Carbon Bloody Footprints.

[awa355]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7940326/Carbon-footprint-study-examines-solo-mums

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

I know the greenies are talking about the waste left behind from everyday life, but that has always been the case. Every form of life uses and disposes elements of its enviroment.

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???:oi-grr:

[oneofsix]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7940326/Carbon-footprint-study-examines-solo-mums

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

I know the greenies are talking about the waste left behind from everyday life, but that has always been the case. Every form of life uses and disposes elements of its enviroment.

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???:oi-grr:

There must now be less material on this planet now and less carbon due to all the junk that has been fired into space, especial the high carbon steel etc.

Seems funny to worry about carbon on a planet that is basically an environment for carbon based life forms and has its own inbuilt carbon to oxygen exchanges. I guess when all the fuss about hydrocarbons causing ozone depletion proved a dead end they just switched tact to another form of carbon, after all there is plenty of it around :shutup: :innocent:

[FJRider]

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?



A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

[awa355]

A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

[oneofsix]

A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

:bs: That is the energy footprint, if anything, and typical of the muddle thinking that affects a lot of people on this subject. Carbon footprint is the amount of carbon released by an activity and even that is muddled as when you burn a log you release all the carbon in it, or do you? A lot of the carbon actually remains in solid form as ash and soot but the calculations typical show it all being released as atmospheric gas.

[Maha]

The word/term used before 'Carbon Footprint' was Excessive.
Wasn't used so much after 1987.

[YellowDog]

I just can't wait until we have an annual

'Bash a Greenie Day'

Those guys are soooooooo insignificantly trivial and annoying.

Put them on boats and send them all to India and China where they can preach some significantly valuable messages :yes:

[FJRider]

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

What about the energy/machines/processes required to make/deliver those energy saving appliances ...in the numbers required to meet the increased population/demand. Appliances that don't get repaired ... but designed to be replaced. And what happens to those appliances that stop working.

60 years ago things were built to last. And the only energy wasted was our own.

[scissorhands]

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

transportation mainly, freight too, beers from Holland, holidays in Bali every year, and car ownership rates increasing

we may be more efficient, but our appetites have increased

efficiency could be way better, mandatory insulating of homes, electric cars, discourage commuting and overseas holidays

encourage supermarket shopping online, home based employment, flexible residential dynamics making moving closer to work easier to achieve, reduction of number of personal items

ownership of so many tools and gadgets and toys, material objects taking more energy in purchasing, storing and ownership than what they provide in usefulness

[bogan]

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

Its not their footprints that are the problem, its the fact we set whats left of them on fire...

In addition to the fact T-rexes find matchboxes difficult to use, they also didn't have as much dead stuff to burn, so they had a far smaller carbon footprints than we do.

Carbon footprint is a bit of a misnomer anyway, cos isn't it related to the amount of carbon that is put into the air. In light of this I propose we rename it a carbon fart.

[FJRider]

From Wiki ...

A carbon footprint has historically been defined as "the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person."

However, calculating the total carbon footprint is impossible due to the large amount of data required, the relatively recent attention brought to this issue within the last century, and the fact that carbon dioxide can be produced by natural occurrences. It is for this reason that Wright, Kemp, and Williams, writing in the journal Carbon Management, have suggested a more practicable definition:

"A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the relevant 100-year global warming potential (GWP100)."

Greenhouse gases can be emitted through transport, land clearance, and the production and consumption of food, fuels, manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings, and services. For simplicity of reporting, it is often expressed in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent of other GHGs, emitted.

Most of the carbon footprint emissions for the average household come from "indirect" sources, i.e. fuel burned to produce goods far away from the final consumer. These are distinguished from emissions which come from burning fuel directly in one's car or stove, commonly referred to as "direct" sources of the consumer's carbon footprint.

The concept name of the carbon footprint originates from ecological footprint,discussion, which was developed by Rees and Wackernagel in the 1990s which estimates the number of "earths" that would theoretically be required if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the same level as the person calculating their ecological footprint. However, carbon footprints are much specific than ecological footprints since they measure direct emissions of gasses that cause climate change into the atmosphere.

[awa355]

What about the energy/machines/processes required to make/deliver those energy saving appliances ...in the numbers required to meet the increased population/demand. Appliances that don't get repaired ... but designed to be replaced. And what happens to those appliances that stop working.

60 years ago things were built to last. And the only energy wasted was our own.

My mothers old Kelvinator fridge from 60 years ago, was still going after some 40 years. I doubt my current fridge will last half that distance. My appliance is undoubtedly far more energy efficient, than the old Kelvinator. Having said that, mums old fridge always had plenty to eat in it. Not like my current fridge.

Modern commerce wouldn't want us owning appliances that lasted 40 years.

[FJRider]

Having said that, mums old fridge always had plenty to eat in it. Not like my current fridge.

I'm guessing the amount of food in your current fridge has nothing to do with it's efficiency ... nor it's size ... :pinch:

[skippa1]

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

you might want to try going outside and looking at the world. It has changed. Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a washing machine, transistor radio, toaster, iron, the wealthier ones had a stereo and TV. I walk through my house now, I have a 50" plasma in the lounge, a 32" LCD in the bedroom Blue ray, sky, 3 x computers, ipod dock, stereo x 2, enough kitchen gadgets to sink a small row boat, battery chargers, phone chargers, 3 x phones, clothes dryer, dishwasher,fridge, every light fitting has 4-5 bulbs hanging off it. In the garage, there are all manner of power tools, battery powered and charged tools, fridge....and on and on....you know the score. Bottom line is that the appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more than we used to have............multiply that over a growing population.....what do you think?

[Ocean1]

Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the relevant 100-year global warming potential (GWP100)...

...Since revealed to be utterly meaningless codswallop.



Continue.

[oneofsix]

you might want to try going outside and looking at the world. It has changed. Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a washing machine, transistor radio, toaster, iron, the wealthier ones had a stereo and TV. I walk through my house now, I have a 50" plasma in the lounge, a 32" LCD in the bedroom Blue ray, sky, 3 x computers, ipod dock, stereo x 2, enough kitchen gadgets to sink a small row boat, battery chargers, phone chargers, 3 x phones, clothes dryer, dishwasher,fridge, every light fitting has 4-5 bulbs hanging off it. In the garage, there are all manner of power tools, battery powered and charged tools, fridge....and on and on....you know the score. Bottom line is that the appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more than we used to have............multiply that over a growing population.....what do you think?

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

[oneofsix]

From Wiki ...

....

Read like an "oops that didn't work lets try rewriting the criteria".

[YellowDog]

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

Forget wind and hydro, far too expensive.

Let's go for good old glow in the dark nuclear power :yes:

[Swoop]

"Carbon footprint" is simply another way of taxing people.

[FJRider]

Read like an "oops that didn't work lets try rewriting the criteria".

Basically the formula to work out the size of the carbon footprint is virtually impossible to work out. As the formula is endless ... or at least never ending.

To the extent that machines that make machines/products that make/made from .... where do you stop ???

But the underlying theory is ... that an overall reduction in waste be made in any process/activity. The use ... and RE-use of products and/or their materials ...

Rampant commercialism tends to go against this ideal. Cheap to buy usually means cheap to replace.

[skippa1]

that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

Fuck off, I dont need to brag, you can pick up that shit for next to nothing these days. Fuck, a 50" plasma the same as mine for $475 on TM and my Sharp 32" can be picked up for under $200. The rest of those household appliances can be picked up for squat at Briscoes or similar.

[imdying]

But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.A fallacy and not true.

[oneofsix]

Basically the formula to work out the size of the carbon footprint is virtually impossible to work out. As the formula is endless ... or at least never ending.

To the extent that machines that make machines/products that make/made from .... where do you stop ???

But the underlying theory is ... that an overall reduction in waste be made in any process/activity. The use ... and RE-use of products and/or their materials ...

Rampant commercialism tends to go against this ideal. Cheap to buy usually means cheap to replace.

the first part is like saying the existence of god can't be proven and must be taken on faith and therefore you can't disprove the existence of god.

The last part is a rant for the general reduction in pollution and not carbon footprint based. Now that I agree with and part of my problem with the fixation on carbon is that they will accept more, and more dangerous pollution in the name of reducing carbon emissions, like nuclear power or the Prius.

[oneofsix]

Fuck off, I dont need to brag, you can pick up that shit for next to nothing these days. Fuck, a 50" plasma the same as mine for $475 on TM and my Sharp 32" can be picked up for under $200. The rest of those household appliances can be picked up for squat at Briscoes or similar.

Over $600 on stuff that is not related to riding your bike :gob:

[skippa1]

Over $600 on stuff that is not related to riding your bike :gob:

I lie in bed touching myself and watching moto gp:blah:

[Akzle]

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???:oi-grr:

more or less the same, BUT humans making shit that would never have happened in nature. petrochemicals,( shampoo, coke ie), sulphites, nitrates, heavy metals etc. that shit aint biodegradable. that shit has no place in the nature-chain. so humans are shitting in the only backyard they've got.


Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a ((not much shit)). I walk through my house now, I have ((a stack of shit)) appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more...
so why not get rid of some of it? does it make you happy, having all that stuff to clean?


that you is bragging about how many fancy appliances you have. But your electric cooker and microwave still produce less carbon emissions than the old camp fire style cooking especially if the power is hydro or wind produced.

a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

[skippa1]

more or less the same, BUT humans making shit that would never have happened in nature. petrochemicals,( shampoo, coke ie), sulphites, nitrates, heavy metals etc. that shit aint biodegradable. that shit has no place in the nature-chain. so humans are shitting in the only backyard they've got.
Isnt that a moot point though? Humans are part of nature, so it clearly does happen in nature. Whether you like it or not is a different matter. Just like a shark may bite off your dick, it happens in nature, you dont have to like it though.

so why not get rid of some of it? does it make you happy, having all that stuff to clean?
It clearly does make me happy or I wouldnt collect it. I would say that 90% of what I have isnt a necessity of life (maybe even more than that) but life isnt about just existing is it?



a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

a) agreed
b) In 2011, New Zealand generated 43,138GWh of electricity. The electricity generated in 2011 was 57.6% hydroelectricity, 18.4% natural gas, 13.4% geothermal, 4.7% coal, 4.5% wind, 1.4% other sources
c) Dead right - fuck the nukes

[oneofsix]

a) bullshit, a good fire burns cleanly with very little harmful byproduct, and NONE that can't be biodegraded naturally.
b) most of NZ's power is COAL generated. go fucking figure. that electric car? creates more fucking CO2 at source than my filthy detuned I6.
c) humans can't deal with nuclear waste. i think it's highly fucking rude to me making a mess, that remains a mess for 20-30-40 thousand or more years, that can't be fucking cleaned up.

Your a) and b) are contradictory. They generate the power from coal by burning the coal and now many camp fires are "a good fire"? Btw heard today that burning coal dust can be 99% efficient and one of the cleanest energy sources available, just a pity the "green religion" is totally and unquestionably anti-coal, there might even be 29 coasters still here today otherwise.

The fact that we generate power from coal burning doesn't negate the if in my post.

As for the electric car it not only produces more CO2 but also more other pollution as well, actually I've already posted this.

Totally agree on c), see my earlier post referenced above.

[Akzle]

b) In 2011, New Zealand generated 43,138GWh of electricity. The electricity generated in 2011 was 57.6% hydroelectricity, 18.4% natural gas, 13.4% geothermal, 4.7% coal, 4.5% wind, 1.4% other sources


i'll accept that. more below.

the difference between humans and nature, is that they're not living in a natural state. they're living in a false "economy" "society" thing that a few have made up to fleece the many, *cue matrix-smith-humans are a virus*
everything else in nature evolves to it's environment, humans change the (immediate) environment to suit them.
everything from the basic diet - we eat winter foods in winter because they have the stuff we want, now we have all kinds of food on demand all year round: we now have obesity, asthma, allergies, coronary complaints, stomach, kidney and liver failure at un-natural rates.
not to mention, the lifestyle they adopt for this "comfort" reflects a nett detriment to the remainder of nature.
moot? i reckon it's fucken bad.

too, i reckon there's a better way than irreversibly consuming fossil fuels. by and large, the planet is made out oil. however, humans only have a very limited access to the planet. being that dey haven't got through the crust, we also have to live where they're digging, which isn't ideal is it?

and why, when there is the energy of the cosmos to be harnessed?


Your a) and b) are contradictory. They generate the power from coal by burning the coal and now many camp fires are "a good fire"?

...Btw heard today that burning coal dust can be 99% efficient and one of the cleanest energy sources available, just a pity the "green religion" is totally and unquestionably anti-coal, there might even be 29 coasters still here today otherwise.

no, many camp fires now are probably fucken useless, cos we can pour some lighter fluid onto pressed charcoal bricks to make it go woo.
once upon a time i'm sure people knew how to lay a good fire, to consume wood they had to chop themselves at a rate that suited their cooking (biff the oven) so as not to waste any. it would also have been indoors to double as warmth (chuck out that heater) and any ash would have gone on the vege patch (nevermind a bag of compost from bunnings)


the lignite that the 29 were chasing was being exported to china. because china have such good environmental laws, ehh....


i would have to see some kind of fact, i doubt NZ is burning coal at 99% efficiency.

we also have that problem where we start underground seam fires...(not to mention the toxic slurry pumped into the ground to get the shit out) like that one from '83 or so, west coast, that, as far as i know, is still burning.

[skippa1]

i'll accept that. more below.

the difference between humans and nature, is that they're not living in a natural state. they're living in a false "economy" "society" thing that a few have made up to fleece the many, *cue matrix-smith-humans are a virus*
everything else in nature evolves to it's environment, humans change the (immediate) environment to suit them.
.

that is one perspective, it is of course based on the premise that it is unnatural for humans to live in a society or as you call it a "false economy" and that it is unnatural for humans to change the environment to suit themselves. Nature itself changes its environment to suit its needs, birds build nests, ants and termites build complex communities with hierarchy's, bees live in communities and build homes that can impinge on the quality of life for other species. If you look back through time, we have had ice ages, times of drought and monsoon, natural phenomenon that wipe out species, whilst others evolve and adapt. All natural.
If it is so unnatural, how have we evolved to live like this?

[Akzle]

If it is so unnatural, how have we evolved to live like this?
and.. just how well do humans cope with natural disasters, as a species?
i wouldn't be bragging about the current state of humans/humanity as any kind of evolutionary success.

your query is a two banger - the society of humans, and the specie of humans. i'm not going to enter into any kind of logical discussion on this. i'm going to rant, as usual:

humans live longer - from the time you're 18 to 65 you're expected to slave for the government "for the good of society" then go die quietly on 260$/week.
there is way more sickness than ever before, hell, you've created fucking diseases. fuck, they basically made up cancer.
but, thankfully there's a multi (and i mean many-multi- (like, more than the GDP of africa)) billion dollar psycho-pharmaceutical industry to keep you conscious enough to keep showing up at work, failing that, there's the booze industry, plying you with liquor to kill enough braincells at night for you to forget just how shit it actually is.

bees, birds, everything else, works with nature. they're part of a larger wheel.
i don't see much of it in humans. concrete is reinforced with steel to resist nature, double glaze and insulate to keep nature out. too hot? crank the aircon. too cold? destroy something. boring individual? sit in front of the idiot box and get told what you think.

how many birds do you see whining about the weather? none, why? cos they just get the fuck on with it. how many birds do you note trying to cure bird flu? none, why? cos it doesn't fucking matter. how many birds do you see that worry about old age and death? fuckall. how many that want the best for their young? how many that neglect or abuse them? how many that steal their neighbor's nests? how many that create arcane limits on how, when or where other birds can fly, and then gang up to enforce that policy? how many turn up to vote? how many pick other birds over them to make decisions for them?
hum?
how many obese fuckers could outrun a tiger? (or, more realistically, a zombie) how many sick, unthinking a-dolts will survive without millo jovovich?
as much as i love all you cunts, y'aint all gonna be crashing at mine when the zombie apocalypse hits.

but yes, societal structures do exist within bee colonies. and y'know what? they're all fucking working together. there is no competition, no bee is vying for a bigger house/car/boat than his brother-bee, no bay-bees are being bee-ten to death (yay for apiary puns)
they achieve social harmony, every bee is provided for, for the duration of their life. neat huh? there is no commerce, no conflict, no adversarial bullshit to keep the worker bees distracted while the honey is stolen from underneath them.
and they aid pollination of other plants, so they're helping in the larger (earth) sense, too.

and humans are killing bees. humans have properly-fucked bees.
cellphones, insecticides, deforestation blah blah fucking blah.

yay humans. more cancer is what's required. but i've a fiar inkling y'all happy enough to dose yerselves with it.

[Berries]

how many birds do you see whining about the weather? none, why?
Because they can't talk.

Next.

[Akzle]

Because they can't talk.

Next.

so. you mst think africans don't talk, a'cause you can't understand it...

next you'll be thinking trees don't talk. sheesh!

[awa355]

with[/I] nature. they're part of a larger wheel.
i don't see much of it in humans. concrete is reinforced with steel to resist nature, double glaze and insulate to keep nature out. too hot? crank the aircon. too cold? destroy something. boring individual? sit in front of the idiot box and get told what you think.

how many birds do you see whining about the weather? none, why? cos they just get the fuck on with it. how many birds do you note trying to cure bird flu? none, why? cos it doesn't fucking matter. how many birds do you see that worry about old age and death? fuckall. how many that want the best for their young? how many that neglect or abuse them? how many that steal their neighbor's nests? how many that create arcane limits on how, when or where other birds can fly, and then gang up to enforce that policy? how many turn up to vote? how many pick other birds over them to make decisions for them?
hum?


If birds had the ability to rationalize, to analyze, and the ability to alter their enviroment, they would be working out ways of living longer, not staving during severe winters,

Move a nest, with chicks, a metre from where it was and the parent birds will abandon it.

Ever seen Mynors destroying other birds nests and throwing the chicks out just because they can?


Release a Budgie into the garden and see how long before other birds attack it, not because it is a threat, but because it's different.

Birds can be cannabalistic, territorial, and can display all the viciousness that is needed for the survival of their own. ( bit like humans and infact, any living species)

[Akzle]

If birds had the ability to rationalize, to analyze, and the ability to alter their enviroment, they would be working out ways of living longer, not staving during severe winters,

Move a nest, with chicks, a metre from where it was and the parent birds will abandon it.

Ever seen Mynors destroying other birds nests and throwing the chicks out just because they can?


Release a Budgie into the garden and see how long before other birds attack it, not because it is a threat, but because it's different.

Birds can be cannabalistic, territorial, and can display all the viciousness that is needed for the survival of their own. ( bit like humans and infact, any living species)

jeeez, who let mr buzzkill in?


bird stockpile for winters. humans stockpile for about 3 days. little hurricane comes through and you end up with a pack of whining yanks. no electricity waaaaaaa, can't go to mcdonalds waaaaaaa, my kid drowned waaaaaa.
pussies.

Mynahs kill other species. this is pretty natural behavior.

budgies didn't evolve in the wild, did they? (humans destroyed them as a species, same with seagulls. fucken things.)
again, they're a different species to what's killin em.
similar behavior could be observed between the great-white-races and them other folk, the world over, only 50 years back...

[wtf?]

Not sure why some see humans as somehow separate from nature?

As individuals, faced with the same threats as other animals we share our planet with, we will react similarly, i.e we will do what we can to pass on our genes.

Self awareness does not somehow separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Its just that we're aware of some of whats going on. Intelligence (properly used) has helped to keep us somewhat removed from the rest of the food chain. Wasn't always so.

Life came to this planet. Sooner or later it will go. Neither taxes, laws nor governments will ever change that. There are only two things that will affect when it will happen. The immediate threat to survival (i.e within the lifetime of the affected generation, which will be too late if we cant evolve or adapt fast enough) or our own sun deciding to supernova.

My guess is the former. Probably through war over arable land.

[Akzle]

Not sure why some see humans as somehow separate from nature?

Self awareness does not somehow separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Its just that we're aware of some of whats going on. Intelligence (properly used) has helped to keep us somewhat removed from the rest of the food chain. Wasn't always so.

neither.

although i reckon self awareness is some kind of cosmic charge to better things. in a similar way to buddhists, (ie, this carnation is affected by your previous incarnation and the object of this one is to reach enlightenment) kind of thing.
as we're among the higher sentient life forms, we have this capacity. does it get used on a society-wide, species-wide scale? no.
why not? i blame TV.