alleged dangers is to rush ahead today to cripple industrial civilization by means of crippling its essential foundation of man-made power. In so doing, it gives no consideration whatever to the risks of this or to any possible alternatives to this policy. It contents itself with offering to the public what is virtually merely the hope and prayer of the timely discovery of radically new alternative technologies to replace the ones it seeks to destroy. Such pie in the sky is a nothing but a lie, intended to prevent people from recognizing the plunge in their standard of living that will result if the environmentalists’ program is enacted.As I’ve written before, if the economic progress of the last two hundred years or more is to continue, if its existing benefits are to be maintained and enlarged, the people of the United States, and hopefully of the rest of the world as well, must turn their backs on environmentalism. They must recognize it for the profoundly destructive, misanthropic philosophy that it is.They must solve any possible problem of global wairmng on the foundation of industrial civilization, not on a foundation of its ruins.The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released the summary of its latest, forthcoming report on global wairmng. It’s most trumpeted finding is that the existence of global wairmng is now “unequivocal.”Although such anecdotal evidence as January’s snowfall in Tucson, Arizona and freezing weather in Southern California and February’s more than 100-inch snowfall in upstate New York might suggest otherwise, global wairmng may indeed be a fact. It may also be a fact that it is a by-product of industrial civilization (despite, according to The New York Times of November 7, 2006, two ice ages having apparently occurred in the face of carbon levels in the atmosphere 16 times greater than that of today, millions of years before mankind’s appearance on earth).If global wairmng and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them? Does it follow that there is a need to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions and the use of the fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—that gives rise to the emissions? The need for such limitation and/or rollback is the usual assumption.Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing whatever follows from these facts. Before any implication for action can be present, additional information is required.One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global wairmng. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global wairmng, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global wairmng that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global wairmng should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.Modern, industrial civilization and its further development are values that we dare not sacrifice if we value our material well-being, our health, and our very lives. It is what has enabled billions more people to survive and to live longer and better. Here in the United States it has enabled the average person to live at a level far surpassing that of kings and emperors of a few generations ago.The foundation of this civilization has been, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, the use of fossil fuels.Of course, there are projections of unlikely but nevertheless possible extreme global wairmng in the face of which conditions would be intolerable. To deal with such a possibility, it is necessary merely to find a different method of cooling the earth than that of curtailing the use of fossil fuels. Such methods are already at hand, as I will explain in an article that will appear shortly.In fact, if it comes, global wairmng, in the projected likely range, will bring major benefits to much of the world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time, will shorten important shipping routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Strangely, these facts are rarely mentioned. Instead, attention is devoted almost exclusively to the negatives associated with global wairmng, above all to the prospect of rising sea levels, which the report projects to be between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100, a range, incidentally, that by itself does not entail major coastal flooding. (There are, however, projections of a rise in sea levels of 20 feet or more over the course of the remainder of the present millennium.)Yes, rising sea levels may cause some islands and coastal areas to become submerged under water and require that large numbers of people settle in other areas. Surely, however, the course of a century, let alone a millennium, should provide ample opportunity for this to occur without any necessary loss of life.Indeed, a very useful project for the UN’s panel to undertake in preparation for its next report would be a plan by which the portion of the world not threatened with rising sea levels would accept the people who are so threatened. In other words, instead of responding to global wairmng with government controls, in the form of limitations on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, an alternative response would be devised that would be a solution in terms of greater freedom of migration.In addition, the process of adaptation here in the United States would be helped by making all areas determined to be likely victims of coastal flooding in the years ahead ineligible for any form of governmental aid, insurance, or disaster relief that is not already in force. Existing government guarantees should be phased out after a reasonable grace period. Such measures would spur relocation to safer areas in advance of any future flooding.Emissions Caps Mean ImpoverishmentThe environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life, which it regards merely as one of earth’s “biota,” of no greater value than any other life form, such as spotted owls or snail darters. To it, the loss of industrial civilization is of no great consequence. It is a boon.But to everyone else, it would be an immeasurable catastrophe: the end of further economic progress and the onset of economic retrogression, with no necessary stopping point. Today’s already widespread economic stagnation is the faintest harbinger of the conditions that would follow.A regime of limitations on the emission of greenhouse gases means that all technological advances requiring an increase in the total consumption of man-made power would be impossible to implement. At the same time, any increase in population would mean a reduction in the amount of man-made power available per capita. (Greater production of atomic power, which produces no emissions of any kind, would be an exception. But it is opposed by the environmentalists even more fiercely than is additional power derived from fossil fuels.)To gauge the consequences, simply imagine such limits having been imposed a generation or two ago. If that had happened, where would the power have come from to produce and operate all of the new and additional products we take for granted that have appeared over these years? Products such as color television sets and commercial jets, computers and cell phones, CDs and DVDs, lasers and MRIs, satellites and space ships? Indeed, the increase in population that has taken place over this period would have sharply reduced the standard of living, because the latter would have been forced to rest on the foundation of the much lower per capita man-made power of an earlier generation.Now add to this the effects of successive reductions in the production of man-made power compelled by the imposition of progressively lower ceilings on greenhouse-gas emissions, ceilings as low as 75 or even 40 percent of today’s levels. (These ceilings have been advocated by Britain’s Stern Report and by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel, respectively.) Inasmuch as these ceilings would be global ceilings, any increase in greenhouse-gas emissions taking place in countries such as China and India would be possible only at the expense of even further reductions in the United States, whose energy consumption is the envy of the world.All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.Already, led by French President Jacques Chirac, forces are gathering to make non-compliance with emissions caps an international crime. Given such developments, it is absolutely vital that the United States never enter into any international treaty in which it agrees to caps on greenhouse-gas emissions.if the economic progress of the last two hundred years or more is to continue, if its existing benefits are to be maintained and enlarged, the people of the United States, and hopefully of the rest of the world as well, must turn their backs on environmentalism. They must recognize it for the profoundly destructive, misanthropic philosophy that it is. They must solve any possible problem of global wairmng on the foundation of industrial civilization, not on a foundation of its ruins.
Well, I have suddenly received the above in my in-box> Whoever lakshay is I have no idea. However, I made an attempt to read the missive and failed.
Might I suggest that he/she edits the whole bang shoot so that it has some structure and is at least readable?
David,
Thanks for commenting. I wondered if I should have approved the comment because it was so long. It could well have used a lot of editing but he/she did put a lot of work into it.