text:
Frequently Asked Technical QuestionsNot Translated
What follows is a list of Frequently Asked Technical Questions (FAQs) about the Ecological Footprint. If you have a question about the Ecological Footprint that is not addressed here, please also see our General FAQ page.
- General
- What is the Ecological Footprint?
- What is biocapacity?
- What is overshoot?
- What is the proper way to use the term Ecological Footprint?
- Is the Ecological Footprint a measure of carrying capacity?
- Methodology
- How is an Ecological Footprint Calculated?
- What is a global hectare?
- What is an equivalence factor?
- What is a yield factor?
- When should I use the units global hectares, global hectare years, and global hectares per year?
- How does the Ecological Footprint address waste flows?
- How does the Ecological Footprint account for recycling?
- Interpretation and Criticisms
- Is the Ecological Footprint too simplistic?
- How can so many highly heterogeneous components be combined in any meaningful way in a single composite indicator?
- Does the Ecological Footprint assume that different land types can be substituted for each other?
- The Ecological Footprint does not appear to account for technology. If technology will continue to improve our lives and make our consumption more efficient , why should we be concerned about today's state of overshoot?
- Why does the Ecological Footprint matter given that nations, for example, can import scarce resources from elsewhere?
- What can Ecological Footprint Analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all doomed?
- The Ecological Footprint seems to ignore factors such as human health and the well-being of society. Aren't these important to sustainability?
- Does the Ecological Footprint determine what is a "fair" or "equitable" use of resources??
- Data Accuracy and Improvement
- How accurate are Ecological Footprint measurements?
- How does Global Footprint Network address data quality?
- Is the methodology behind Ecological Footprint calculations still changing?
- Are the Ecological Footprint calculations based on subjective judgment about the state of the world or the supposed need for environmental activism?
- Are there any standards set for Ecological Footprint assessments?
- Carbon and Energy
- Water
- How does the Ecological Footprint treat water usage?
- What is the Water Footprint, and how is it related to the Ecological Footprint?
- Biodiversity
- Pollutants and Non-renewables
- How does the Ecological Footprint account for pollution and toxic waste?
- We are using up many of our non-renewable resources such as copper, tin, coal and oil. How does the Ecological Footprint measure this resource depletion?
- Nuclear Power
What does the Ecological Footprint measure?
Ecological Footprint accounts answer a specific research question: how much of the biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or population? To answer this question, the Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region, or all of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions it generates with today's technology and resource management practices. This demand on the biosphere can be compared to biocapacity, a measure of the amount of biologically productive land and water available for human use. Biologically productive land includes areas such as cropland, forest, and fishing grounds, and excludes deserts, glaciers, and the open ocean.
Global hectares are hectares with world-average productivity for all productive land and water areas in a given year. Studies that are compliant with current Ecological Footprint Standards (www.footprintstandards.org) use global hectares as a measurement unit. This makes Ecological Footprint results globally comparable, just as financial assessments use one currency, such as dollars or Euros, to compare transactions and financial flows throughout the world.
Biocapacity represents the ability of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb CO2 generated by humans, using current management and extraction technologies. Useful biological materials are defined as those materials that the human economy actually demanded in a given year. The Ecological Footprint measures demand on this productive capacity.
Ecological overshoot at any scale occurs when a population's demand on an ecosystem exceeds the capacity of that ecosystem to regenerate the resources it consumes and absorb its carbon dioxide emissions. The Ecological Footprint is often used to calculate global overshoot which occurs when humanity's demand on the biosphere exceeds the available biological capacity of the planet. By definition, overshoot leads to a depletion of the planet's life supporting biological capital and/or to an accumulation of carbon dioxide.
What is the proper way to use the term Ecological Footprint?
The term Ecological Footprint, capitalized, is a proper name referring to a specific research question: how much of the biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or population? Often, the word 'footprint' is used generically to refer to human impact on the planet, or to a different research question. As commonly used today, for example, the term 'carbon footprint' often refers to the number of tonnes of carbon emitted by a given person or business during a year, or to the tonnes of carbon emitted in the manufacture and transport of a product. In Ecological Footprint accounts, the 'carbon Footprint' measures the amount of biological capacity, in global hectares, demanded by human emissions of fossil carbon dioxide.
The term Ecological Footprint has been deliberately excluded from trademark to encourage its widespread use. Global Footprint Network strives to maintain the value of this term by encouraging our partners and others using the word footprint or Ecological Footprint to apply the term consistently, using the definition found in the Ecological Footprint Standards (www.footprintstandards.org). Global Footprint Network encourages research answering different questions to be referred to as something other than Ecological Footprint.
Is the Ecological Footprint a measure of carrying capacity?
Carrying capacity is a technical term that refers to the maximum population of a species that a given land or marine area could support. Many species have easily defined and consistent consumption needs, making carrying capacity relatively easy to define and calculate. For humans, however, carrying capacity estimates require assumptions about future per-person resource consumption, standards of living and "wants" (as distinct from "needs"), productivity of the biosphere, and advances in technology. An area's carrying capacity for humans is thus inherently speculative, and difficult to define.
Ecological Footprint accounts approach the carrying capacity question from a different angle. Ecological Footprints are not speculative estimates about a potential state, but rather are an accounting of the past. Instead of asking how many people could be supported on the planet, the Ecological Footprint asks the question in reverse and considers only present and past years. The Footprint asks how many planets were actually necessary to support all of the people that lived on the planet in a given year, under that year's standard of living, biological production, and technology. This is a scientific research and accounting question that can be answered through the analysis of documented, historical data sets.
How is an Ecological Footprint calculated?
Ecological Footprints can be calculated for individual people, groups of people (such as a nation), and activities (such as manufacturing a product).
The Ecological Footprint of a person is calculated by considering all of the biological materials consumed, and all of the carbon dioxide emissions generated, by that person in a given year. These materials and emissions each demand ecologically productive areas, such as cropland to grow potatoes, or forest to sequester carbon dioxide emissions. All of these materials and wastes are then individually translated into an equivalent number of global hectares.
To accomplish this, an amount of material consumed by that person (tonnes per year) is divided by the yield of the specific land or sea area (annual tonnes per hectare) from which it was harvested, or where its waste material was absorbed. The number of hectares that result from this calculation are then converted to global hectares using yield and equivalence factors. The sum of the global hectares needed to support the resource consumption and the carbon dioxide emissions of the person gives that person's total Ecological Footprint.
The Ecological Footprint of a group of people, such as a city or nation, is simply the sum of the Ecological Footprint of all the residents of that city or nation. It is also possible to construct an Ecological Footprint of Production for a city or nation, which instead sums the Ecological Footprint of all resources extracted and carbon dioxide emissions generated within the borders of the city or nation.
The Ecological Footprint of an activity, such as producing a good (an airplane) or service (providing insurance) in the human economy, is calculated in a similar manner by summing the Ecological Footprint of all of the material consumed and carbon dioxide emitted during that activity. When calculating the Footprint of a business or organization, the activities to be included within the boundaries of that organization must be clearly defined.
To allow different types of land to be compared using a common denominator, equivalence factors are used to convert physical hectares of different types of land, such as cropland and pasture, into the common unit of global hectares. The use of global hectares recognizes that different types of land have a different ability to produce useful goods and services for humans. One hectare of cropland can produce a greater quantity of useful and valuable food products than a single hectare of grazing land, for example. By converting both cropland and pasture into global hectares, they can be compared on an equal basis.
A global hectare is defined as a hectare with world-average productivity for all biologically productive land and water in a given year. Biologically productive land includes areas such as cropland, forest, and fishing grounds, and excludes deserts, glaciers, and the open ocean. Global hectares are the common, standardized unit used for reporting Ecological Footprint and biocapacity across time and for areas throughout the world. Because total global production changes over time, the amount of physical material produced by a single global hectare also changes over time.
Global hectares can also be converted into global acres.
What is an equivalence factor?
The equivalence factor is the key factor that allows land of different types to be converted into the common unit of global hectares. The equivalence factor itself is a productivity-based scaling factor that converts one hectare of world-average land of a specific land type, such as cropland or forest, into an equivalent number of global hectares. These equivalence factors are based on assessments of the relative productivity of land under different land types in any given year. In the most current Ecological Footprint accounts, an index of suitability for agricultural production is used as a proxy measure of the productive capacity of different land types. Other updated and refined methods for this calculation are continually being explored.
Within a given land type, such as cropland, the ability of an area to produce useful goods and services can vary dramatically based on factors such as climate, topography, or prevailing management. Yield factors allow different areas of the same land type to be compared based on the common denominator of yield. National yield factors for pasture, for example, compares the productivity of average pastures in a specific nation to world-average pastures. These yield factors convert one hectare of a specific land type, such as pasture, within a given nation into an equivalent number of world-average hectares of that same land type. The equivalence factors can then be used to convert world-average hectares of a specific land type into global hectares.
The national yield factor for a given land type is calculated as the ratio of national average yields of that land type, for example German forest, and world-average yields of that land type. Yield factors are calculated for each land type in each nation in each year.
When should I use the units global hectares, global hectare years, and global hectares per year?
A global hectare is a productivity normalized area that provides a defined continuous flow of goods and services for human use. Technically, a person with a 5 global hectare Ecological Footprint demands 5 global hectares of area over any time period. In one year, that person demands the amount of goods and services produced by 5 global hectares in that year. In two years, that person demands the amount of goods and services produced by 5 global hectares in two years. In one day, that person demands the amount of goods and services produced by 5 global hectares in one day, and so on. As the Ecological Footprint refers to a continuous demand, and biocapacity refers to a continuous supply, both are correctly reported in global hectares.
In the case of an activity with a discrete start and end, such as the creation of an individual product, a different unit is required. In calculating the Ecological Footprint of a product, the product does not require a continuous flow of goods and services but rather demanded the amount of goods and services produced by a given number of global hectares for a given, specific amount of time. Producing one book, one apple, or one table, which requires the use of a specific area for a finite amount of time, has a Footprint correctly reported in 'global hectare-years.'
In the case of a product whose consumption is amortized over time, such as the structural materials in a building, the product begins with a total Ecological Footprint measured in global hectare-years. This total Ecological Footprint is then divided over the lifetime of the building, and the Ecological Footprint of that durable product in any single year is expressed in global hectare-years per year, or global hectares.
There is no instance in Ecological Footprint accounting where 'global hectares per year' is the correct unit to use.
How does the Ecological Footprint address waste flows?
From and Ecological Footprint perspective, the term 'waste' includes three different categories of materials, and each category is treated differently within Footprint accounts.
First, biological wastes such as residues of crop products, trimmings from harvested trees, and carbon dioxide emitted from fuel wood or fossil fuel combustion are all included within Ecological Footprint accounts. A cow grazing on one hectare of pasture has a Footprint of one hectare for both creating its biological food products and absorbing its biological waste products. This single hectare provides both services, thus counting the Footprint of the cow twice (once for material production and once for waste absorption). This results in double counting the actual area necessary to support the cow. The Footprint associated with the absorption of all biological materials that are harvested is thus already counted in the Footprint of those materials.
Second, waste also refers to the material specifically sent to landfills. If these landfills occupy formerly biologically productive area, then the Footprint of this landfill waste can be calculated as the area used for its long term storage.
Finally, waste can also refer to toxics and pollutants released from the human economy that cannot in any way be absorbed or broken down by biological processes, such as many types of plastics. As the Ecological Footprint measures the area required to produce a material or absorb a waste, materials such as plastics that are not created by biological processes nor absorbed by biological systems do not have a defined Ecological Footprint. These materials can cause damage to ecosystems when they are released into the environment, and this loss of biocapacity can be measured using an Ecological Footprint approach when it actually occurs. Such assessments are difficult, however, and not often completed. Assessments of the Footprint of toxics and pollutants, when completed, generally refer to the Footprint of extracting, processing, and handling these materials, but not to the Footprint of creating or absorbing these materials themselves.
How does the Ecological Footprint account for recycling?
As the Ecological Footprint reflects the demand for productive area to make resources and absorb carbon dioxide emissions recycling can lower the Ecological Footprint by offsetting the extraction of virgin products, and reducing the area necessary for absorbing carbon dioxide emissions. Recycling paper, for example, can decrease the total amount of virgin timber that must be harvested to meet global demand for paper, thus reducing humanity's total Ecological Footprint.
The savings that result from the recycling process can be allocated to the person who recycles a material and/or the person who buys recycled material in a number of different ways:
- 100% to the person who buys the recycled paper (the wood fibre in a 100% recycled ream of paper could have no forest Footprint, since the footprint of that wood fibre was already allocated to the person who bought the virgin paper),
- 100% the person who recycles the paper (a person purchasing 100% virgin paper who recycled all of it would have no Footprint for the wood fibre in that paper, since all of it is reused later, assuming that no fiber is lost in the recycling process), or
- Split between the person who buys recycled paper and the person who recycles paper (the savings can be split 50%/50%, or in any other allocation).
Different researchers use different allocation principles for the savings from recycling, and standards compliant Footprint studies (www.footprintstandards.org) will state their chosen allocation method explicitly. Regardless of allocation method, however, the largest reductions in Ecological Footprint can most commonly be achieved by reducing the total amount of materials consumed, rather than attempting to recycle them afterwards.
Interpretation and Criticism
Is the Ecological Footprint too simplistic?
No single model or set of environmental accounts can capture every complexity of the world's many different ecological systems. The Ecological Footprint attempts to answer a single, specific research question that has far reaching implications: how much of the planet's capacity do we use compared to how much is available? By comparing the area we demand to how much area is available, Footprint accounts are easy to visualize and communicate, and provide the only available comprehensive answer to this research question. As with any data set, a fuller picture of the state of the planet can be gained by combining Footprint accounts with complementary indicators focused on other important aspects of sustainability.
How can so many highly heterogeneous components be combined in any meaningful way in a single composite indicator?
Unlike most other aggregate indices, such as environmentally weighted material flow or various environmental performance indices, the Ecological Footprint does not assign arbitrary weights to individual components in order to add them together. Rather, all different types of land and sea that are demanded are normalized to a common unit, global hectares, based on empirical data on the relative productivity of these different area types. This normalization is not arbitrary and is based on observable, scientifically testable characteristics of the land and sea areas.
Aggregate indicators such as the Ecological Footprint provide value above and beyond their parts by conveying a large amount of information in a small space. The use of global hectares also shows the tradeoffs and substitutions that are often made between different ecosystems, and can compare aggregate demand on nature to aggregate supply of biological capacity.
Like any composite indicator, however, the aggregate Ecological Footprint data have their limitations. Aggregate results used in isolation can create an overly simplistic view of complex systems and give the impression that improvements in one area always compensate for deteriorations in others. True Ecological Footprint accounts can be disaggregated into individual components, such as seven major land types or several hundred different product categories.
Does the Ecological Footprint assume that different land types can be substituted for each other?
By expressing all different types of land in a common unit of global hectares, Ecological Footprint analysis is able to compare demands on one land type with demands on another based on their use of the biosphere's limited productive capacity. As an overarching rule of thumb, different land types can often substitute for one another based on their biocapacity. One average physical hectare of grazing land, for example, has about one-fourth the biocapacity of one average physical hectare of cropland. In other words, about four times as many hectares of average grazing land are needed to produce the same amount of beef as one average hectare of cropland growing grass.
Although productive capacity is arguably the most robust empirical method for comparing different land types to each other, this equivalency does break down for large changes, or when comparing two highly specialized ecosystems. In these cases, the Ecological Footprint of each land type can be viewed separately. Importantly, however, an aggregate Footprint in excess of aggregate biocapacity indicates that at least one type of ecosystem or productive land type is being demanded beyond its availability.
The Ecological Footprint does not appear to account for technology. If technology will continue to improve our lives and make our consumption more efficient, why should we be concerned about today's state of overshoot?
As an accounting tool, the Ecological Footprint in any given year reflects the prevailing technology of that year in calculating total demand for biological capacity. The accounts document only historical states as they occur. As more renewable electricity generation technology has been introduced, for example, the Ecological Footprint of the average kilowatt hour of electricity has fallen, since less fossil carbon is emitted per unit of energy. As paper manufacturing has become more efficient, generating less waste per unit of paper, the Ecological Footprint of paper has fallen accordingly. The Ecological Footprint thus makes no assumption about technological possibilities, but reflects their actual influence on our current demand on the planet.
A global Ecological Footprint analysis shows, however, that each year since the mid-1980's, humanity has demanded more productive capacity than the biosphere can supply and that historically, gains in yield and efficiency have not been able to compensate for increasing demand. As a result global overshoot has increased over time. By definition, this overshoot leads to depletion of biological capital and the accumulation of carbon concentrations in the biosphere. This state represents a risk to global society today, increasing the potential for price shocks, disruption of global supply chains, economic recession, and political turmoil.
Why does the Ecological Footprint matter given that nations, for example, can import scarce resources from elsewhere?
When a nation's demand for ecological goods and services exceeds what its own ecosystems can supply, the nation can balance this ecological deficit in two ways: by importing resources from elsewhere, or by drawing down its own stocks of ecological capital. Some nations use a combination of the two, both overdrawing their own biocapacity for export while simultaneously importing additional biocapacity from elsewhere. Comparing the Ecological Footprint of a nation to its own biocapacity can be used to determine whether, in the long run, a nation is capable of meeting its own demands from within its own borders. At the global scale, all nations cannot be net importers, and nations that rely on competition for increasingly scarce imports will be increasingly at risk.
What can Ecological Footprint Analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all doomed?
The Ecological Footprint highlights the reality of ecological scarcity, which can be disconcerting and frightening information. The existence of global overshoot suggests that human society will need to make significant changes to business as usual if it wants to create a sustainable future. Robust and accurate Ecological Footprint accounts can help us make decisions towards sustainability, and can quantitatively show the positive impacts of groups, businesses, and people making decisions that are helping to bring human demand within the means of the planet.
The Ecological Footprint seems to ignore factors such as human health and the well-being of society. Aren't these important to sustainability?
The Ecological Footprint does not attempt to capture every aspect of sustainability, as combining such disparate information could create a single indicator that could be very difficult to interpret and use, in the aggregate, for decision making. The Ecological Footprint answers only the question of how much of the planet's productive capacity is occupied for human uses, and how the demand for this productive capacity is distributed around the world. Sustainability means living well, within the means of nature, and the Ecological Footprint highlights a minimum condition that addresses only the second part of this equation.
The Ecological Footprint is often used in tandem with other indicators describing development or quality of life, such as the UN's Human Development Index. Additionally, comparative Footprint analysis can highlight disparities in consumption of biological resources between different populations, such as high and low income nations,
Does the Ecological Footprint determine what is a "fair" or "equitable" use of resources?
The Ecological Footprint is a science-based ecological accounting tool that reports the current state of demand for productive area, along with who demands it, and the amount of productive area available. Footprint accounts quantitatively describe the demand of any individual or a population, but they do not themselves draw conclusions or make assumptions about who should be using what. Rather, these are social and political choices that the Ecological Footprint itself cannot make. While the Ecological Footprint can help to inform these choices, conclusions about what represents a "fair share" or an "equitable use" are moral and ethical choices, and the Ecological Footprint accounts are descriptive in nature.
Data Accuracy and Improvement
How accurate are Ecological Footprint measurements?
Current Ecological Footprint accounts provide a robust, aggregate estimate of human demand on the biosphere as compared to the biosphere's productive capacity. As with any calculation system, Footprint accounts are subject to uncertainty in source data, calculation parameters, and methodological decisions. Exact error bars or standard errors for calculations have not been rigorously compiled, and no full, comprehensive, and quantitative estimate of uncertainty has yet been carried out. Several organizations, including Global Footprint Network, are seeking to allocate resources towards obtaining more accurate estimates of this nature.
How does Global Footprint Network address data quality?
Global Footprint Network's Ecological Footprint accounts for nations rely on well-established international data sets, mostly provided by the United Nations and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. These data sets are official, widely obtainable, and are available in a consistent format across nations, allowing comparisons to be made between countries. The data are taken at face value, except where a substantial error is apparent and recognized widely by the research community (for example, historical fisheries catch distortions or jumps of two orders of magnitude in trade flows for a single year). Global Footprint Network encourages national governments, statistical offices, and research organizations to participate in collaborative reviews of data quality and methodology.
Is the methodology behind Ecological Footprint calculations still changing?
The National Footprint Accounts, the basis for all standards-compliant Ecological Footprint assessments, undergoes constant updates and revisions as new data become available and methodological advances are made. All changes to the data and methods in the National Footprint Accounts are reviewed and approved by Global Footprint Network's National Accounts Committee, consisting of representatives from the network's partner organizations.
Although calculation parameters and source data are constantly being refined, more importantly, the conceptual model behind Ecological Footprint analysis has not changed substantially since it was first introduced. Since then, the basic premises of Footprint accounting have been examined and applied by organizations, scientists, and governments throughout the world.
Are the Ecological Footprint calculations based on subjective judgment about the state of the world or the supposed need for environmental activism?
Like other accounting systems, such as the Systems of National Accounts and GDP, Ecological Footprint accounts build on a single, clearly defined research question, and attempt to provide the best possible objective, transparent, and scientific answer to this question. The process of initially defining a research question inherently involves normative judgments about which questions are important to pursue. Once a research question is identified, however, answering it is a scientific process.
Ecological Footprint accounts do not say anything about what should be, or what any person or group of people should do. Rather, they provide an objective and reproducible answer to the question of how much of the planet's regenerative capacity is occupied by human activities. No normative or opinion-based judgments or weighting factors enter into Ecological Footprint accounting methodology. For example, the equivalence factors that allow different land types to be aggregated in the common unit of global hectares are based on empirical measurements of productivity.
As an organization, Global Footprint Network does not engage in environmental advocacy other than to suggest that the maintenance of accurate ecological accounts has an important role to play in decision making.
Are there any standards set for Ecological Footprint assessments?
Global Footprint Network's Standards Committee has released an official standards document that addresses Footprint methodology and communication, including use of source data, derivation of conversion factors, establishment of study boundaries, and accurate communication of findings (www.footprintstandards.org). These standards are widely used by Global Footprint Network's partners and by other analysts who conduct Ecological Footprint research and assessments.
At the national level, Global Footprint Network maintains the National Footprint Accounts, which provide benchmark Ecological Footprint results for 150 nations from 1961-2005. The data and methods used in these accounts are overseen by Global Footprint Network's National Accounts Committee.
Carbon and Energy
Is the Ecological Footprint the same as the carbon footprint?
Recently, a number of organizations and governments have begun using the term 'carbon footprint' to refer to the quantities of carbon dioxide emissions associated with an activity, process, or product. This carbon footprint, typically measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide, is an initial step towards calculating a full carbon Footprint, which in turn is one piece of the total Ecological Footprint. A carbon Footprint translates tonnes of carbon dioxide released into the demand this places on biological capacity, measured in terms of the total area, in global hectares, required to sequester these carbon emissions.
The carbon Footprint adds value to simple carbon emissions data in two ways:
- The carbon Footprint puts the magnitude of emissions into a meaningful context. Many people do not know how to interpret 1,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, but they can easily understand that if 1,000 global hectares would be required to absorb this carbon, but only 500 global hectares are available, this is a problem if we want to prevent this waste product from building up around us.
- The Ecological Footprint provides an overarching systems perspective that can reveal spill-over effects, when reducing demand in one area leads to an increase in demand elsewhere. For example, will shifting from fossil fuels to biomass fuels decrease or increase humanity's overall demand on the planet's biological capacity? Would increasing the use of biomass fuels be more or less effective than returning cropland to forest cover?
How does the Ecological Footprint treat water usage?
The Ecological Footprint of a biological resource represents the amount of biologically productive land and water area required to produce that material. Although freshwater is a natural resource cycled through the biosphere, and related to many of the biosphere's critical goods and services, it is not itself a material made by biologically productive area, or a waste (such as carbon dioxide) absorbed by it. Ecosystems simply do not create water in the same manner as timber, fish, or fiber products.
As a result, the Footprint of a given quantity of water cannot be calculated with yield values in the same manner as a quantity of crop or wood product. When values for a 'water footprint' are reported, these are most commonly refer to either a measurement of total liters of water consumed, or to the Ecological Footprint required for a utility to provide a given supply of water. A water footprint can also be calculated based on the area of catchments or recharge zone needed to supply a given quantity of water. The area obtained from this calculation, however, cannot be added to other Ecological Footprint land areas, as this would create double counting (a forest, for example, can be used for both timber production and as a water catchment, but adding these two values together would count the amount of forest available twice).
Ecological Footprint accounts do directly reflect the influence of water availability on the biocapacity of ecosystems. Estimates of the amount of biocapacity that is dependent on freshwater supply, or of the lost capacity associated with water use for non-bioproductive purposes, could be calculated. As the relationship between freshwater and biological capacity is highly site specific, this analysis would need to be completed at a regional or local scale on a case-by-case basis.
What is the Water Footprint and how is it related to the Ecological Footprint?
Though they are often compared and contrasted, Ecological Footprints and Water Footprints are, as indicators, fundamentally incapable of being substituted. The Ecological Footprint does not, and is not intended to measure freshwater flows. Because this is nevertheless a vital renewable resource, in 2002, A.Y. Hoekstra proposed that the Water Footprint be created as a sustainable water use indicator measuring the total volume of freshwater directly or indirectly used by a population.
In essence, the Ecological Footprint measures the biological capacity a population uses and the Water Footprint measures the freshwater a population uses. They each provide a different piece of information in the sustainability puzzle. Instead of being seen as competing metrics, they should be seen as two complementary indicators of natural capital use in relation to human consumption.
For more information on the similarities and differences between the Ecological and Water Footprints, please consult A.Y. Hoeksta's recent article Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis.
How does the Ecological Footprint relate to biodiversity?
The Ecological Footprint is not an indicator of the state of biodiversity, and the impact of a particular activity or process on biodiversity does not directly affect the Ecological Footprint calculation for that activity. Given the same yields, for example, the Ecological Footprint of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) timber and uncertified timber is identical. These two practices will have very different consequences for the available future capacity of the forest to produce timber, which would be reflected in future biocapacity assessments but not in current Ecological Footprint accounts.
Although not a direct measure of biodiversity, the Ecological Footprint supports biodiversity assessment and conservation in two important ways. First, the Ecological Footprint can be used as a large scale indicator of the underlying drivers or pressures that cause biodiversity loss. For this reason, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) processes have both adopted the Ecological Footprint as an indicator of pressure on biodiversity.
In addition, the Ecological Footprint can also be used to translate the consumption of a given quantity of material (such as one kilogram of paper) into the specific local land area from which it was harvested (such as one square meter of forest in Finland). After this initial translation, complementary indicators and assessment tools can be used to measure the impact on biodiversity associated with harvesting from that ecosystem. This approach has been used in Global Footprint Network's work in contribution to the Sustainable Consumption and Production program of the United Kingdom's Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Pollutants and Non-renewables
How does the Ecological Footprint account for pollution and toxic waste?
Toxics and pollutants released from the human economy that cannot in any way be absorbed or broken down by biological processes, such as many types of plastics, cannot be directly assigned an Ecological Footprint. As the Ecological Footprint measures the area required to produce a material or absorb carbon dioxide emissions, materials such as mercury that are not created by biological processes nor absorbed by biological systems do not have a defined Ecological Footprint (although their extraction, processing, and transport may have an associated carbon Footprint, for example). Many of the most important concerns surrounding toxic materials, such as future storage risks and human health impacts, are best captured by indicators other than the Ecological Footprint.
Many of these materials can cause damage to ecosystems when they are released into the environment, however, and this resultant loss of biocapacity can be measured using Ecological Footprint accounting and allocated to the activity that caused the release of the pollutant. The relationships between pollution and ecosystem damage are very site specific, data intensive, and difficult to calculate in practice. Even if no specific calculation is undertaken, however, any loss of biocapacity associated with the release of pollutants will be reflected in future assessments of the affected area.
We are using up many of our non-renewable resources such as copper, tin, coal and oil. How does the Ecological Footprint measure this resource depletion?
As the Ecological Footprint measures demand on the biosphere's productive capacity, materials that are extracted from outside the biosphere (such as copper and other minerals that are mined beneath the ground) do not have a yield value that can be used to translate their creation into a productive area. One tonne of copper thus does not have an Ecological Footprint in the same way as one tonne of timber, which requires bioproductive area for its creation. There is, however, an Ecological Footprint associated with the energy and other materials used in extracting, refining, processing, and shipping these mineral resources, and together these are often reported as the Footprint of the mineral. Additionally, when mined materials such as mercury or arsenic enter the environment, they may cause damage and a loss of productivity.
Non-renewable fossil fuel resources are treated differently from other minerals, however, since they actually represent an ancient material of biological origin, and their combustion releases a material, carbon dioxide, which is part of the biosphere's material cycles. The Footprint of carbon released from the combustion of fossil fuels is thus defined as the amount of productive area required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions and prevent its accumulation. An alternative method would be to calculate the consumption of fossil fuels according to the productive area required to regenerate them, which would result in a carbon Footprint many hundreds of times higher than the current calculation.
Nuclear Power
Why is nuclear electricity no longer a separate Ecological Footprint component?
Nuclear power has been included as a separate footprint component in national Footprint calculations since 1997. Because it is difficult to calculate the extent of the nuclear demand on the biosphere, it was assumed that one unit of nuclear electricity had an equivalent Footprint to one unit of electricity produced with a world average mix of fossil fuels.
After extensive discussions and consultations, Global Footprint Network's National Accounts Committee recommended eliminating the nuclear land component from the National Footprint Accounts in order to increase their scientific consistency. This change has been implemented in the 2008 edition of the National Footprint Accounts.
The National Accounts Committee concluded that the emissions proxy approach for calculating the Footprint of nuclear electricity was not scientifically sound because:
- There is no scientific basis for assuming parity between the carbon footprint of fossil-fuel electricity and demands associated with nuclear electricity.
- The primary concerns related to nuclear electricity are often cited as costs and undue subsidies, future waste storage, the risk of plant accidents, weapons proliferation and other security risks. Ecological Footprint accounts are designed to be historical rather than predictive, and thus consideration of potential future impacts on biocapacity should not be included.
Actual carbon emissions associated with nuclear electricity are included in the National Footprint Accounts. However these emissions are only one among many environmental considerations relevant to nuclear power.
In the National Footprint Accounts for the year 2003, the nuclear Footprint represented approximately 4 per cent of humanity's total Footprint. Therefore, for most nations, the effect of this methodological change on their 2005 results reported here will negligible. However, for countries with significant nuclear power supply such as Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland, the method change influenced their national Footprint values to a greater extent.
This exclusion of the nuclear Footprint component does not reflect a stance on nuclear energy. It simply acknowledges that only some aspects of nuclear energy are easily measured in terms of demand on regenerative capacity, the research question addressed by the Ecological Footprint.
However, the Living Planet Report – Japan for 2012 included an estimate for the biocapacity implications of the Fukushima accident. Click to read Japan's 2012 Ecological Footprint. The calculation concluded that if the exclusion zone would need to be upheld for 100 years, the biocapacity occupied due to this one accident corresponds to 3 fold Japans' yearly biocapacity. If the area included the contaminated zone above levels that were considered safe previous to Fukushima, the total demand, stretched over 100 years would be 10 fold Japans' yearly biocapacity.


text:
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?
PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:
ossiecastro5 wrote:
KZMProductionsGT wrote:
ossiecastro5 wrote:
My favorite presidents were the first few that made America, Washington and etc. But after that, this whole country strayed away from how it was intended to be.
But if I were to choose a person now....
Washington warned of political parties, and looked where that got us...
Exactly! This whole country is corrupt with this two-party system. You either have to agree to one or the other to have a chance to be president, even though they're the same thing.
I prefer his son, Rand, to Ron as a president. I could not vote for Ron while I could vote for Rand, and yes I'm closest in values to the Libertarian party.
I'm Libertarian too. But Rand can be bought, unlike Ron.
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?
KZMProductionsGT wrote:
Juan1992 wrote:
Oh I was joking about selecting Jr.
I was joking about Wilson, my brother despises him XD
It sounds like he has too much time on his hands if he "despises" a President who has been dead for almost 100 years and many people have never heard of.
My YouTube | My Twitter
230+ Subscribers | 1,500+ Followers
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?[ Edited ]
- Obama, since he's the first president I ever voted for (twice)
- Bill Clinton, Because he's the man (and he was the first black president lol)
- Lincoln, because he freed the slaves
- Kennedy, see Clinton, Bill (Also because of his (and LBJ's) involvement in the Civil Rights movement)
- FDR, The greatest president of all time
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?
semajmarc87 wrote:
KZMProductionsGT wrote:
Juan1992 wrote:
Oh I was joking about selecting Jr.
I was joking about Wilson, my brother despises him XD
It sounds like he has too much time on his hands if he "despises" a President who has been dead for almost 100 years and many people have never heard of.
I think I worded it wrong lol. just dislikes
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?[ Edited ]
People who say Kennedy should give reasons. He was very charismatic and had good approval ratings, but his policies were not that good and he was a meh president. His assassination and his charisma are the only things that make him relevent. Bay of Pigs says hello (and I am well aware of Eisenhower starting the planning. Kennedy went for it, though)
I would say my favourites are Teddy, Reagan, Lincoln, and Jefferson.
Teddy- Liked business but tried to keep it fair (trust-busting fopr example). He worked with John Muir for environmental movements like the state park programs. Yosemite is quite nice. He was also a strong leader.
Reagan- I think the best part about Reagan's entire presidency was that he made it OK to be an American. After JFK's assassination, LBJ's terrible presidency, Nixon and watergate, and Carter's screw ups, he brought back faith to the office and the American government. He was a strong leader, charismatic, and he had values. He had a few shortcomings, but his presidency was great. He also dismantled the USSR.
Lincoln- Strong leader, 13th amendment, and an everyone's man.
Jefferson- Stuck to the Constitution (he was so strict that he almost did not go through with the Louisiana Purchase since the Constitution did not explicitly give that power to him), strong leader, and he fought the federalists long and hard to ensure people were being watched out for
I know he is not a former president....but...Alexander Hamilton- This guy was awesome. He fought hard as the head of the federalists, he was strong, and he was killed (possibly willingly) in a duel with a former vice president (Aaron Burr, a wacky secessionist anti-federalist).
Re: Americans, Your Favorite President?[ Edited ]
ROFL @ no one saying Carter, he has to have been the worst President ever, but Obama is a **bleep** close second right now.
As for my favorite(s), in no particular order, GW, GHW & Clinton (but please God don't let his wife get in in 2016)
Customer Service - 1-800-345-SONY (7669)
Account & billing Support -1-877-971-SONY (7669)
Available Mon to Fri 8am - 8pm PST
Live Chat Available Mon-Sat 6am-10pm PST & Sun 6am-8pm PST

subset: commoncrawl


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
After playing around with trying to move 40 pounds around in my oven, I discovered that my back (with 2 surgeries) and elbow (golfer's elbow for a guy who hasn't picked up a club in over 35 years) can't do it. So, I'm now going to source a 16x16 silicon carbide kiln shelf and see if that's a reasonable substitute for 4 minute NY bakes. I'll probably start a new thread once I get it, since november's threads seem to be geared more toward sub 2 minute neapolitan bakes.
Without heavy mechanical grinding, starting with 36 grit, you will never remove the oxide layer and I know of no reason to do so. The hot roll process exposes the hot steel surface to oxygen which molecularly bonds to the surface and is actually harder than the steel itself. Clean it as well as possible and season it if you're still concerned, without cause I might add. Sanding will not remove the grease in the pores of the metal. That is simply not possible.Don
Don, while I agree that sanding isn't really necessary, if Aditya is starting to see 'silver' with 600 grit paper, then, with 40 grit paper, he should be able to take it down to the metal- assuming it's not that pitted.
Oh, speaking of weight: I totally lightly bent the rack in the oven here. Hopefully my own holds up better
Barry, while I'm sorry to hear about your potential issue with the weight of steel, I'm happy that you're volunteering to be a silicon carbide guinea pig. Two important caveats with SiC:1. Get 3/4" NOT 1/2". As you turn down the temps for NY bakes (from November's Neapolitan temps), thermal mass is going to be a factor. Because SiC is so light, 1/2" is not a lot of mass. If there's any hope for SiC for NY, it's going to be 3/4"2. I wouldn't cut SiC- either yourself, or the company that sells it to you. SiC is close to the hardness of a diamond. Besides being incredibly difficult to cut, I believe cutting makes it fragile.
Ruh roh :) Are we talking a permanent bend or is the shelf sagging a bit with the plate in place?
I am giving you the benefit of many years of experience and knowledge in the metal fabrication trade concerning mill scale on hot rolled steel. Whether you use that experience is up to you, but I guarantee you will never remove the layer with hand sanding. The mills use a hydrochloric acid bath before proceeding to cold rolling and a Google search will prove it. Type in "Removing oxide layer from hot rolled steel."Don
Ruh roh Are we talking a permanent bend or is the shelf sagging a bit with the plate in place?


text:
Becky Murdy
Assistant, Media Relations and Publications
Phone: 719-228-6800
E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Nov. 16, 2011) -The U.S. Men's Sitting Volleyball Team will head into the semifinal round undefeated after downing Colombia, 25-14, 25-15, 25-13 on Wednesday evening at the 2011 Parapan American Games in Guadalajara Mexico.
Team USA (5-0) will face Colombia for the second time on Thursday in the semifinal round at 7 p.m. CT.
On Wednesday night, just a few hours after the U.S. had swept Costa Rica, Eric Duda (Fort Lauderdale, Fla./Edmond, Okla.) totaled 11 of the Americans' 33 kills, dominating over Costa Rica's 18. The U.S. posted seven blocks to Costa Rica's two and led in services aces 11-3.
Duda led the U.S. scorers with 17 total points with his 11 kills, two blocks and four service aces. Charlie Swearingen (Gulfport, Miss./Edmond, Okla.) contributed 11 points off of five connections for kills, two blocks and four service aces. Team captain Brent Rasmussen (Omaha, Neb.) charted eight kills, one block and a service ace for 10 points. Rasmussen had a team-high nine digs and eight assists.
Also scoring for the U.S. was Edgardo Laforest (San Juan, Puerto Rico) with five points off of three kills, one block and one ace while Daniel Regan (St. Louis, Mo./Edmond, Okla.) posted four points with two kills, one block and one ace. James Stuck (New Kensington, Pa./Edmond, Okla.) played in two sets and posted three kills for three points and J. Dee Marinko (Newcastle, Okla.) delivered a single kill.
Ed O'Neil (Amherst, Mass./Edmond, Okla.) was the team libero and charted three digs and a team-high 12 excellent receptions.
The U.S. is currently in second place in the gold-medal count with 28 and is in third in total-medal winnings with 46 at the 2011 Parapan American Games. Brazil is leading both categories, 40-104.
For more information about the games, click here.
For live scoring and match results, click here.
2011 Men's Sitting Team Parapan Am Games Roster
Name (Hometown/Resident athletes at the University of Central Oklahoma are noted)
Eric Duda (Fort Lauderdale, Fla./Edmond, Okla.)
Roderick Green (West Monroe, La./Edmond, Okla.)
Edgardo Laforest (San Juan, Puerto Rico)
J. Dee Marinko (Newcastle, Okla.)
Ed O'Neil (Amherst, Mass./Edmond, Okla.)
Brent Rasmussen (Omaha, Neb.)
Dan Regan (St. Louis, Mo./Edmond, Okla.)
James Stuck (New Kensington, Pa./Edmond, Okla.)
Hugo Storer (Greensboro, N.C.)
Charlie Swearingen (Gulfport, Miss./Edmond, Okla.)
U.S. Men's Sitting Team Parapan American Games Staff
Head Coach – Bill Hamiter (Bethany, Okla.)
Assistant Coach – Dixie Collins (Marshall, Va.)
Athletic Trainer- Brian Farr
2011 U.S. Men's Sitting Team Parapan American Games Schedule and Results
(All times CT)
Nov. 14
12 p.m. USA def. Brazil 15-25, 25-22, 25-19, 21-25, 15-13
5 p.m. USA def. Mexico 25-13, 25-11, 25-17
Nov 15
12 p.m. USA def. Canada 25-17, 2-25, 25-15, 25-23
Nov. 16
12 p.m. USA def. Costa Rica 25-11, 25-13, 25-11
8 p.m. USA def. Colombia 25-14, 25-15, 25-13
Nov. 17
4 p.m. Semifinals (match 1)
7 p.m. Semifinals (match 2)
Nov. 18
7 p.m. Final


text:
South Wilton Veterinary Group and the Avian and Exotic Pet Referral Center is a six doctor practice owned by an ABVP board certified avian specialist. SWVG provides medical and surgical care for a wide range of species including cats, dogs, privately owned companion birds, as well as exotic pets including ferrets, lagomorphs, small rodents, and reptiles, and injured or sick wildlife. A one year internship and a 2 week externship is offered by the South Wilton Veterinary Group. This opportunity is intended to provide a broad experience in avian and exotic medicine and surgery. The student will work under the supervision of an experienced staff veterinarian. A typical day starts at 8 am and goes until approximately 6 or 7 pm.
Associate Veterinarians and special expertise available
- Nicholas Sitinas, VMD, Diplomate ABVP Avian Practice; completed an internship in canine and feline medicine and surgery at the Animal Center in New York City and then continued on to complete a residency in avian and exotic pet medicine and surgery.
- Stacy Robertson, DVM, completed an internship in canine and feline medicine and surgery at the Animal Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Robertson has co-authored a chapter on white blood cell disease in the popular textbook Feline Internal Medicine.
- Clare Fahy, DVM, completed externships at the Avicultural Breeding and Research Center (ABRC) in Loxahatchee, Florida, the exotics department of the Animal Medical Center in New York and at the Atlanta Humane Society in Georgia.
- Barbara Mangold, DVM, completed a 3-year residency in zoo medicine at the Bronx Zoo, and then was part of the opening team at Disney's Animal Kingdom for 4 years.
Educational Resources
- Journals numerous avian/exotic texts (too many to name)
- Daily morning rounds on hospitalized patients
- Daily radiology rounds
- Weekly "lunch and learns"
Responsibilities of the student would include: seeing healthy and sick avian and exotic appointments, assisting and performing medical and surgical procedures of avian and exotic species, participating in daily hospital rounds, participating in weekly radiology rounds with staff veterinarians, managing the care/treatment of all sick or injured wildlife, writing up daily treatment protocols for each hospitalized patient, seeing after-hour avian emergencies on a rotating schedule, writing up and presenting case reports on a monthly basis.
Student Supervision
All day - potentially as much as 11 hrs per day and Mon-Saturday...ie,will always have a vet working when a student extern is present. They'd also be free to "shadow" any avian emergencies that we see.
Practice Information
South Wilton Veterinary Group
51 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: 203-762-2002
Fax: 203-834-9999
email: firstname.lastname@example.com
website: www.southwiltonvet.com
Signature on file: Nicolas Sitinas, VMD
Updated: 11/25/08


text:
as a Last Name
- 54,358
- people in the U.S. have this name View Beard on Whitepages
Meaning & Origins
English: 1. nickname for a bearded man (Middle English, Old English beard). To be clean-shaven was the norm in non-Jewish communities in northwestern Europe from the 12th to the 16th century, the crucial period for surname formation. There is a place name and other evidence to show that this word was used as a byname in the Old English period, when beards were the norm; in this period the byname would have referred to a large or noticeable beard. As an American surname, this name has absorbed cognates and equivalents in other languages, in particular German Bart. 2. habitational name from a place in Derbyshire, which derives its name by dissimilation from Old English brerd 'rim', 'bank'.
|670th in the U.S.
Nicknames & variations
Quick facts
- Tens of Thousands
- of people in the U.S have this name
- 54,358
- to be exact
- Mississippi
- has the most people named Beard per capita


text:
Danielle Lawrie of Washington named USA Softball National Collegiate Player of the Week
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. --- Washington's pitching ace Danielle Lawrie (Langley, British Colombia) was named the USA Softball National Collegiate Player of the Week for the week of February 16-22. Going 3-0 from the circle, the 5'7" junior recorded three shutout victories against No. 2 Florida and a now No. 20 Ohio State. Lawrie did not allow a run in 23.0 innings to extend her consecutive scoreless innings streak to 52.1 innings. She struck out 43 batters and allowed just five hits in three games.
"Danielle is a more mature pitcher now," said Washington head coach Heather Tarr. "She has always been a great pitcher with great skills. Now you combine those skills with someone who is mentally tough, experienced and has been there-done that and you have a chance to have dominating performances like she did last weekend."
"It's definitely a really cool honor," said Lawrie. "At the same time I have to give thanks to my teammates because we don't win if we don't score runs then this isn't possible. They are the ones who make me look good. If you don't score, you don't win."
Against Nebraska, Lawrie allowed a leadoff single in the first inning then retired the final 21 batters of the game. She also added a solo home run in the Huskies 6-0 win.
Lawrie has allowed just two earned runs in 64.1 innings this season and is 9-0 with a 0.25 ERA. She has 107 strikeouts and 11 walks.
About ASA
The Amateur Softball Association, founded in 1933, is the National Governing Body of softball in the United States and a member of the United States Olympic Committee. The ASA has become one of the nation's largest sports organizations and now sanctions competition in every state through a network of 83 local associations. The ASA has grown from a few hundred teams in the early days to over 240,000 teams today, representing a membership of more than three million. For more information on the ASA, visit http://www.asasoftball.com/.
About USA Softball
USA Softball is the brand created, operated and owned by the ASA that links the USA Men's, Women's, Junior Boys' and Junior Girls' National Team programs together. USA Softball is responsible for training, equipping and promoting these four National Teams to compete in international and domestic competitions. The USA Softball Women's National Team is one of the only two women's sports involved in the Olympic movement to capture three consecutive gold medals at the Olympic Games since 1996. The U.S. women have also won eight World Championship titles including the last six consecutive as well as claimed two World Cup of Softball titles. For more information about USA Softball, please visit http://www.usasoftball.com/.


text:
Shimano's Technical Long Sleeve T-Shirt adds ventilation and an anti-microbial finish to keep you cool and prevent odor on those warmer days. High quality anti-wicking materials and a mock neck also make it a great base layer for those days when the weather is less than perfect. The Shimano Technical Long Sleeve Shirt delivers unmatched versatility for a variety of fishing conditions.
No customer feedback has been added yet! Be the first to write something about this product.


text:
Phoenix Audio Conferencing
Get your Phoenix Audio conferencing phones, parts and accessories from The Telecom Spot, Phoenix Audio authorized reseller, and rest assured you're getting the best service, product, pricing and expertise. We are carry the full line of Phoenix Audio products including Soho, Solo, Duet, Quattro and Octopus.
- • Soho: PC conference card. Insert into an open PCI slot converts your PC to a high-end VoIP and web conferencing device.
- • Solo: Powerful desktop USB microphone with boardroom conference quality.
- • Duet: Lightweight and durable USB desktop speakerphone that's great for travel.
- • Quattro3: HQ conference speakerphone. Turn any room into a professional sounding conference room.
- • Octopus: Audio Conferencing Mixer. Mount microphones and speakers anywhere in the room and it'll automatically monitor and remix.
Founded in 2004, Phoenix Audio Technologies is an innovator of audio communication solutions for Voice Over IP (VOIP), Web Conferencing, Distance Learning and Videoconferencing applications. Phoenix develops Microphones, Speakerphones, Software, PCI products and other audio accessories that improve the performance of existing conferencing devices. Our products enable people to communicate freely and naturally with easy to use, plug-and-play devices.
Phoenix Audio MT600 Condor MicrophoneSKU: MT600$1,499.00


text:
Have a peak over here: http://randyeverist.blogspot.com/2011/04/review-of-craig-vs-harris-debate.html#comment-form
If you get a chance, I'm 'Lee' in the comments section. Tell me how horribly I'm doing.
Really great job. You are a natural. I just posted there… Well, there went my day off
Still waiting for my posts to be accepted. He's a clever one! I posted some of the stuff we talked about, plus comments on the comments. Let me know if you see any glaring errors. This is tricky business. I really tried to focus on the pragmatic application of the discussion rather than "winning" by sticking to irrelevant arbitrary rules- not rules of logic or philosophy mind you, but technical rules set by the debate. There's no reason to think that just because we can back step until we create a version of god that is untouchable by criticism that it has any ontological merit for that reason. In any case, it's irrelevant, because no gods on earth fit Craig's/Randy's description. THAT is the god we should be asking the question about. I would have demanded that the debate be framed as, "Is Good from Yahweh?"
He approves as he responds, probably as an organizational habit (don't blame him).
I'm chasing my little reductio ad absurdum, I only hope it's not just a figment of my imagination. I tried chasing the epistemological problems of Divine Command Theory, but he turned it around on me and I was stuck on the defensive.
But if it comes to a draw and you have actual evidence that your foundation exists (i.e. the world and agents), as opposed to… nothing (unless he's a pantheist), then by OR, his is superfluous.
I'm hoping to reach the finish line without throwing the evidential 'poo' in his face, but it's the ace up my sleeve if it comes to that
I just read your comment. Thats practically philosophical poetry, and I appreciate the high-fives you tossed in for my benefit!
Oh it's up? Thanks. Any errors that you spotted?
Ugh, I just spent 3 hours replying to youtube theists who were not worth the time. I'm too exhausted to reply today, even though he will probably be the only one who really deserves it.
He's just not getting it. I think I'm done there.
Alright, I finished the CRAIG/KAGAN DEBATE. Awesome. That's the first time I really felt that Craig soundly lost, even in perception. Here are my notes. Many of them apply to Randy Everist's arguments and the Harris debate.
The main thrust of Craig's argument can be summed up when he says, "…the question here is the deeper question about 'why adopt the moral point of view?' and that can't be a moral answer because you're asking the question 'why adopt the moral point of view?'" But theism does not escape- *cannot* escape this implication of question begging by merely asserting that we must push beyond (in my view, sufficient) naturalism to say that 'the buck [actually] stops here' with god. In fact, it pushes it *too far back* (i.e. to god and/or 'cosmic significance"), because it takes us *away* from the *actually relevant sufficient moral machinery inherent in agents and the world* and into the world of empirically inaccessible, rationally superfluous, and therefore irrelevant, supernatural propositions.
Rebuttals to Craig's points of criticism against sufficiently moral, naturalistic machinery:
VALUES: Values may be veridical or not. Those that are veridical are obviously objective (and is even really tautological to say so). Value is commensurate with its need to fulfill a proposition and can only be intrinsic in this sense. All life has enough contributive possibility to have high amounts of value and so the term 'intrinsic value' may be used as an appropriate semantic term in this sense for it. Even if we have caught a murderer and are on the verge of ending their life in a struggle, we may opt to save their life and merely incarcerate them (if that's possible) because the contributive possibility of their moral turn around and/or a lesson learned by others would have great value personally (to the merciful) and to society (and that is just one reason their life might be spared). Last, as Kagan noted, that there is sometimes conflict between prudential values and moral values does not commit the naturalist to the prudential values as being more reasonable.
DUTY/OBLIGATION: Objective moral duties come from the demands of the moral community in the world, but not just the present community, the historical community. These are further qualified by experts in the relevant fields throughout history, based upon the same kind of *objectively consistent evidence* that we find in science. What are demanded of us as the bare minimum per each imperative are objective facts of what has been determined to bolster well being beyond our opinions (e.g. from behind Rawls' veil of ignorance).
SPECIESISM: To say that humans are necessarily morally on par with animals belies the necessary inclusion of our mental faculties that other animals do not possess, including the reflexive ability to empathize, the ability to apply verification heuristics, such as the tools of the scientific method: reason, consistency, testing, peer review, parsimony, etc. Reflexive empathetic awareness of the harm it causes other agents and ability to reason are why humans are culpable and animals are not. We have the ability to evaluate harm and compromise less harmful solutions with considerations for mutualism and temporality (i.e. some behavior may be more beneficial in the future). So when we appeal to veridical value propositions via our particular cognitive abilities, along with the tools of reason in an objective framework (and we do have empirically observed heuristics for mutual behavior expectations, such as Game Theory), give us not only the necessary foundational machinery for a moral system, but sufficient machinery; the parts are both necessary and sufficient for a functioning moral engine. Adding a god at this point is like putting an ornament on the hood. If other animals had all of our moral machinery, then yes, they would be part of the moral community too (but as has been shown scientifically, most animals do not have the overwhelming majority of the abilities, probably most importantly, the ability to put ourselves in another agent's shoes [or paws! ?]). As Peter Singer has argued, some animals have more parts than others and should be recognized as such commensurately on a continuum (and some humans less than others, but there are many issues to consider here, such as whether they *had* the machinery or still have the *possibility to have it again* and more [a huge topic in itself]).
PHYSICALISM/DETERMINISM: Even the most hardened determinist will probably agree that all agents still *causally interact* with the world, so that even the most biased and determined agents will still have an experiential awareness with an agenda to ameliorate suffering it sees and experiences- to bolster its own well being and the well being of others. Because people can suffer and cause suffering, as well as receive and administer aid, a moral system is still relevant, *even with the complete absence of free will*. Because we interact causally, because the real driving force of duty is the prevention of suffering and the promotion of well being (and that this is confined 'locally' is enough; making it 'macro' doesn't increase accountability), and because we are not omniscient, free will does not negate moral systems pragmatically. The significance of a causally interactive choice that makes it moral are based upon the actual harm/benefit in itself (e.g. pleasure, pain, gain, loss, etc), plus the *awareness* of it. This is similar to why Jeremy Bentham famously argued for vegetarianism on the grounds that it doesn't matter whether animals can reason, but whether they can suffer, and whether we can observe our contribution to that suffering as morally wrong. Last, because all of these parameters of our causal agency are confined/defined by the limits of our causal extension (e.g. our body, our group), the legal accountability is applied commensurately pragmatically.
ACCOUNTABILITY IN GENERAL: Moral and immoral behavior*does* ultimately (locally) affect the world in both positive and negative ways that are tangible for most people. There is no eternal accountability to the dead stars (Craig says "for the good of universe") that will exist after morally capable agents are gone (not to mention that is a complete assumption that nature won't somehow continue to create moral agents); there is only accountability *between the moral agents* who are able to actually participate and are even required to exist *in order to have* that moral system. It seems to me that just adding more time before or after the fact is like adding more silence before or after a song track and actually does not contribute anything to the song itself.
In the Q&A, Kagan brought up the 'deathbed confession' argument in terms of the *cosmic significance* of accountability that Craig requires of naturalists. In the light of Christian theology: even if a person is acts in morally good ways (whether intentionally or by accident) she may still go to hell if she denies Christ at the end of her life (and as we saw with the thieves next to Jesus on the cross, the opposite is true). Therefore, there is no *real* (let alone 'cosmic') accountability and Christians who would exploit Jesus' sacrifice are at least as morally bankrupt as a naturalist who would exploit nihilism. These are the kinds of things that get belied by theists who think that when Craig does well in a debate that focuses on generic or philosophically perfect abstract propositions (e.g. PBT), he is actually winning for Christian theology.
ODDS 'N SODS: Moral education reinforced by a moral community enhances the recognition and enjoyment of the positive ways we can increase mutual pleasure (for example, knowing that we have 'tit for tat' heuristics that compel others to perpetuate our altruism for up to '3 degrees of separation' is inspirational http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/03/altruism-has-3-degrees-of-separation.html). That some may get away with immoral behavior or be demoralized by the absence of the grounding of macro-morality in some divine sense is, at best, a prudential argument for morality, not an ontological one, and is really just a fallacy of (desired) consequence for the theist.
My favorite most useful quote from Kagan: "If the question is what's the explanation of the fact that so many societies have had so many morally appalling moral codes, the answer in part, is it takes a while for civilization to work its way up to recognize moral truth, just as it takes a while for civilization to work its way up to recognize truths in any other domain."
Anyway, thanks for the link Lee,
This is a great discussion, and I'd like to add my thoughts to it.
Sam could have added a rebuttal to the ontological argument (St. Anslem) for the existence of God that appeared to underly his opponent's discussion. Kant rejected it because it assumed an unproven bridge between a conceptual world and the real world. While there is no great consensus on this point, it seems to me to be sufficient to call this ontological argument into question.
Plus, there is another rebuttal to Wm. Craig's assertion that people are attracted to Christianity not because they fear Hell but because of God's love. If that were so, what the hell does "being saved" mean? Saved from Hell, to be sure. "Are you saved?" is the primary question strangers ask each other if they want to determine if they are also evangelical Christians.
Sam's presentation was, as usual, brilliant, and we're indebted to him for it.
I ran out of energy with that Everist fellow. He's very nice, and I felt myself getting frustrated with the way he *oops* misunderstood my points. I wrote out a few responses, but couldn't settle on a congenial tone, so decided to let that fox run free, as the saying goes.
Craig's "false reductionism", as you saw in this debate and the one with Kagan, was called out in both circumstances. It remains a straw man derived from assuming premises of his own worldview in evaluating his opponent's conclusions. He conflates values and duties when rebutting Harris(his "knockdown argument"), but gets his panties in a tangle when Harris *apparently* does the same (which I don't think he does). Eurythypro's Dilemma remains an issue and I don't buy Anselm's attempts to 'hide the ball' with The Good in his ontological reconstitution of the argument. Kagan's concession at the end of that debate, that if you're looking for morality based upon cosmic significance you won't find it in atheism, is a damn good one, and doesn't make atheistic, or naturalistic, morality any less objective for the lack. That's probably the hardest point to drive home to theists, and may very well be why most theologians accept a priori that this cosmic significance be the clincher for a moral code.
Sam's view of morality takes it's cues from J.L. Mackie when he argues (imo rightly) that value is a human and a social construct(requiring consciousness); for value to exist there must be something that values. In this way, to make 'god' the 'something that values', the issue of god's existence, and precisely what 'god' values becomes immediately relevant. This also ties into Kant's view that making 'god' the thing that values, and human beings mere followers of the law, devalues and corrupts morality(i.e. not doing good for the sake of being good, but to garner reward and avoid punishment). I also liked how Harris phrases the argument that our subjective experience is an objective fact, and these facts can be studied at the level of the brain (as a function of natural processes). This, to me, takes the necessary step from relativistic morality to objective morality. I haven't heard Dr. Harris give a cogent explanation of his particular brand of determinism, but if it's anything like Prof. Dennett's lecture on the implications of determinism on free will (not necessarily compatible-ism), I think Craig again creates an argument out of a misunderstanding.
All in all, most of what I have written here and on Everist's blog was shamefully unphilosophical in it's grammar. I'm still working my way through Hitchen's anthology The Portable Atheist, next up is Harris' newest book. It's been amazing cooperating with you on this debate at the very same time that I reach J.L. Mackie, Chapman Cohen, and Bertrand Russell, so thank you, and thank providence.
Arnie: I agree that would have been something worth discussing, but Harris set out with a plan in mind and stuck to it, instead of chasing Craig down every blind alley he whipped up. A detailed response to Anselm would have taken all of Sam's time, plus some, as it's easier to put voice to a lie than it is to put a lie to bed. I firmly believe his attacks on the question-begging nature of Craig's Perfect Being Theology as it (doesn't) relates to any theology out there, esp. christianity, was far more important than any theists are willing to admit.
"Sam's presentation was, as usual, brilliant, and we're indebted to him for it."
It was, and truly, we are. It's about time someone told Craig to shove it with his little sand-box style debate tactics and argued the topic. Kagan did it, Tabash started out doing it, Hitchens finished doing it, and I think Ahmed could, if they ever debated, but Harris really set a standard.
@relevance. Thanks for your contribution. I would think you first challenge would be relevant enough and as I've said on many sites discussing this debate and now I think Sam Has said it as well, the direction of the debate was not in stone as Craig and Randy and even some atheists are saying (e.g. Luke @ commonsenseatheism). That's too bad. OF COURSE they could have found an acceptable way to bring in the epistemological questions; we're talking about "goodness," and if Craig can qualify it in his criticism of Sam's poor semantic use of it (as if Sam didn't know the difference), he's obviously shown one needs access to the evidence. Everybody criticizing the debate is whining that Sam didn't spell it all out strategically though, "I'm rebutting/refuting point such and such….', that is to saying why he ignored Craig's limiting to the ontological. And what's important, since this is all DCT, is the difference between 'grounding' because of the objective world it creates (and the moral necessity created by it) vs. 'grounding' because of the commands. If he chose the first it would be in accord with how secular moral realists (like Kagan) proposed objective moral reality, and we would certainly be-certainly SHOULD be able to TEST this goodness empirically by comparing the gods of the world for coherence. Randy (and presumably Craig, but maybe not) says he grounds it in the latter: the command, but my point of contention in the last 3 page rebuttal (which he still has not posted and replied to, perhaps because I wrote that it was my last attempt there and it is pretty long, so he doesn't see why he should respond), is that *unless it is grounded primarily in the first way, the way by command is merely authoritarian*. Appeal to Authority (just as a slave or a dog are not necessarily more or less moral by obeying their masters, there has to be reasons for why they would be more moral).
As for you second response, Craig would say he wasn't talking about strictly the Christian god. Again, I wish it was highlighted that he didn't represent ANY god in ANY theology on the planet. That might be my main criticism of Harris in this debate. On the topic at hand, I much preferred the Kagan debate for its utility. There, Craig complained as we thought he would about the difference between prescription and description, but all one need show is that humans have needs as they live- we are compelled to act by default, so the urgency is already latent in the need for resolution of what is produced when people interact. So once you have a need, all you need from there is a correct (the most accommodating) answer. If, as Craig would contend, the answer only appeals to the selfishness of the one, then it quite simply isn't the best or mosaccommodatingng answer and will have commensurate consequences. It's fairly simple actually, once you get past the fake requirements of theists. As Kagan put it (paraphrased) 'if you're going to ask 'where's the cosmic significance?'- it's because you desire and/or are presuming you need cosmic significance.' But the moral machinery is already there and it IS sufficient. Cosmic significance is superfluous when the urgency and the objective framework are already there. Theists sure do have a lot of presumptions about necessity and just like first cause arguments, live at the edge of knowledge, but they are certainly not anything more than assertions (as Kagan showed, the necessity could be in different places- I would probably say that it exists when two or more people interact. Period.)
@Lee. Me too, though it's been like a week since my final response and it's not there yet. You're absolutely right that "That's probably the hardest point to drive home to theists, and may very well be why most theologians accept a priori that this cosmic significance be the clincher for a moral code." As I wrote above, I'm going to try to focus on the fact that unless theists admit the grounding is in the effect of the way the world is changed by god's goodness objectively (ontologically), the command element is bankrupt.
"to make 'god' the 'something that values', the issue of god's existence, and precisely what 'god' values becomes immediately relevant. This also ties into Kant's view that making 'god' the thing that values, and human beings mere followers of the law, devalues and corrupts morality(i.e. not doing good for the sake of being good, but to garner reward and avoid punishment)" Both excellent points and yet another example for the introduction of the epistemological question regarding the coherence of god's goodness by example.
Yeah, I learned a lot from this debate and our discussions too. Thanks for the great conversation. My stack of books is difficult to even look at (in fact it's been broken up into smaller stacks!). I'm currently writing a paper on the implication of predisposition and strong determinism, formatted as a list of scientific evidence for both (e.g. cognitive biases, the Libet study, genetic evidence, etc.), so I'm focusing on that for a few months (the Blank Slate, The Empathy Gap, and The Illusion of Conscious Will are on deck for that after I finish Thomas Pink's grueling defense of libertarian FW- UGh), but back to counter-apologetics, I have the Improbability of God coming up and well as Price's Jesus is Dead and Mackie's classic as well.


text:
Shiny spring nails are just minutes away with these new gel manicure kits.
Looking for long-lasting, pretty spring nails? It�s easier than ever with the popularity of at-home gel manicure kits growing and new offerings hitting the market every month. We tested out the latest kits and some fun new add-ons to make your DIY gel manicure even better! Kiss Everlasting Gel Polish LED Gel Lamp, $29.99, beautyonlinesupply.com Gel Polish Starter System, $19.99, beautyonlinesupply.com There�s lots to love about this gel nail kit: it�s inexpensive and available in most major drugstores, where you can often score additional discounts or earn cash back on purchases. But the quality is also worth noting. The LED lamp is larger and feels sturdier than others in the same price range�big enough to accommodate toes, too.� The color range is small, but we loved the aqua shade called Sweet for spring nails. Even better, for just a few bucks more, you can buy a version of the starter kit with the materials to do a professional-looking French manicure. RELATED: At Home Gel Manicure Kits� Hand & Nail Harmony Gelish Basix Kit and Mini Pro LED Curing Light, $49.95 and $69.95, sallybeauty.com The most recent gel manicure kits to hit the market seem to emphasize customization. Gelish, a salon-quality brand available to the public at Sally Beauty Supply offers several sizes of LED lights, including a small battery-operated version for just $19 and a medium-sized lamp that cures in 45 seconds and costs $69.95. �We loved how quickly the latter cured and the diamond-like finish it gave�glossy and rock-hard. One nifty add-on that Gelish offers is a Foil Wrap Removal Kit.�Rather than soak your fingers in a bowl of acetone, you soak the cotton pad and wrap your fingers in foil. This method (which you could recreate with foil and cotton pads you have at home) made removal much faster and gentler on the nails and surrounding skin. We�re converts! Couture Gel Nail Polish Kit $129, couturegelnailpolish.com� If you�re a DIY pro who wants to replicate the salon experience at home as much as possible, this is the kit for you. The 36-watt UV lamp is the type used in salons and will cure virtually any brand of gel polish you can buy. It also allows you to cure all five fingers at once�unlike every other lamp we�ve tried. The kit comes with your choice of three colors from Couture�s impressive selection, which includes a rainbow of color and glitter options for spring nails, and the bottles contain nearly twice as much product as other brands. A word of caution: We found this polish had a runnier texture than other brands and application took a bit of practice. On the plus side? It stayed put until removal, but then practically slid off our nails with no damage. If you have some experience with gels, this is a worthwhile upgrade to your collection�especially since the company offers a money-back 60-day guarantee. Red Carpet Manicure Pro Kit $79.99, redcarpetmanicure.com No doubt Red Carpet is a brand that keeps on top of nail art trends: In addition to its impressive gel starter kit, it offers several cost-effective gel kits that give you all the tools you need to create spring nails adorned with dots, ombre, rhinestones or glitter. We tested out the Gems & Jewels Manicure Kit , which includes three colors, three types of glitter and rhinestones for just $29.99. The application can be a little messy, but it wasn�t difficult, and we got a super-impressive multi-colored glitter effect that lasted for weeks�and no one could believe we did it ourselves. Sally Hansen Salon Gel Polish Starter Kit $69.99, ulta.com It was only a matter of time before the drugstore�s most popular nail brand released its own version of gel nail polish. And it doesn�t disappoint�this kit earned high marks from us for its user-friendliness and the fact that we could get a shiny, opaque manicure in just one coat, which speeds up the process. The starter kit itself only comes with three fairly ordinary color options�pale pink, red or wine�but Sally Hansen has reproduced many the regular line�s popular colors in gel form for purchase separately, like Commander in Chic, a purpley-taupe perfect for sophisticated spring nails. Brought to you by: Spry Living


text:
Search Tips
Your dad deserves appreciation, here is a nice way to show it!
Matte Finish.
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!
Choose a currency below to display product prices in the selected currency.
Click the button below to add the Swim Dad Christmas Ornament Navy- Closeout! to your wish list.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nice job, Craig.What's different on the mushroom pie? The mushrooms look a little rawer than usual.
Outstanding as always Craig. Those certainly do look like your finest work. I love the way your sauce looks. Do you use any of the puree that comes in the can or just the tomatoes? Also do you add any water to the sauce at all?
I personally want to thank you for posting your entire method including the cooler proof. People are rightfully wooed by the results, but only members such as yourself, help us newbies move foreward. STFD, STFU and all kudos to you.
You are killing me with those pictures! I haven't had pizza for a few days and those pies sure do look like some of the finest pies I have seen. Great job!
Thanks, Chau.My youngest son always makes the sauce, and he can do it better than I can. Little turd won't tell me his secret either. I know he pulls the stems and any skin off, takes out all the basil, and adds all the puree from the can. He doesn't add any water. Then he hits it with the stick blender lightly and seasons with a little sugar and salt. For a 35oz Cento Italian can (our favorite), he uses ~1Tbsp sugar and 1tsp salt. I think it tastes best if made a couple hours ahead. CL
Absolutely gorgious. You....the....man.Among other aspects of your perfection, the basil looks just perfectly wilted on that last margarita.are you oiling the basil before or after dressing the pie?AZ
Amazing looking pies, excellent leoparding. Im using the same canned tomatoes but I dont season mine at all. I have longer cook times than you so maybe that takes some of the acidity out. I may try a pinch of sugar next time tho, thanks for your sons tip Jason
Thanks Jason. We add the sugar and salt not for the acid specifically, but for the overall balance of the sauce, and because it seems to bring out more tomato flavor.CL
Craig, when I first started making pizza 2 years ago I did read about how many members were just using a bit of sugar and salt with plum tomatoes for their NP sauce. I'll admit that I did not understand it at all. After all, where the heck is the oregano? Isn't pizza sauce suppose to have oregano? Eventually I worked my way up to using a bit of fresh garlic and a bit of olive oil. For NP pies, I now use sugar to sweeten the sauce and a bit of salt to balance it as you eloquently put it. It took me some time, but I do get it now.Chau


text:
- Reviews
- Gear
- Rig Rundowns
- Artists
- How-to
- Lessons
- Premier Blogs
- Win
Bruce slides way up high on his signature Warwick Rio Rosewood Thumb NT during a Spectrum Road jam in early 2011 at Yoshi's Jazz Club in Oakland. Photo by Jerome Brunet
The two of you also played together back
in 2001 with the Cuicoland Express.
Bruce: Vernon actually played on a record of mine called A Question of Time around 1990. It was right around the time Living Colour really hit when he came in and played on a track, and I just fell in love with his playing. Since then, whenever I've had a chance to play with him, I've gone for it.
Reid: That happened during a time when I was meeting a lot of my heroes—a crazy, wonderful time in my life where I was playing with Garland Jeffreys and doing stuff with Santana. Jack reached out to me, and he's continued to be very supportive of me. I've been very fortunate to play on a couple of his solo projects.
What would you say are each other's
greatest strengths?
Reid: Jack brings an extraordinary passion to things, and he's able to access the entire stylistic range of the bass, because he's just so incredibly knowledgeable. I love his take on "There Comes a Time." The interplay between how he sings that and plays the bass, and the way that allows space to open up for my playing is just so lyrical.
He also has a great ability to reharmonize things and to create bass motion that emerges as a distinct voice. In fact, the key thing I always learn from my heroes—and this certainly applies to Jack—is to stay away from the "licks mentality," where it's all about this lick and that lick, as if a player is basically the sum of his licks.
I really prefer to think in terms of the voice of these great players. With the Lifetime stuff, I've found it useful to think about playing things similar to the original guys, but not the same things. The reason I got into guitar to begin with was that Carlos Santana's guitar sounded like a totally individual voice to me. It wasn't a collection of scales and licks—it had a singularity, if you will. And sure, that singularity, as with all players, can be broken down into its component parts—certain tonalities and techniques.
The key thing as a player is to transcend the influence in order to have a voice. It's easy—and, I think, especially easy for guitarists— to get caught up in the poetry of someone else, and not find the poetry in themselves. I'd like to think that Jack reached out to me because he heard the poetry in my playing. And that makes me feel good. I mean, this is a guy who's played with Clapton, Robin Trower, and Gary Moore!
Bruce: Vernon's chops are such that he plays so much and so fast that you have to kind of slow it down in order to really hear it properly. I think he plays so great that people aren't really aware of what he's doing. A lot of people don't really hear what he's doing. It's like listening to a songbird or something—you have to slow it down because it's going about 40 times faster than anything human, you know? He's definitely not human, but he's great!
Reid busts out his inimitably catonic licks on his MIDI-outfitted signature Parker. Photo by Pino Fama
Have there been any instances where you
guys surprised each other, musically?
Reid: Man, Jack just swings really hard. I mean, in "Blues for Tillman"—one of the originals on the record—he swings the doors off! He's got that amazing, behind-the-beat swing. But the biggest surprise for me was when he first sang in Scottish Gaelic on the traditional song "An t-Eilean Muileach." I mean, that was a jaw-dropping and indelible moment. I was totally gobsmacked.
Bruce: The very first time I played with Vernon, we did a song of mine called "Life and Earth," and he was playing these bebop lines on this very rock song. I knew then he was the guy for me [laughs].
You come from entirely different musical
generations. Was it hard to bridge that gap?
Bruce: I don't think there are any real differences in generations of music. If your goals are the same, it's got nothing to do with age or anything like that. Great music is timeless, and the same thing applies to musicians.
Jack Bruce's Gear
Warwick Jack Bruce Rio Rosewood Thumb NT, Warwick Jack Bruce JB3 Survivor, Gibson EB-1
Hartke HA3500C head, Hartke 410XL and 115XL cabinets
SIT Rock Brights Nickel Medium sets (.050–.105)
Vernon Reid's Gear
Parker DF824VR Vernon Reid Signature MaxxFly, '58 Gibson ES-345, '90s Hamer Custom Chaparral, '90s PRS McCarty
Mesa/Boogie 100-watt Dual Rectifier, Randall MTS Series RM100M (including Treadplate, Kirk Hammett KH3, and Blackface modules), Fender Twin Reverb, Randall RV412 cabs
Roland VG-99 V-Guitar System and FC-300 MIDI Foot Controller, Eventide PitchFactor, Eventide ModFactor, Strymon El Capistan, Schumann Electronics PLL analog square-wave harmonizer, Moog MoogerFooger MF-107 FreqBox and EP-2 Expression Pedal, Fractal Audio Axe-Fx Ultra with MFC-101 MIDI Foot Controller, Z.Vex Fuzz Factory, Z.Vex Lo-Fi Loop Junky, Pefftronics SB-101 Super Rand- O-Matic, Pigtronix Echolution
Strings, Picks, and Accessories
D'Addario EXP115 (.011 to .049), Dunlop JD JazzTone 205 and 208, Dunlop TeckPick Aluminum, Surfpicks, Brossard custom picks
Is there any track on the record that was
particularly important for each of you to
be included on the album?
Bruce: For me, it was "Vuelta Abajo," which I feel was a really great composition of Tony's. It was very important for me to get that on there because I was actually present at the beginning. When I joined Tony's band, "Vuelta Abajo" was the first thing we recorded. Tony didn't write all the tunes on the record, but they're all pretty important. There's "Coming Back Home" by Jan Hammer, and a couple of John McLaughlin tunes, as well as a couple of tunes that come from this band, Spectrum Road—it's a bit of a mixture.
Reid: I really wanted to do "Coming Back Home"—it's one of my favorite Jan Hammer pieces. Tony played it on his 1978 solo album The Joy of Flying with George Benson, and it's a delightful melody. It was really daunting to take on. There's a lot of influence from George Benson on the first half, with the whole clean-tone thing, but after that I felt, "I really have to make this thing my own." It's one of my favorite moments on the whole record.
With the level of improvisation happening
when the group is playing live, how
comfortable are you going into each show?
Bruce: That's the exciting thing, because we quite often don't know what's going to happen. And, obviously, with improvisation, anything can happen—because everybody's the leader and nobody's the leader, y'know? I find that very exciting, and I believe audiences do nowadays, too. There was a period when that wasn't happening, but I think people like it again.
Reid: In terms of improvising, we play live much like the record, and follow a certain order for the solos. And yes, we do follow much the same script that the original tunes dictate. Sure, there's always some risk involved with the totally improvised pieces—it can work, or it can totally not work. But that can happen with any piece of music, even one that's composed to the nines. Every piece of music ultimately faces the same issues in performance.
I also find it really gratifying that people are becoming interested in Tony again. He was an artist who I feel was really misunderstood in a lot of ways. When I hear a band like Medeski Martin & Wood or the Mars Volta, which are totally different from each other, I hear a real connection to the impulse that the Lifetime had. By virtue of the Bonnaroo Festival—which we're playing this summer—and the jam-band culture that the Grateful Dead spawned, this style of music is possibly more accepted now than it was then.


text:
Classic luxury with a rustic twist.
Collection is Ralph Lauren's most glamorous vision of timeless luxury. He designs for a woman who is modern and elegant with a chic, feminine nonchalance, and he tells her story through impeccably tailored clothes and a passion for artistry and craft. Each season, the runway sets the stage for Ralph Lauren's magnificent Collection designs, from handmade evening gowns with exquisite detail to refined hand-tailored suiting. Ralph Lauren Collection is the ultimate expression of rarefied fashion as only Ralph Lauren can express it.
Ralph Lauren The Resort Collection
Classic luxury with a rustic twist.