Global Warming

[Moonlapse]

No. Please use your seatbelt.

I fail to see how requiring the use of safety equipment on publicly owned roads might equate to the prohibition or partial prohibition of the private use of goods or services that are permanently in high demand, don't violate anyone's rights, but are considered to have a generally negative effect on society. Prohibition has never and will never eliminate any of these goods/services nor the negative effects they help create. In fact, the only things it ever has done and will ever do is drive the activity outside the realm of proper law enforcement, create ever increasing law enforcement expenditures, establish and entrench organized crime, provide funding for political corruption and wars, put an overwhelming population of people who have not violated anyone's rights into prisons, and create a violent and lawless system that takes many people's lives.

 

No matter how much is at risk (ie, public health), you better choose not to fight (ie, no public measures) because you're sure in advance that you will lose (ie, corruption).

I can't disagree more. The best fight is the one you fight yourself, not the the fight where you blindly trust a parasitic institution that serves someone else's best interests to do it for you. The latter breeds indifference and squanders efforts and resources. The issue is not whether to do something about the problems we face, its whether you are willing to face them yourself and whether the governments use of force is effective without creating more problems than before. I still have no idea what this has to do with nihilism, which I disagree with BTW.

 

Drug abuse: psychiatric pathology (via violence and accidents) , intravenous infectious disease transmission (Hepatitis, AIDS).

 

Commercial sex: Women and homosexual abuse, sexual disease transmission (syphilis, AIDS).

 

BTW, the care and sequels of such diseases eventually require taxpayers' money.

Don't you think that these things would be far easier to deal with if they went on within the scope of legal commerce, instead of in a violent and lawless black market? Are the problems associated with prostitution worse in Nevada or in New York City? Many of these problems are exacerbated by our current situation and are a dilemma because of it. Bringing the problem into the legal scope will reduce problems and even allow it to be taxed if need be in order to help deal with whatever damages it causes. Remember, these problems will never go away, they can only be dealt with.

 

 

BTW, if you are actually making significant sacrifices in your lifestyle in order to reduce your CO2 usage, then you have my respect. I've seen very few people actually act on their global warming beliefs.

I've seen so much misinformation and contradiction on both sides of the fence, and its obviously become a political tool, so I'm extremely cautious.

If there's no explicit contradiction between both statements, you would be basically respecting how incautious such people may be.

Yes, I'm respecting their right to hold an opinion and voluntarily make changes in their life according to what they believe instead of waiting for others to change things for them. I don't however respect anyone who holds a certain opinion, but instead of using their own efforts to set an example and make a difference through reason and persuasion, try to get the government to coercively force the changes on everyone.

 

Part of the problem is that people view personal measures against global warming as sacrifices, and people's ears automatically close when the phrases 'sacrifice' or 'Lifestyle Change' are mentioned. In actual fact, common sense economy measures are all that is needed. The fuel for my woodburning stove (newly fitted) is renewable - hence no carbon footprint - but, more

importantly, it is freely available in the rubbish skips and supermarket carparks of my town. Predicted saving this winter, based on last winter's gas usage,

[ASCLEPIADES]

Yes, I'm respecting their right to hold an opinion and voluntarily make changes in their life according to what they believe instead of waiting for others to change things for them. I don't however respect anyone who holds a certain opinion, but instead of using their own efforts to set an example and make a difference through reason and persuasion, try to get the government to coercively force the changes on everyone.

Briefly, the existence or not of Global Warming or any public health problem is of no consequence to you as long as nobody bothers you and everything is allowed to you.

[Moonlapse]

Yes, I'm respecting their right to hold an opinion and voluntarily make changes in their life according to what they believe instead of waiting for others to change things for them. I don't however respect anyone who holds a certain opinion, but instead of using their own efforts to set an example and make a difference through reason and persuasion, try to get the government to coercively force the changes on everyone.

Briefly, the existence or not of Global Warming or any public health problem is of no consequence to you as long as nobody bothers you and everything is allowed to you.

Have you seriously misunderstood all that I have said and are you really suggesting that I'm some kind of apathetic asshole? In this entire discussion my primary focus has been on what would prevent the most unnecessary human suffering and death. In my opinion, policies like drug prohibition cause unnecessary human suffering and loss of life in the same ways that alcohol prohibition did in the 20's. Do you refuse to acknowledge that alcohol prohibition created more problems than it solved? If you acknowledge it, do you refuse to acknowledge that drug prohibition is remarkably similar?

 

What I'm saying is that the course of action that we should try to take on ANY problem is the one that has the most beneficial side-effects and the least unintended consequences. Based on what I know of history and economics, I am absolutely positive that government policies intended to cap fossil fuel use will do very little to curb total CO2 output, will make certain people very rich, will slowly impoverish just about everyone who doesn't have special connections, and will cause certain death to those in the world who are currently just managing to survive. As it is, we are at the beginning of what will be a very turbulent and painful time in U.S. history (perhaps the world), completely discounting CO2 restriction.

[Minerva]

Have you any proof that "The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle " ?

It is not they who need to - I am quite simply aghast that anyone should think it is the lifestyles of people in the Third World which is the root cause of rainforest and environmental damage!! An average westerner consumes a thousand times more energy and resources than a rural inhabitant of a third world country. .

 

I agree with NN the worst that a rural inhabitant in a third world country can do is to clear a bit of forest in order to

cultivate(I'm not talking hypothetically . I live in a third world country.) It doesn't even stand comparison with the average westerner.

As for the city dweller - well most don't have the money to waste anything. Electricity comes at a price. Oil comes at a greater price. Over here opting for public transport is not a greener option but an economical necessity. Which is why I was induced to ask what proof was there that lifestyles in the 3rd world countries aren't changing .

But even third world countries can become greener. Which is most probably why the local media is filled with promotions of greener lifestyles and energy saving methods. And it's working.

As for deforestation ; well, the last time I checked several European N.G.O's were paying for plantation and re-forestation.

[caldrail]

So the average westerner is destroying the planet by carrying on their comfortable lives? Oh how guilty we're being made to feel. Most of what we're told about global warming and the need to this that or not the other is nothing more than a shamefaced ruse to economise services and allow the government more tax profit to waste on their own comfort. Greener lifestyles? Don't make me laugh - the world is changing with or without us, and the results of climate change are not going to spare you because you adopted the green gospel. Constantine did something similar back in the 4th century AD - he got everybody involved in that christianity thing - not because it was worthy, but because it allowed him to control the public a little more easily. These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason. Keep the faith sister.

[ASCLEPIADES]

So the average westerner is destroying the planet by carrying on their comfortable lives?

Actually, you mean the not-so-average irresponsibly comfortable human lives everywhere. That's exactly the new problem with China and India.

After everything has been discussed, all the problem lies in the creatures' comfort.

 

Oh how guilty we're being made to feel.

Guilt, irony or doing nothing are certainly not going to solve the problem.

 

Most of what we're told about global warming and the need to this that or not the other is nothing more than a shamefaced ruse to economise services and allow the government more tax profit to waste on their own comfort. Greener lifestyles? Don't make me laugh - the world is changing with or without us, and the results of climate change are not going to spare you because you adopted the green gospel.

Nihilism; n(oun) : Philosophy

an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. Therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

 

Certainly such attitude is not based on previous ecological experience (ie, pollution control and biological species preservation); hardly a laughable issue.

 

Constantine did something similar back in the 4th century AD - he got everybody involved in that christianity thing - not because it was worthy, but because it allowed him to control the public a little more easily. These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason.

I have some problems finding the religious analogy here. Soul ecology?

 

These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason.

Now we got something; a global conspiracy theory; an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Surely you could suggest some alternative measures for climate change damage control that are not so uncomfortable for our lifestyles and do not benefit such malevolent governments (besides doing nothing, I mean).

 

Keep the faith sister.

She's not the only one. And I'm not quoting Mr. Lennon's idealism; it's called pragmatism.

[caldrail]

Actually, you mean the not-so-average irresponsibly comfortable human lives everywhere. That's exactly the new problem with China and India. After everything has been discussed, all the problem lies in the creatures' comfort.

It may well do. It also encroaches very heavily on personal liberties too - not because the world is changing, but because politicians like to exercise control over peoples lives and the threat of global warming is functionally no different to the threat of catastrophe, a day of judement, or simply being banged up in hell. Take your pick. Either way, the public perception is limited to whatever information is available and whose megaphone is loudest. Thats why the government issues those terrifying tv ads telling us the world is about to fall apart and only if we act NOW can we stop it. Which of course is ridiculous. The world isn't falling apart, its changing, like it changes in stops and starts all the time and has done since day one. Acting together really isn't going to change matters is it? I mean, just how powerful do these politicians actually believe we are? - thats just human folly and ego. And as far as stopping it is concerned, nobody has a megaphone loud enough to manage that.

 

Oh how guilty we're being made to feel.

Guilt, irony or doing nothing are certainly not going to solve the problem.

You see? You're doing it too! People are being brainwashed into believing that if they're doing as they're told the temperature rise will cease. Course it won't. Humans like to blame, to seek scapegoats, to point out the disbelievers and persecute those they believe are harming their interests. It just will NOT do any good. The world is changing - now - right in front of us - and if we sit still worshipping at the altar of greenness it won't make any difference to our fate whatsoever. Sea levels are going to rise whatever car we drive or how often we seperate our rubbish into coloured plastic bags - so why don't we start figuring out what to do when our immobile nests are inundated? When our infrastructure collapses? When we can't buy food in the supermarkets or take holidays in sunny exotic locations? Thats what will hit or miss, not this messianic devotion to changing light bulbs.

 

an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. Therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

Codswallop. You're just trying to sound intelligent. All I'm sceptical about is politicians integrity. Face it - you'll never find an honest one. Personally, I think life is a great deal richer than a seat in the House of Commons.

 

Certainly such attitude is not based on previous ecological experience (ie, pollution control and biological species preservation); hardly a laughable issue.

Oh? You have a copy of my autobiography?

 

Constantine did something similar back in the 4th century AD - he got everybody involved in that christianity thing - not because it was worthy, but because it allowed him to control the public a little more easily. These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason.

I have some problems finding the religious analogy here. Soul ecology?

You do like inventing phrases don't you? Read the newspapers. Watch the news. There's plenty of religious analogies in the 'green agenda'. Perhaps if you spent less time navel gazing and joining disparate words together you might actually start realising what the reports are telling you.

 

Now we got something; a global conspiracy theory; an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Surely you could suggest some alternative measures for climate change damage control that are not so uncomfortable for our lifestyles and do not benefit such malevolent governments (besides doing nothing, I mean).

Shoot politicians. Buy swimsuits. Rent houses on mountaintops. Dare I suggest building wooden aircraft carriers in your back yard?

 

Keep the faith sister.

She's not the only one. And I'm not quoting Mr. Lennon's idealism; it's called pragmatism.

No, its called running with the crowd. Lemmings do that too.

[Minerva]

Greener lifestyles? Don't make me laugh - the world is changing with or without us, and the results of climate change are not going to spare you because you adopted the green gospel. Constantine did something similar back in the 4th century AD - he got everybody involved in that christianity thing - not because it was worthy, but because it allowed him to control the public a little more easily. These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason. Keep the faith sister.

 

Wherein does the hilarity lie brother?

If I were a sole adherent of the Green gospel climate change woudn't spare me but I'm not. If a greater number of people go green there's no reason why climate change can't be slowed down and stabilized to a certain extent.

 

Christianity was not a global issue or a global policy. Anyway Religion was always a control on the public just take a look at Birtish or Indian history. Combatting climate change is an entirely different issue.

 

I shall definitely keep the faith brother. Even though I may not succeed in changing the world I could atleast be free of the guilt that I left the world a worse place.

[Minerva]

why don't we start figuring out what to do when our immobile nests are inundated? When our infrastructure collapses? When we can't buy food in the supermarkets or take holidays in sunny exotic locations? Thats what will hit or miss, not this messianic devotion to changing light bulbs.

[

 

Why in the wide world do you want to wait till your house is flooded, infrastructure collapses and all the rest of it? Natural disasters can't be helped but there being triggered off by irresponsible human action can. The whole point in going green is prevention.

[Minerva]

All I'm sceptical about is politicians integrity. Face it - you'll never find an honest one. Personally, I think life is a great deal richer than a seat in the House of Commons.

 

 

Socrates was sceptical about politicians too. And if politicians were the only people speaking of climate change I doubt i 'd give it a second's thought. But if you "Read the newspapers. Watch the news." you'll figure out that this is not mere political propaganda.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Socrates was sceptical about politicians too. And if politicians were the only people speaking of climate change I doubt i 'd give it a second's thought. But if you "Read the newspapers. Watch the news." you'll figure out that this is not mere political propaganda.

I'm not sure about the "propaganda part," but if you care about Global Warming, it must be treated mostly as a politicial issue since government is where things are solidly done. Therefore, what the public wants the politicians must pander to. But sometimes, that makes the problem worse. Just look at the "greentowns" in Britain, they are a logistical mess and ironically not good for the natural environment of the countryside.

 

Cadrail was simply saying that politicians are just pandering for votes from the alarmist/concerned citizen. Honestly, who doesn't want a better world. As a politician, you say what the public think/want to hear is better for mother earth.

Edited July 29, 2008 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[ASCLEPIADES]

Cadrail was simply saying that politicians are just pandering for votes from the alarmist/concerned citizen. Honestly, who doesn't want a better world. As a politician, you say what the public think/want to hear is better for mother earth.

Just the same as the non-GW agenda politicians are pandering for votes from the discomforted not-so-alarmed/concerned citizens, who doesn't want a better world either.

 

Rings any bell?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Cadrail was simply saying that politicians are just pandering for votes from the alarmist/concerned citizen. Honestly, who doesn't want a better world. As a politician, you say what the public think/want to hear is better for mother earth.

Just the same as the non-GW agenda politicians are pandering for votes from the discomforted not-so-alarmed/concerned citizens, who doesn't want a better world either.

 

Rings any bell?

 

Yes, point-taken, it goes 360, but referring to Minerva that GW is modestly not a political issue, it has to be since politicians then also are pandering to just everyone else with votes.

Edited July 29, 2008 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[ASCLEPIADES]

Yes, point-taken, it goes 360, but referring to Minerva that GW is modestly not a political issue, it has to be since politicians then also are pandering to just everyone else with votes.

If classical history teachs us something, is that politics is everyone of us.

Politicians are not aliens; they are us.

 

If they became corrupt, is fundamentally for two reasons:

1. Naturally expected human greed.

2. Because we let them.

 

Shit happens; that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean it.

Edited July 29, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Northern Neil]

Ahem.. things are (or were a few posts back) getting a tad overheated and verging on the personal here. If everyone was running with the crowd, then the Kyoto protocols would have been fulfilled ages ago, and there would not be issues about global warming, waste, overpopulation or pollution. I do however feel drawn to the analogy with Lemmings - unthinking cratures who run toward a precipice utterly unafraid or ignorant of the consequence. Maybe they even perceive well meaning attempts to divert them from their course as some kind of plot to spoil their fun? Who knows.

 

In addition, if this was all about political contol, the world's governments could enforce it tomorrow. Who precisely is trying to control who here? And for what possible reason, if there is no substance in any of the argument? Do some people seriously believe that an intricate international conspiracy has been woven, to slightly disrupt the lives of people in urban societies? Please! What possible end could this achieve?

 

There are no 'religious overtones' to any of the anti global warming measures cited in many posts on this thread. At a personal level, all they can do is save an individual money.But go ahead, carry on using energy inefficient appliances, leaving lights on, driving round the block for your pint of milk. I will in the meantime laugh my way to the bank.