is their any similarities between the book fahrenheit 451 and ouw world?

ouw world is undiscovered and thus undescribed by any celestial atlas at the present time. Best to check back periodically and look over the latest names added as new discoveries.

So, Nard, in a real sense, what you are saying is, "Their is no similarities!" Remember, the book was written in 1953 and this is now, what?, 2004!


[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 10-22-2004).]

fjpalumbo:

Nope. Didn't say that at all! Didn't mean that at all! There are fathoms of comparisons. Where does '''juschillen07''' want to begin?

Well, Nard, I can see it both ways!
I hope these brief discourses stimulated some original views for juschillen07, especially if the assignments are due really soon.

The scene in Fran�ois Truffaut's 451 movie of the monorail riders perusing the
"pictoral only" daily papers comes to mind!


[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 10-22-2004).]

Yeh thet wuz kewl cuz then they dident hav to bother with English wurds an all.

Fer sher.

Oh, this is too PRICELESS not to pass on! A friend (my age) was helping a 14-year-old boy with a project--obviously NOT reading or writing, probably a photography or recording project. The boy saw his bookshelf and said, "I don't understand why anyone would want to own a book." My friend was knocked SPEECHLESS! Would YOU have been able to answer?

I might perhaps have taken the largest, heaviest volume on the shelf...and whacked him round the head with it.

Phil

According to this it's time to start looking for another world.

GENEVA (Oct. 21) - People are plundering the world's resources at a pace that outstrips the planet's capacity to sustain life, the environmental group WWF said Thursday.

In its regular Living Planet Report, the World Wide Fund for Nature said humans currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the earth can produce.

Consumption of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil increased by almost 700 percent between 1961 and 2001, it said. But the planet is unable to move as fast to absorb the resulting carbon-dioxide emissions that degrade the earth's protective ozone layer.

"We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate," said WWF chief Claude Martin, launching the conservation body's 40-page study.

"We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the earth's ability to renew them."

Populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species fell on average by 40 percent between 1970 and 2000, the study said. It cited destruction of natural habitats, pollution, overfishing and the introduction by humans of nonnative animals, such as cats and rats, which often drive out indigenous species.

"The question is how the world's entire population live with the resources of one planet," said Jonathan Loh, one of the report's authors.

The study, WWF's fifth since 1998, examines the "ecological footprint" - or environmental impact - of the planet's 6.1 billion-strong population.

To calculate the average size of each person's footprint, it measures land use, pollution, energy consumption, and the level of carbon-dioxide emissions.

The impact of an average North American is double that of a European, but seven times that of the average Asian or African.

Overall, the biggest culprits are the residents of the United Arab Emirates, followed by the United States, Kuwait, Australia and Sweden. The least-damaging are residents of Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Tajikistan and Bangladesh.

Rich nations tread heavily on poorer countries, said Mathis Wacknagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, a grouping including WWF. For example, Western demand for of Asia's palm oil and soybeans from South America has fueled destruction of natural habitats in those regions.

The study also warned of increasing pressure on the planet's resources amid spiraling consumption in Asia, led by fast-growing China and India.

"We can consume energy in a way that's harmful or in a way that's sustainable," Loh told reporters. The technologies are available to enable the world's population to live within the capacity of one planet."

Governments, businesses and consumers should switch to energy efficient technology, such as solar power, Loh said, adding that high oil prices may help focus their minds.

"It's not a question of how much oil is left," he said. "The question we should be asking is how much fossil fuel consumption the earth can sustain. The earth has a limited capacity."


10-21-04 20:42 EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.

I'd have replied with something to the effect that owning (and reading) books forces me to use my brain and actually think; it also has the effect of working my imagination, which comes up with better stuff than any movie could! THEN I'd have whacked him about the head with my heaviest book and said that they're also good for whacking people who ask stupid questions!

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Oh, this is too PRICELESS not to pass on! A friend (my age) was helping a 14-year-old boy with a project--obviously NOT reading or writing, probably a photography or recording project. The boy saw his bookshelf and said, "I don't understand why anyone would want to own a book." My friend was knocked SPEECHLESS! Would YOU have been able to answer?

I would have told him that reading provides (among other things) a sense of communication with the spirit of a human being belonging to a different world, if not to a bygone age.

Russia just signed the Kyoto Treaty. The U. S. still refuses. When an American representative was asked by a British interviewer why, he couldn't come up with much more than, "'Cause we don't feel like it yet."

I would like to talk to that kid's parents. Obviously they didn't think very much of books either.

I have not read the Kyoto treaty myself. But I have read that it has sections that would ask the US (and other countries) to abdicate aspects of our national sovereignty to others to compel compliance in some areas. I am not willing to abdicate national sovereignty to any other nation. As I said, I haven't read it, and thus can't authoritatively argue it. My guess is that most who argue it have not read it, either.