Ullared phenomena

In Sweden there is a so called “Ullared” phenomena. It is really about shopping as a hobby. I talked to a friend that does the Ullared-trip every year. 

I asked the friend how much money such a trip costs. It costs 8000 SEK. They are three family members that get clothes and stuff for that money. Many of their friends take that trip 2 times per year. If they spend as much that is 16 000 SEK per year. 

Where is such a trip cheap? I think that people just spend more and shop even more when doing all the shopping for stuff and clothes 2 times per year. I am also thinking the quality isn’t that good. I have done that trip once. Need I say I didn’t shop that much? Not even half, I shoped much less and I didn’t find Ullared so interesting. This was probably about approximately some years ago. 

Well, I didn’t thinkt the quality was any better than HM and they are rather cheap to, without having to take a trip for 2000 SEK. For me such a trip would cost even more, since we live further away than many of the families shopping in Ullared do… I guess. 

Well. So why do they have shopping as a hobby? Is life so boring? Is the need for stuff so high? Perhaps. Afterall TV, ads, commercials and such create a false chi. Shopping stuff might “look good”, but is bad for the wallet, bad for the environment and bad in many ways. Still we are fooled by the shopping nerves. Therefor it is a false chi. A bullshit world. 

Better to shop eco-friendly, closely produced and with good quality. Imagine having a favourite garnment that lasts and lasts and lasts. Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine it being sustainable and long lasting and friendly to the environment. Superb. So why Ullared? Are they sustainable? Are they long lasting? Is such a trip, spending gas good for the environment? Not if you go by car, perhaps if you commute. 

Well. A friend wanted me to come along. I said no. I said I had no money to shop. 
I do not even have an interest in such a trip. I would just join such a trip to spend time with my friend, but then again, I rather sit in their garden talking shit, drinking lemonade a hot summers day. 

So why Ullared? Not for me. Perhaps for others. 

The organising hell

Perhaps you also store your receipt when you buy something? You should at least save all receipts of stuff, since in Sweden you have a three year “reklamation” right. If the product fails to last that long you can always try to make a reklamation. Let’s say it is a electronic product or a floor or something else that somehow starts to create problems. I.e. the floor starts to break within a year from normal usage or the electronic starts to reboot itself inside a product without any reason. Some give guarantee and if they do not, then you can use your consumer rights according to the law. Therefor it is a good idea to keep or receips and invoices for at least 3 years. For apartments that you own you better keep them as long as you live there plus 10 years. 

Well, having receips for many years means a lot of receipts. Therefor you need to organise them if you do not want to go through them all when you need a receip. I just put them in a box all regular days… then I find time at some point and put them in to order in a box divided in letters. It takes time. It is not fun. It is just something that needs to be done. And when you need a receipt you are happy they are organized. 

You should always use your rights and exercise them as a consumer. If products are bad, please complain. This way the products on the market get better and more sustainable. That means better for the environment. 

Varje dag fler bevis på att teknik är farligt

Varje dag får vi bevis för att tekniken vi människor blivit beroende av är farlig för oss människor. Nu så växer en stor solfläck på solen, enligt Aftonbladet.se’s artikel. Artikeln säger att NASA nyligen upptäckt den. Om den nu blir stor och solen får ett “utbrott” så kan vi få störningar på vår teknik här på jorden. Desto större anledning för oss att inte vara beroende av teknik, eller hur?

Alla verksamheter på jorden måste klara sig utan teknik, men jag har svårt att se att de gör det. Tänk er ett utbrott som påverkar ett kärnkrafverk, scary eller hur? Tänk om det påverkar ett vindkraftverk, inte alls lika scary eller hur? Den teknik vi skapar bestämmer ju också vilka följder en katastrof har. Kärnkraft och kärnvapenmissilier och allt sånt är ju farligt för både människa, natur och djur, eller hur? Alltså borde vi människor inte befatta oss med sådan teknik.

Även genmanupulation med grödor är farligt, de får ju inte blomma. Tänk då om ett sånt ställe exploderade och all säd sprids med vinden? Problem. Eller hur? Så varför befattar vi oss med saker som inte tillåts blomma? Sjukt samhälle.

Vi har farliga kemiska fabriker, så vad händer om de utsätts för katastrofer? Också farligt eller hur?

Vi har farlig utvinning av olja… som orsakar problem med omgivande naturen när katastrofer inträffar. Varför gör vi oss inte oberoende av denna farliga svarta sörja?

Nåväl, nu kanske du kan fortsätta komma på exempel själv. Vi får inte vara för beroende av farlig teknik, för det kommer vara katastrofalt för allt liv, oavsett om det är inhemsk katastrof pga väder, jordbävning, tsunami mm. Oavsett om det är solfläckarna som hotar oss eller oavsett om det är kometer som hotar oss, så lever vi människor farlig i händerna på farlig teknik. Våra samhällen klarar sig inte utan tekniken och skulle kollapsa snart. Vi borde göra samhällen som står sig även om allt kollapsar.

Du kan inte vänta, vi kan inte vänta. Bli lobbyist nu! Jobba för en bättre miljö. Stöd kampen. Prata. Påverka politiker. Skriv. E-posta. Skriv artiklar. Blogga. Ändra lagar! Undervisa. Gör det du kan!

Källa 20120224:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article16286471.ab

Relaterade artiklar:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/ny-solflack-kan-sla-ut-kommunikationer

What is the truth?

There are many versions of truth, but in the end I think there is only one truth in everyones reality. But then again that truth can be interpreted in many different ways and therefore giving us many versions of the truth of one truth. If you are confused now, pardon me.

Well, this video gives this persons reality perspective. This person is trying to say there is something in “emptiness”, emptiness is not emptiness. In other videos, than the one below, this person is trying to say that we are interacting with the universe and that our reality really isn’t real. She speaks of our reality as a 3D-version. Well, since none of really know what is real, we cannot really argue for or against, we can just chose to believe in our version of reality.

We can however chose to participate or not in many things, however it is difficult today to “stand outside” and not take part in society, even though some, or even many, of us might want to live sustainable lives without interaction with factories and slavery labour. Well. However we can however try to change all others to wanna live sustainable lives to… there is of course a way to get others to join in. In order to do so… think of what you have to do.

Well, as usual, I just want to give you a widen perspective and many versions of “truth” and “lies” to all of you. I want you, as usual, to think for yourself. Critic. Explore. Investigate. Try to find your inner truth.

You are free in your mind to believe what ever you want. Don’t ever forget that. Do not let anyone control your mind. Have your mind to your self.

Source: youtu.be/h4UkC2kI3xc

Biodome buildings to live in the future?

In order to survive in the future with an increasing population and less land to grow food on – how are we going to survive?

How is everyone going to have food? How is everyone going to have clean water? Can we hinder the heating of the Earth? If so, how? If not, then how do we adapt?

So how are we going to sustain life as we know it? Perhaps we need to learn how to live with the earth. Perhaps we need to live more people in smaller areas, so the green areas can stay green? Perhaps we need population control – with this I mean 1 child per couple policy like deals in all states. All these choices are choices that the governments all over the world need to think about.

We need to consume fewer resources on Earth. It is not sustainable to continue using non renewable energy sources. Oil isn’t an option, the amount of oil is limited. The amount of mountains is limited, this means limited amounts of minerals, stone and metal. All that is limited is things that takes many millions of years to take shape and form. We need scientists to invent things that only use renewable energy sources. Sources that can be grown and replaced. That is the only sustainable thing to do.

When using non renewable materials we have to have system to recycle them to 100%. For some materials we have systems, like aluminium cans, they can be recycled. But in order to be recycled you need to recycle them. If you do not recycle the aluminium cans you use – you are part of destroying Earth and wasting the non renewable energy material and resources of Earth.

Recycle your waste. Copyright livingforum.wordpress.com.

When we are mixing materials it becomes harder, less fun to recycle, therefor companies should make products with only one material as much as possible. If more materials are used, then they need to be able to easily take apart. For technology like cell phones and many other types of electronics it is difficult to recycle. The inventions must be made different and the products out in the stores must have parts that can be taken apart. It is not sustainable to have products that cannot be repaired.

When a product cannot be repaired it ends up in recycling. Most products can actually be repaired, but there is no such services offered to costumers really, since parts cannot always be ordered and it is cheaper to toss the product away. It is cheaper for the wallet, but the price is paid by mother Earth. The price is paid by nature. And in the long run all life on Earth suffers.

We, the humans, are like parasites. This way of living, switching cell phones every year, buying a new flat screen TV, just because the old one is ugly. All those things and many more things are bad for the environment and doesn’t create a sustainable living style. Constantly switching stuff at home doesn’t gain the environment.

When you throw away stuff, EVERYTHING must be recyclable. There are systems for many things, but not all are in use all over the world. Both developing countries and industrialized countries must learn to clean garbage and water and all types of waste really.

All new houses in the world should be equipped so they do not need air condition or heating systems. It is possible to build this way. It is possible to build cool houses in hot countries. It is possible to build hot houses without heating systems in cold countries. The technologies are available. Renewable and recycle materials can be used for building buildings. All this is already in place. So why isn’t all new buildings build this way in industrialized countries? Why? laziness? Money? Money shouldn’t be even in question. Without the Earth, we have NOTHING!

How can we make people build clean buildings with sustainable technologies? Legislation. Forbid non renewable energy and non renewable materials in all things where we already have a renewable and recycle alternative material or energy source. And for all other things – put a limit date when these no longer can be used. Legislate. Make high penalties to corporations and organisations that do not comply. Place responsible people in charge in jail. I am pretty sure this will boost the corporations inventions forward. They will have to invest in the future in order to be a part of the future.

This is some of the things that you all need to change. And you have to start now, right this second. Every second you wait, you waste resources of mother Earth. Spread the world to the rest of the world.

Invent! Legislate! Change! Love! Peace!

I agree – non replaceable built in batteries are dangerous for the environment

It´s a waist of material, of stuff, not beeing able to replace rechargable batteries. Ipad is one of these “toys”. A german named Jochen wants to make them illegal, according to the article in Prisjakt. I agree, I think all parts should be replaceble and that stuff should be able to “repair”. Now adays we throw away stuff maybe due to a little component beeing broken. I think that any repair made this way is just waist of the environment. Imagine how much money and material we could save. Imagine how much less strain on the environment it would be if we could replace parts cheap and easy. Imagine beeing able to replace a part in the mobile phone with a little knowledge. If a component was broken, why not just replace that small part? Why isn´t everything built like “Lego”? Replaceable, easily. This would also make repair in shops cheaper for those that wouldn´t know what part to change.
Well why isn´t the world formed so? Because we premier tossing away stuff instead of keeping them and mending (fixing) them. I think we need to rethink. Population grows and more and more stuff is beeing invented and produced. We need to do it responsibly. Still the companies don´t. Legislation in all countries over the world should be tuffer than it is. If laws demand environmentally smart solutions then there would only be that in the stores. Still the countries haven´t legislated so.

O cannot even understand that Ipad manufacturers haven´t created replaceable rechargable batteries. Stupid in fact, no consideration of the environment. So what are you going to do when you need the power lead all the time for your Ipad? Throw it away, find a power outlet?

It is so easy for EU legislators to forbid non removable and non replaceable batteries in stuff. Also I think it´s sad that we have to throw whole parts of stuff since spare parts cannot be bought. I am thinking of clothes, choes, electronics etcera. All manufacturers should be able to provide the materials and parts for all stuff. This way we could repair broken things. In the old days all things could be repaired. I cannot understand how people in the modern age have become so stupid. Its cheaper to buy new than to repair. I think it should be the other way around. If legislation makes it so, then it would be so. But manufacturers choose the easy way and do not think about i.e. children falling down and breaking stuff. Imagine beeing able to fix them easily. Seldom they are easily fixable. Sad for everyone. Not sustainable.

Source 2o121115:

http://www.prisjakt.nu/pryl/dator/2953_miljoechef_vill_foerbjuda_ipad#xtor=AD-500-[prisjakt.nu/pryl]-[]-[Textlank]-[aftonbladet]-[]-[]

This is why we should not have nuclear power

The accident at Fukushima the other year during the Tsunami has really made nature suffer. 40 procentage of all Fukushima fish is radioactive and uneatable, according to DN.se.

I happen to think that is so sad. Why should nature suffer from poision because of humans? When we use dangerous chemicals we are making nature suffer. Nuclear is a dangerous substance that we have not learned to control, nor storage safely. Mother nature forces are so much more unpredicatable so we humans cannot create technology around nuclear to cover all incidents that can happen. Can we even make storage last forever until the radioactivity is gone? I think we do not have that knowledge. I think we should use solar power and water power and other ways that do not leave traces in nature forever in a nature catastrofical event. Other type of technology just gets broken and doesn´t poison the nature when it breaks. That is much more sustainable than trying to tame the beast. Nuclear is like a untamable beast. We shouldn´t play God trying to tame something that clearly is not ours to tame. By doing these things we play God on mother nature. We are not God. We are like a parasite. Mother nature and all life suffers because of us humans. I think it´s wrong. Our modern life is wrong in many ways. We should legislate so that nuclear isn´t allowed anymore. And so that chemicals in food isn´t allowed in food anymore, like is is today. If you check the food ingridients they often contain a component named “lecitin”, it can be like soya or something else. Soyalecitin is soya beans boiled in gasoline. They extract the lecitin when boiling the soya beans. A ingredient you do not need if you make the food yourself. So why should ready made food have that? They do it to make the food lack ice crystals I have been told. Stupid. You could see it as you eat gasoline. That is allowed… but nuclear poisoned fish isn´t. I happen to think any stuff like that is as dangerous. Our bodies are not created to eat gasoline.

Source 20121027:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/40-procent-av-all-fukushima-fisk-oatlig

Imagine alienated yourself and living far away out in the woods

There are people that willingly aliante themself. Some want to live close to nature. Would you be able to live far away, like in the deepest forest with only one companion? Today we don´t need to feel alone even if we are far away. We have the Internet and can get connected almost anywhere if there is communication possibities at least with a satellite if no other way.

In the following link at Aftonbladet.se two sisters have moved out to the woods. They live on hunting and fishing and don´t miss the stressed city life. I can understand that. As long as you have something to do that you like you can be without the modern society. As long as you have warmth and food on the table you can really live anywhere. If you do not miss Internet, then you do not even need electricity. A hundred years ago that was very common for many of us. Even my parents didn´t have water toilet when they where children, so it is not so far ago.

I would like to live in a eco village. I would like to grow my own vegetables with others by giving my time to the green houses or fields. I would like to have a house off the electric grid with green technology. I would like to not have the need of money in order to stay alive and have food on the table. It´s possible if many people would do it together, but for non millionaires its not duable alone.

I would like to live a more earth friendly life, but still a easy life. It should be green tech commuting between the villages where people would live. What a utopia I am imagining. But everywhere where they build new buildings they should build self sustaining houses that do not need the electric grid. Passive houses so to speak. Houses built to last for a loooooong time to come. In Stockholm they are building such houses, but those are not in any green villages where you do not need money to survive. They cost a lot and you still need to work for someone else.

See about the Norweigan girls here (film is from 20120911):

http://www.aftonbladet.se/webbtv/nyheter/djurnatur/article15421623.ab

Sustainable living for all new buildings and infrastructure

We are all living in a turbulent world full of nature disasters. So why do we continue building things in high risk areas? Why do we still keep building buldings that wouldn´t stand the test of time, nor the forces of nature, and that still use a lot of power?

I am of that oppinion that a building should be able to stand earth quakes, tsunamis, tornados, floodings and so forth. If you build a house in a easily flooded area the house should be placed so it can stand a flood running through it. If you build in an area with risk for earth quakes, it should stand them without falling down. If you have a sea view your house should stand a 5 meter high wave of tsunami. Well, you get it. Buildings should be build to stand the test of time in both design and quality. Buildings should not contain any harmful substances for human, animal or nature. Buildings should be sustainable in fact.

We can build houses that stand wind, water, shaking and so forth. The techniques for that exist too.

So why are we building shit that cannot stand the forces of nature or the test of time or with bad materials dangerous to animals, humans and nature? Greed, money, poverty, time is behind all these reasons. Some cannot afford it, others can but are greedy or indifferent to nature and so on.

All the eco-friendly techniques are available. All houses could be passive houses that need no energy from the grid. We would not need nuclear for regular housing if we just build smart buildings! But there is no incentive to do it. Politicians are all in the hands of the companies, lobbyists when they are creating the rules. Companies don´t wanna pay more money in order to build. They wanna earn money, if the contractor in fact isn´t a eco-friend. I however think all buildings should be eco-friendly and have passive technology. All houses should be built so that they do not need grid energy or nuclear.

Nuclear is a dangerous energy source. We humans cannot handle it. We have no safe way of keeping it until it no longer is dangerous. For every plant we are creating a new problem. The keeping of the nuclear demands safe areas. Areas safe from nature distaters and such. These are not many. We Nordic countries have montains to keep them in, but the mountains are not endless and we do not even have space for all our own nuclear waist.

Still neighbouring countries are building new nuclear plants, what idiots. We need things that need less power. We need less nuclear. We need to figure out how to keep the waist we allready created. We do not need to create new waist. We need more undangerous energy like solar panels, wind turbines and such. Water power is a option, but not in all cases possible due to invasion of fishes natural habits.

So what do we need? All new buildings to be smart, eco-friendly and passive, self sustainable houses. That is the idea for the future.

How can we get it? All the techniques are here, we just need to start building smart! You need to talk, write and spread the word about what you want. If you want it and say it, others can get the knowledge and want it too. Soon all housing could be built smart.

It isn´t so smart to build so poorly like Beijing, China, has built. Their city is now beeing flooded due to heavy raining. It could have been prevented if they had used all there smart technology and planned their building a little bit better to the climat changes and green technology. This is not the first time Beijing in China has flooded, they could have started preventing new floodings. You can read about the flooding in related articles below.

Source 20120722:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/722643.shtml

http://shanghaiist.com/2012/07/23/deadly_downpour_in_beijing_kills_36.php

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/dodliga-skyfall-i-peking

A film where they laugh about the flooding happening now in Beijing. Nervous maybe? Source: http://www.youtube.com

Money makes the world go around

We are in the modern society very dependent on money. We need it for clothing, housing and food. In modern society we have created all these dependencies on both technology and money. Some don´t even use cash anymore and are electronic more or less.

So how would the modern man/woman survive with no electricity? Would you survive? I think all buildings that are built today should be self sustaining, with water, heating and cleansing of all waist. All this technology and knowledge is available and noone really would need to be connected to the power grid anymore.

So how come not all buildings are buildt as passive houses that do not need power from the grid? It´s because everyone is lazy. Without legislation and no musts people tend to choose the easy way out. The thing that makes the most profit. It´s clearly wrong, but with no incentive people don´t change that easily unfortunately. But legistlation would make most companies comply.

So what can you do? You can blog, write letters etcetera. With the help of you we could change legislation! Housing legislation is just one step. Passive houses would need money to pay electricity bills!!! It would be a nice first step to be independent from money for housing.

Source video: http://www.youtube.com