Future Value - What It Is, Where It Came From, And Why It Drives Our Species Forward, In More Ways Than One

Stonehenge is somewhat of an enigma. No-one knows who truly built it, or why. And considering that is was built over the course of some 1,500 years, in three stages, the puzzle just grows.

While watching a documentary on it, some boffin reckons that it was not built for sun worship, it was built for moon worship. He reckons it went like this...

We used to worship the moon. The moon was associated with women, and the sun with men. Men would hunt during the night. And everything was hunky-dory. Until, that is, the ice-age gave way to a period of global warming. For then, the large herd animals, which he reckons we fed on, all went away and we found it too hard to hunt small animals, like rabbits. And after a thousand years of trying to live off animals like rabbits, we gave up. And we were forced to begin farming - planting seeds and growing them. This shift required us to pay attention to the sun and not the moon. So we began worshiping the sun. Therefore the men became the dominant party, and not the women like it had been when we worshiped the moon, and fighting between rival groups of the "owned" land began. In an effort to show the people the moon was still a good thing, Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests. And the proof is, if you imagine it as how some believe it was when it was in its prime; and if you stand at a certain place; then once a year you see the sun pass through a small gap between a certain set of rocks, and once every 18.6 years you see the moon pass between a different but higher gap. And thus, this was to show the people that the sun was copying the moon, but could only do it once a year while the moon did it every month, every 18.6 years.

Apart from the fact we are not nocturnal. And if we didn't have enough plant foods to sustain us, how was there enough to sustain large herds of animals. And if there was enough to feed them during the ice-age, why did they go away when the thaw happened and food for them would have been even more abundant. And how did we survive for a thousand years hunting rabbits if it wasn't enough to provide us with food. And who were this secret cabal of priests that appear in no records anywhere. And how come this "let's show the people it's still ok" took over one thousand years to achieve? And, better not ask too many questions of that theory for fear it will fill it full of holes like a sieve.

Despite the craziness of his theory - that Stonehenge was built to calm down the citizens and show them the moon was still okay - he said a few things about other monuments built around that time. And that got my old gray matter onto a line of thought that leads to the wonderful world we have around us of today. And explains why other third world countries seem doomed to not join us in our evolved society.

The essence of it all is one of events and technology improvements based on our lifestyle, and why.

First, I don't believe we were forced to develop farming as much as he thinks we were. I think more that we did it because we could. It was somewhat easier to plant a crop, let nature do her thing, then eat it. Easier than trying to hunt large game animals that were dwindling in number due to the extensive hunting of them throughout Europe, by a gradually increasing population and due to climate change which may have seen the larger ice-age animals not be suited to a warmer environment.

As farming increased and we became more settled and less nomadic, our territorial claims became more fixed. We fought over our territory, like all animals do, and like we would have done while nomads and hunting our wide territory. The increase in farming also meant, we could increase the size of the population. Because a large population cannot be nomadic, it can only be fixed. And fixed populations tend to grow in size.

The dead which had been left on the side of the road, so to speak, when we were nomadic, now had to be put somewhere. And in the initial instances, they were simply placed in mass-like graves (burial caves). As our societies grew, people began being buried individually. And here in lies a key to a fundamental mind shift. And it is at this point in time we begin to see the mega-structures being built.

To fully understand this you need to know of the Bi-Cameral mind. Without going into too much detail about it, just realize, consciousness as we understand it to be, did not exist way back then. Back then we were nothing more than highly intelligent animals. We had no feelings of remorse or regret as we understand them to be today, just like an animal has no feelings towards other animals of its kind. This is seen in the disposal of the bodies - just dumped with the other dead bodies.

BUT, as we developed consciousness... the mind most of us have today, a realization and self-awareness of the individual takes place. And when dead, individuals are buried individually.

The catalyst to make this happen was larger society. In small groups our minds didn't need the consciousness of today. But to be able to function in a large group, with what we would call right and wrong, we needed to develop a conscious mind.

Now it is interesting that this mind shift can only take place when we are forced to live in larger groups as a society. And this is only possible due to farming.

There is another element that farming brought into our existence. And that is the concept of Future Value.

Future Value, as I use it here, is the idea of trading something today, right now, for a payoff at some point in the future. And this is evident with farming - you trade time and effort now, for food crops later on.

Up until this point, we operated like all other animals - for the now. If we were hungry we hunted and fed our bellies. To satisfy the immediate urge to eat. This mind-set would not allow farming to take place. Only a concept of future value would allow that.

And once future value was a concept that was accepted and understood, we begin to see large structures being built. Because the time and effort devoted to the building now, would have a future pay off.

If we look back to Stonehenge as claimed by this new theory, and even accept some of it, we can appreciate that it was built to give future pay off. And as the society then was heavily reliant on farming, my conclusion is that it was built to monitor the time of the year and the year in general.

Hence, by looking at the stones it could be determined when the summer solstice (longest day) was. And this would have great importance for the planting of crops. And the fact the building was built over many hundreds of years shows a continued use and refinement to "get it right".

This, to me, is a more-easily acceptable theory of why it was built.

Now getting back to future value. If you are reading this, you subscribe to the idea. You go to school for years, for a future job payout. You get a home-loan to live the great dream of home ownership - you are planning for your future. Businesses invest NOW for a hope of future profits. The idea of future value drives our world. And has its origins in farming.

Now look at the third world desolate countries. There is no concept of future value there. There is only immediate values.

Take the middle east, for example. The blatant disregard for life, shows no concept of future value. The nomadic way of life signifies no concept of future value. And the fact all middle east countries that are in the pits, are also those countries without a farming history, and thus no concept of future value.

Look at the dump countries in Africa. Again, tribal conflicts without a farming/agriculture history, and the countries do not progress. They stagnate.

China used to be like that. But as it went agricultural many years ago the country progressed.

In fact, as I look at the countries that previously led the way in technology and those who continue to do so, I see a history of farming. And as I look at countries with continual strife and terrorist activities, I see countries without a history of farming. Without a history of farming there is no concept of future value. And without that, effort is not made today for a future pay off. Effort is made today for a pay off today. Otherwise no effort is made.

Have a look at the Australian Aborigines. They did NOT farm. Hence they did not have a history of future value. And thus created nothing. They did not advance technologically at all. Still not even having invented the wheel by the time Europeans discovered them! And why should they have? They were about satisfying the now, not putting in effort for a future pay off. And sadly, this is reflected in their race today.

Have a look at the American Indians. They too did little farming. Hence, they advanced little because they never learned the idea of future value. And their state today reflects that of the Australian Abos.

Pick an advanced nation and you will see one with a history of farming. Which means a history of future value.

Pick a desolate country and you will see one withOUT a history of farming. Which means no concept of future value so no effort now for a payoff later.

Future value meant people would sit down and spend time and effort to create better tools and equipment and larger buildings, because of what it would mean to them further down the line. And this was only possible with a conscious mind and not an animal-like mind as we used to have.

It is no coincidence that as we developed farming as a result of the idea of future value, and developed a conscious mind as our societies grew as a result of the farming, we advanced technology wise. Because the technology was a direct result of an understanding of future value - time and effort spent now creating more advanced tools because there would be value to be had from doing so, and that value would be had in the future.

The thing with future value and its link to farming is important because our survival was dependent upon it. And, our lifestyle became better because of it. There was an "Action = Reward" in play here.

If there was fighting, as the previously mentioned theory suggests, it wasn't because we suddenly worshipped the sun, it was because those who had no sense of future value needed to satisfy their immediate needs and so would fight against those who were farming for a better life. Your typical band of savages coming to take what isn't theirs. And in a world undergoing such a change, you would expect this to happen. (Typified by the Vikings being attacked and slaughtered by nomadic natives when they first landed in Nova Scotia and set up little farms. Whites being speared by Abos when landing in Australia.)

And in the world of today it is still happening. And mainly in the middle east. Where those who have no sense of future value on this planet, want to take and/or destroy what isn't theirs, to satisfy some immediate desire. It's like... kill and get rewarded; die as a martyr and get rewarded; aim for reward in heaven because no reward was experienced on Earth.

And herein lays a problem with the Muslims. Their entire focus is one of worshipping a deity for a future reward in heaven. But having no experience of a future reward on Earth, which farming would have given them as a society. But because they were not farmers and were nomads and wanderers, their society grew unbalanced. To a state of warlord-dom. Where the gang with the biggest stick rules the day. They are, in essence, adult teenagers with demands of the now. Immature.

Imagine a Palestinian couple. There will not be a thought of, "Honey, let's save enough for a deposit for a house so we can have a place of our own; a sense of belonging." There might be an encouragement to blow one's-self up for a few shekels for the family - so their immediate need is met while too much energy had been spent in looking forward to a time with a deity.

And this ain't gonna change any time soon what with bowing down to a deity five times a day and having that deity be an integral part of existence 24/7.

At least the other religions gave a person a reprieve. Bow down to the deity once a week and farm your land the rest of the time. This enabled those people to experience future value here on Earth. And it was a harder sell to get them to devote their entire being to a future value with a deity. (Yes, the realization of future value was also the beginning of religion as we know it, for religion is all about future value.)

So which came first, future value or a conscious mind?

Future value came first. It had to. Without it we would not have begun to farm. Farming enabled larger societies to form. It was living in those larger societies which saw the release of the conscious mind to help deal with living in a larger society. That conscious mind could then fully exploit future value and technology began to advance in earnest from that point on.

Archaeologists talk about an explosion in advancement. And the conscious mind's awakening is why. Coupled with the awareness of future value the conscious mind was free to create whatever it thought of.

If that meant a structure of stones to help predict time of year so better farming could be done, then so be it. If that meant building large mounds with select holes to observe certain times of the year - for farming practices to be better - then so be it. If that meant experimenting with fire and dirt until metal was created then so be it.

Some researches suggest that as we began to farm our overall health declined. They blame farming directly for this. Whereas I say, it was the larger concentrations of people living together without the usual sanitation, which is to blame. As that problem got sorted out, lifespans increased accordingly.

So anyway. We have a situation where some boffin reckons Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests to worship the sun and the moon. I say it was built as a result of our realization of future value in an effort to know the times of the year for better farming, as farming was our way of life now.

That farming gave us all a sense of future value. And that future value is what gave way to all advancements in our society, as all advancement depends on time and effort being spent now for a value in the future. We spend time in school for better grades for better opportunities to make money with which to save for a better tomorrow. Always with an eye on the future.

Take this entry as an example. I have spent my time and effort to type these thoughts so that someone, at some point in the future, may gain something out of it. They too may realize the truth of what I have written here. And maybe will see the world in a new light of future value. A realization they can pass on to their children and further down the line.

On the other hand, the hunting tribes in Africa, the Australian Aborigines, American Indians, those of the middle east, and so on, do not have a history based on farming and future value. As a result, they have NOT advanced and have stagnated instead. Anything modern they have is a result of someone bringing the advancement to them and showing them how to use it - they did not create it themselves.

But those native people's aren't the only ones to lack a sense of future value. Many teenagers also lack it. This is the basis behind all that teenage angst. Exemplified by the Sex Pistols lyrics in their song "God Save The Queen, "no future, no future, no future for you; no future, no future, no future for me..." With no sense of a value in the future, destroy today to satisfy that passing whim. Go on the dole, get paid sit down money. Prove to yourself there is no future. And why not, mom and dad did the same. Everyone owes me. You know how it goes. All of it stemming from a lack of sense of future value.

That you are reading this is an indication you are the result of a sense of future value. But don't take my word for it. Think about it yourself. Look back at your life and see how you have come to where you are today because you believe, without realizing it, in the concept of future value. Money you put aside for investing or business building or home owning or retirement, is all the result because you believe in future value.

(For an interesting observation on the idea of the Bi-Cameral Mind, see Tim Boucher's entry "Cults and the Bicameral Mind". I especially like his final concluding paragraph, and the one preceding it.)

Classic Example Of Local-Govt Waste And Idiocy

Our local council has spent the last two months upgrading a very heavily congested road. A road that sees four lanes of traffic, from two different locations (both main roads), merge into two lanes.

At the beginning they took away the curb and we all thought "Hooray, another lane is coming." And we were right, but not how we thought.

As they re-did the curb I thought the road looked too narrow for a third lane - even when taking the wide median strip out and replacing it with a narrow one. But what do I know, right? I mean, once the lines are drawn I might see that there is room for three lanes after all.

Alas, three lanes for cars it was not to be. Nope. They have spent the last two months - and who knows how much money - upgrading this road, resealing it, redoing the curb, for a bike lane. So now cyclists will have somewhere to ride their bikes.

Here's the craziness of this... I have never seen a cyclist along that road. Of course, I will be told, "that's because there was no bike lane." And they may be right. But the road is not near anything a cyclist would ride to. So once on it you are riding for about four kilometers before getting to anything else.

There is a bike lane further up. But it is NEVER used. So creating this bike lane to link with the other one, still won't make them be used. Why can't the council just face it and admit that cyclists don't need a bike lane there. And certainly not at the expense of the main arterial road that goes smack bang through the middle of the city.

But that's not the full story. It gets worse. Much worse.

You see, that entire section of road they just spent loads of money and time on, is in the plan to have an extra lane added to it, and for that lane to be a bus lane. Meaning, when the bus lane is added in the next year or so, the road will have to be ripped up again. And all that work they just did will have been a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

And when they add the bus lane, they will still not be giving the cars a third lane to drive on. By then there will be an extra 25,000 - 40,000 people living in the city. All trying to squeeze onto those same inadequate two lanes.

There is NOTHING in the plan for the next ten years to upgrade that road so it carries more cars. Just a bus lane.

This govt is mental, I swear. They all need their heads read or something. Of course, it might just be a case of no-one in authority living near that road so they don't experience it and have no incentive to fix it up.

Then again, after they so brilliantly made two three-lane roads into two two-lane roads, added a couple of extra traffic lights causing a traffic jam for all daylight hours and a nightmare at peak hour, and told us they had improved traffic, then I expect anything from these dimwits.

Meet The Shell People

There are a few of us. We experience the same frustrations, if you will. We wonder why people can be so pod-like. Why they seem to have the ability to be a non-thinker. Why a conversation with them is like talking with a broken record. Why any kind of inductive reasoning is beyond them.

For example: Recently, someone commented about the need for tolerance from those who would like a separation of church and state. He said we should be respectful of other religions and opinions. And I am sure we would all agree with this. However, he then said the govt should promote a religious stance regardless.

So what he is basically saying is, everyone be tolerant, but I won't and I expect you to be tolerant of the govt doing what I want it to do, because it is what I want and to hell with you.

I pointed out the error in his logic and all I get back is some drivel about communism and the country being founded on judeo/christian malarky and one nation under god.

I gave examples that the country shuts down on Christmas day and Easter, and those are Christian events being forced down my throat. I gave an example of those who want the nativity scene removed not being tolerant of those who enjoy that scene.

Again, I get communism comments back at me, and I opted out of the discussion. With someone else advising not to bother because you cannot reason against circular logic. Something I agree with.

But it begs the question, WHY? Why can't you discuss something with someone using circular logic? Why are they so unable to grasp your point?

I think Ayn Rand has the answer. Let me quote Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead". To set the scene, Howard is a staunch individualist architect who is frustrated at every turn by podies. He designs unique buildings that are copies of nothing. A woman comes to him to design her a building which she so aptly describes. He tries to talk to her and then comes to this conclusion...

There was no Mrs Wayne Wilmont; there was only a shell containing the opinions of her friends, the picture-postcards she had seen, the novels of country squires she had read; it was this that he had to address, this immateriality which could not hear him or answer, deaf and impersonal like a wad of cotton.

This analysis so aptly describes the majority of people. They are merely shells that contain the opinions of others, bits and pieces of stuff they have read, seen or heard. Hence they are unable to form a valid opinion. And discussion cannot be had with them because they don't have the full set of opinions in their shell. So they just repeat the bits they do have.

Later in the week Roark encounters a similar situation. Someone wants him to design a house EXACTLY like the house of the wealthy Randolph family from the area he grew up in. Of this discussion Roark concludes...

Roark felt again a bewildered helplessness before unreality; there was no such person as Mr Mundy; there were only remnants, long dead, of the people who had inhabited the Randolph place; one could not plead with remnants or convince them.

To me, this sums up the podies nicely. There are no people. Just shells containing the opinions, memories, pictures, images, sound bites and remnants of other people. There is nothing in that shell of the person who claims ownership of that shell.

Try this: Ask someone, anyone, if it is okay to lay a fridge on its side. You will be told "No" the gas will leak out, or some equally oddball reason. If you ask, "where did you hear that?" you will not get an answer. If you ask, "How can the gas leak out if the pipework is sealed? After all, if it could leak out it would do so already, wouldn't it?" You will get "I don't know" type answers.

Here is the truth. You CAN lay a fridge down on its side. Lay it down so the pipes that come out of the condenser point up and the gas, in liquid form, will stay in the condenser. If you lay it down the other way, the liquid gas will flow into the pipes out of the condenser. You will then need to let the fridge stand for an hour or two to let the gas flow back into the condenser so there are no air bubbles in there. BUT, you cannot convince people of this because their shell is already full of fridge information from some unknown source long ago, and there is no-one there that can think for themselves, and the "fridge thought" from long ago cannot give a new answer.

Maybe there are some vague vestiges of the people who once lived in the shell. And when they reach a certain age that vestige cries out. And somehow directs the shell to "find itself." And so the person goes on a long journey of "self discovery" and "personal growth." But alas, they have been a shell for so long, they simply absorb more of other people's opinions and text blocks from books, in readiness to regurgitate them back out to anyone who will listen, as some kind of proof they have "grown." And the "seeking" becomes more important to them than what they seek. And you see them sit around with others in the same boat and they talk about spirituality and one-ness and vague notions of universal laws of abundance, while they aren't abundant. And they pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for absorbing more of someone else's opinion. And they all feel the energy vibrating and consult the rune stones to make sure this was the right thing to do. And they talk about manifesting this and that, while they hardly have enough money for rent.

I had a chat with such a person. The shell she was told me all about "Prosperity Thinking" and "Manifesting" and the usual bollocks. When I asked her for examples of people who live by this prosperity thinking, trusting the universe to provide, all she gave me were examples of people who work darn hard for their money. When I asked how this was the result of prosperity thinking she could not answer. And when quizzed about her own situation she admitted she was not prosperous, but still claimed *I* didn't get it. The shell she was could not grasp the idea that she was trying to teach me a philosophy as TRUTH but she could not find a single example to show me, and it wasn't working in her life either. As the opinions of others in her shell had not encountered my questions before, she could not answer and so ended the discussion. (I could almost here her brain shutting down from confusion.)

So there you have it. Next time you feel the frustration rise that a person - or group of people - just don't get what is so plainly obvious, you know why. They aren't there. There is only a shell full of the opinions and thoughts and sights and sounds of other people. For them to actually be able to answer any question it would require the originator of the thought to be present to answer for them. But as that isn't going to happen, you feel like you are talking into a vacuum.

Why do people become shells? Ahh... that is for another entry and another time. But it should give you something to think about. And if you know why people become shells, please leave it in the comments.

Ethanol, The Other White Meat

Oh to be driving around in an ethanol-powered vehicle. No toxic exhaust. Fuel made as needed - need more fuel, crank up production. Money saved on oil exploration. Wouldn't the world be a blissful place?

At first, the idea of driving solely on plant-derived ethanol (not oil-derived ethanol) sounds appealing. Until you realize the problems that need to be solved to make this a viable option.

Problem # 1: Current engines cannot run on ethanol-only, only part ethanol (10%). For an ethanol-only vehicle, the engine needs to be an ethanol only engine. This would require a complete rework in the manufacturer's workshops. And as they are only geared up for gasoline engine making, they won't be changing any time soon.

Problem # 2: Selecting the source plant. Ideally, it would be what would grow best in your particular location. However, sugar cane produces more ethanol than corn. So those locations where sugar cane will not grow are forced to use corn. But using corn as the plant leads to problem number three.

Problem # 3: Finding yourself in a negative energy situation where it takes more energy to create the ethanol than the energy gotten out of the ethanol. Even if you burn the corn husks to help create heat for making the ethanol out of corn, you don't get enough. You need to bring energy in from the outside to turn the corn into ethanol. This leads to problem four.

Problem # 4: Ethanol from sugar cane would have to supply shortfalls in problem 3, or be imported by those locations who experience problem 3, yet this would place a much greater burden on ethanol makers who use sugar cane. That increased burden creates problem 5 in greater amounts than it otherwise would have.

Problem # 5: It takes land to grow sugar cane. The more land devoted to growing sugar cane for ethanol production, the less land available for food crops.

As it is now, we have food crop land, feed growing land (land devoted to growing feed for meat animals), animal growing land, and unused land.

If greater demand is placed on ethanol makers, their only real recourse is to get more sugar cane. And the only way that will happen is by growing more, and that requires more land.

That land has to come from somewhere. If it is existing food land, then the food must be grown somewhere else. But no farmers would want to bother growing food if they know they have a guaranteed market for their sugar cane. As it is now, some farmers plough their ready-to-harvest crops back into the ground because it costs more to get them to market than what they will get for them at the market. This would be compounded if sugar cane was the ethanol source. This would result in food having to be imported, where it currently may not be. Placing increased burden on the food growing areas.

If it is new land, then that needs to be cleared. And look out you don't squash an environmentalist greenie, who is trying to protect the trees and bugs and other little critters, in the process. And when it comes to rainforest, there is concern because the rainforest is linked to itself. Such as Brazil Nut trees will NOT produce nuts in logged forest.

That leaves animal land. And that might be possible but for one thing... people eat meat and that land is used for them.

One solution is to put animals into feed lots, like the chickens, so they take up less space. Imagine cows and pigs caged like we all know the chickens are.

Another is to build sugar cane growing factories. Multi storey high. Growing hydroponic sugar cane. A one acre building of 10 floors would be producing the same as a 10 acre farm, for example. And hundreds of these buildings could be built around ethanol-producing factories. (Or growing the animal's food in this way near the meat growing factories, and the sugar cane in the ground.)

The other thing with growing the sugar cane on the land is that of no diversity. If the only thing growing in soil is sugar cane, that soil will be depleted of everything sugar cane needs to grow. Artificial gunk will then be added to "make" it grow. And our land deteriorates more.

As it stands at the moment, our food is grown on the ground and our energy source comes from under the ground. If both were above ground, we could be in trouble.

For example: It is estimated that if ALL the available growing land in Germany was given over to sugar cane growing for ethanol, the ethanol would provide all of Germany's energy needs. However, ALL food would need to be imported into the country.

Multiply that concept by all countries... and take into consideration the HUGE energy requirements of countries like India, with reduced land capacity... and you start to get a picture of the realities of using ethanol and the problems that must be over come.

Some would argue that there would be no problem if we replaced our source of electricity to something less energy demanding to make. Such as the amount of energy used to burn coal to create electricity. And that an efficient ethanol plant should throw off additional electricity which could go back into the grid. But the greenies don't like alternatives. They just know what they want gone.

For instance: We could all have nuclear powered electricity. The same power stations could convert sea water to drinking water. And it'd be pretty darn cheap. But greenies don't like nuclear power. Reasoning is not their strong point. As is evidenced by their push for full ethanol powered cars without any thought to the problems mentioned in this post.

I'd love for us to all drive ethanol cars if for no other reason I won't ever have to follow smoke bombs spewing out thick plumes of smoke as they drive on the road. Forcing me to somehow avoid breathing in the toxic gases. But I am also a realist. And know that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is silly. It is silly to cover energy shortfalls of ethanol manufacture by burning more energy over there, and to ruin our food growing land which would lead to mass starvation at some point in the future, just for the sake of driving on ethanol.

I'm willing to wait until nuclear fusion is accomplished. Then we can all tip a cup of water into our engines and drive around on the energy for 20 years or more. THAT is true green energy.

Or a more efficient form of hydrogen extraction. Again, tip water in, let the converter get the hydrogen out, and then use that to power the engine.

But as it stands... ethanol, while being praised as "renewable" fuel, comes across as a cumbersome way to go about getting energy and I question its renewablness as land degradation, of long term single crop growing, would put an end to it as a fuel source. And certainly an end as a transport fuel source in the growing world of the future.

The Noise

The Noise is my nickname for the family next door because, frankly, they make a bucketload of noise. And not only that, they have this tendency to make this noise in their opened garage, on their driveway, spilling onto the street and in their front yard.

I can honestly say, I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a people who seem to live in their front yard.

So what kinds of things do they do?

Well, he used to own a suped-up car. Just the air sucking into the air-filter, which a mechanic tells me is a special air-filter that makes it sound like there is no air-filter, used to vibrate the windows of our house.

He sold that car - but - it made little difference as his other car - some kind of suped-up pick-up/ute - is just as loud. And, he doesn't just start it up and drive away. Nope. He starts it, idles it, revs it, drowning out any noise we make in our own home from TV, stereo, etc. And then after five or ten minutes of this, drives it from the drive way onto the road in front of his house.

As if that is not bad enough, he has a V8 ski boat which he never takes out. But he sure tinkers with it all weekend, and at night when he gets home in the evening. He pulls it out onto the driveway and revs the heck out of it.

Our front door faces his yard. So we have to close it to reduce the noise level that comes in, as well as keep the fumes out - and boy do his toys put out some fumes.

Sometimes he revs up this boat at 9.00pm and 10.00pm at night.

And still there is more...

They have a little - and I mean little - motor bike thing. It looks like a mini version of a road bike. And I think they are becoming all the rage with the youngsters. It is as loud as a trail bike and the kid roars up and down our street for half hour at a time.

But it doesn't end there. Oh no. He has friends. And they come over with their suped-up cars and rev and idle in front as well. Our street looks like a used-car yard sometimes. And as far as I can ascertain, he owns four cars plus the boat. He is a mechanic and I figure he buys cars at auctions, fixes them up and then sells them.

And there is one more noise that comes out from them... their loud voices. I swear these people must all be deaf from the other noise they make, and so have to speak very loudly with each other. And maybe it wouldn't be so bad if every second word wasn't "fuck" even from their nine/ten year old.

They aren't house-o people. Meaning, next door isn't owned by the govt housing commission for welfare people to live in. They are just very noisy people. And any entries about them will be more about what kind of noise they made that day, or a run down of the noise they made during the week, if I feel like writing about it.

Such as yesterday... the kid comes home from school and the yelling starts. He is calling his friend - who seems to be staying there for a week or so. He says shit a few times. Yells to his mom that something is in a tree. And yell-commands a girl to move something from the side of the house so he can ride his bike down it. This yell-command is repeated four times before his mother shouts back Shut Up. And all of this action takes place in the front yard.

Today there was a bit of fucking coming out of the kids mouth, dad and a mate where cutting back some paint on a car they were working on. So the buffing machine was going for hours - mixed with swearing all the while. Then there was some kind of carpet cleaning machine being used on all the cars, as well as on the house itself. A few tire squeals to go up the road to grab a packet of smokes. It's a never-ending noise fest coming from them. Stay tuned for more.