Sustainable development and globalisation
-
As an American, this nonsensical bashing of my country makes me want to tell the world to kiss off. The environmentalists at this conference are showing who they really are: Socialists. They don't give one whoot about the poor or the environment and that's evident by their lifestyle. They expect us to give up our way of life, while they live in opulance, eating lobster and hoping around the globe in jets (that spew out greenhouse gases). Shut up already!:mad::mad::mad:
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: As an American, this nonsensical bashing of my country makes me want to tell the world to kiss off Don't worry dude! We're on the same side here. Jason Henderson wrote: The environmentalists at this conference are showing who they really are: Socialists They always were. And losers too. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Paul Watson wrote: We have heard endlessly how if everyone on Earth lived like an American we would need ten Earths or something. If everyone on Earth were as productive as Americans we wouldn't need any more. We feed ourselves and half of the rest of you. Paul Watson wrote: But an acceptable level is far below that of an average American. So, are you in favor of taking away my big screen TV??? Stay back foul creature!!! I would argue that only competition and profit (:omg::eek: capitalism!) will "save the planet". There is no better motivator than $$$$ and necessity is the mother of invention. We are researching alternative energy, but we haven't made it cheap enough yet.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Brian Azzopardi wrote: caviar laden palace First of all it is lobster, not caviar and secondly it was a mansion, not a palace... :rolleyes: Brian Azzopardi wrote: And anyway what will aid solve? Aid just creates a dependency problem We don't need aid. We need better management. And none of this strings attached nonsense which just screws us over ten years down the line instead of right now. We definitley do need help though. As much as I want us to fix our own problems we are not in a position to effectively do so. Brian Azzopardi wrote: There's no point trying to reverse globalisation: we gotta live with it I think the only thing I have against the current globalisation efforts is subsidies in first world nations. I agree we should stand on our own feet and may the best company win. I don't want any handouts or special clauses for my products. But what I do want is for my competitors to stop being subsidised. I simply cannot compete against a pig farm in Texas that is recieving subsidies when I am not. His country is in a position to pay out subsidies, mine is not. Now if the other countries honestly want to help then they need to let the farmers, producers, miners etc. duke it out on a level playing field. I guess that is what I really mean: A level playing field. Currently though I don't see any of this happening. Our tin pot leaders are so intent on amassing personal wealth and power. They beg with America to give aid and then the next day blame America for all their problems. Such f'ing hypocrites. And also frankly from what we have seen of America lately I don't think they are in any mood to play fair with any other country, not African, not European, not Asian, not nobody. There was that International Criminal Court fiasco and the Kyoto backing out and now them just bulldozing through with Iraq, whether the rest of the world agrees or not. Also this whole conference in Jo'burg is/will-be a failure. It was meant to be a follow up to the Rio conference about EARTH, not people or globalisation or African aid. But about Earth. I have heard very little about environmental affairs being discussed. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."<
Paul Watson wrote: We definitley do need help though. As much as I want us to fix our own problems we are not in a position to effectively do so. Every "first world" nation in existance today was a second rate nation or third world country or even a flipping wilderness at some point in it's past if you look far enough back. NONE of them became what they are today by constantly recieving hand-outs from anybody. In EVERY case, it was the people's hard work and determination, their sweat and their blood and their tears that forged their nation into what it is today. Every nation on earth has a painful past and national heroes that have sacrificed. If a third world country's leaders are corrupt they need to be removed, by any means necassary. Millions have died to forge the great nations of earth in mankind's history. Sad, even tragic, but it is the nature of man. It will be no different for the third world countries. If the leadership is solid but the country lacks resources, they need to get creative, create a niche for themselves through tourism, banking laws, special industry, etc. Will it be easy? Hell no! Will it be quick? Probably not. Will your children and grand-children be better off? Certainly. If in the end, a nation has no resources and cannot make a go of it, then maybe, just maybe they were never destined to be an independent nation in the first place and they need to be swallowed by a neighbor. Remember, national borders are a man-made invention. Does the US (and other first world nations) need to do a better job with the the environment? Absolutely. Should we help poor nations when we can? Yes, but always with the idea of helping them to become more independent. Should poor nations demand anything from anybody? No, in fact when they do, it shows they aren't operating with the correct mind-set to become independent.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Honourable Ladies, Gentlemen, assorted basket cases, We are gathered here in this sumptous, caviar laden palace to discuss the fate of our fellow humans who suffer hunger and disease. All that is required to end all this human suffering once and for all is for the developed capitalistic imperialistic dogs to give me *cough*... poor countries aid... And on and on it goes. Why should TPLCs (Tin Pot Little Countries) expect free cash? Becoz their people are dying? Where's their govt? If their country is poor why is it poor? Because of mismanagement and corruption? Or because of the white man? But if it is colonialism's fault how come other former colonies (such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta my country) have survived inspite of having no, I repeat, NO natural resources (unlike the resource-rich TPLCs) except the grit and will power of their people? Because they were lucky? Or was it some ex-colonies prospered and others didnt because some tried and the others didnt? Becuase the failures were not capable of managing their own countries? And anyway what will aid solve? Aid just creates a dependency problem. Like the TPLCs have: they're always asking for more money but nothing ever really gets done. Politically most TPLCs are a shambles: look at Zimbabwe and Mugabe's "re-election". The West at least made (a half-hearted) response but the African countries stood by Mugabe's side (except SA). Next time they go around begging for money maybe they should ask Mugabe. Incidents like these really make me sick and more determined than ever to not give money to basket-cases like these. Those the above make me sound like a racist, imperialistic capitalist? I'll admit to being imperialistic and capitalist, racist I'm not. Race has little to do with the matter. What's required is the political will to bring about change. If African leaders really want to bring about a better Africa they could have started by being against Mugabe not support him. Unfortunately that's too much to ask of them; after all some of them are thugs themselves X| Other's mention magic numbers: for example 10% of the money used for arms sales would feed the world population or some such rubish. It's rubish for because anyone with a spreadsheet can message the numbers anyway they like (look @ enron/worldcom/etc). And even if all of the money was used to buy food what would that solve? These people still need to eat tomorrow. It's better if the money is used to create a stable economy so that these people can feed themselves. But when a
http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19970815/22750443.html[^] It is not entirely on topic, but it bears relavent to what has been said here.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
pdriley wrote: You're not the driving force behind everything. I know that, but we do more for the world than most.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"I wouldn't particularly argue with that. I'd say though that some countries do as much if you consider the difference in size and resources. I'm totally against people who blindly blame America for everything bad in the world and give no credit for the good they do. But I would suggest that a lot of Americans do quite the opposite, trying to take credit for everything and laying the blame elsewhere. Paul
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Money and profit have nothing to do with ruining the earth, only the quest for power by humans (which is human nature) has ruined it You know full well what I mean. I mean greed. Whether it be greed for actual cold hard cash or for power or for green jelly beans. This obsessive quest for more whatever has become a problem for all of us now. Before it was ok because if King Charles The Scantily Clad of Buggerallofslovia got a bit big for his boots only his country and a few around him suffered, and then someone chopped his head off or he died from sticking his willy somewhere he shouldnt. The rest of the world moved on and was not affected much. But now we have global reach, global impact. What CEO Charles The Compensating By Buying A Ferrari in New York decides can have a direct impact on the life of a farmer in Outer Mongolia. But to the CEO his decision seems to have only had good effects, or if he knows about the farmer he does not care because he still has his Ferrari (the CEO, not the farmer) and his Malibu mansion. Progress is good. We need to continually challenge ourselves and reach higher. But at the same time we need to isntill a bit of humanity into our decisions now. We can't just dump our toxic waste in a country that agrees because it wants the money. Eventually that country will be wasted and we will have to find a new one, and then another and another etc. Anyway I just think we are a bit greedy. And sod it if it is hard to change human nature. Of course it is, but should that stop us? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
Paul Watson wrote: And sod it if it is hard to change human nature. Of course it is, but should that stop us? We can only change ourselves and in doing so, inspire other people to change too. Michael :-) Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
-
As an American, this nonsensical bashing of my country makes me want to tell the world to kiss off. The environmentalists at this conference are showing who they really are: Socialists. They don't give one whoot about the poor or the environment and that's evident by their lifestyle. They expect us to give up our way of life, while they live in opulance, eating lobster and hoping around the globe in jets (that spew out greenhouse gases). Shut up already!:mad::mad::mad:
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: As an American, this nonsensical bashing of my country makes me want to tell the world to kiss off. In my best attempt at late afternoon American: "Well get off your asses and like tell why you find them nonsensical already." You whine and bitch all day long but do nothing to figure out (a) why or (b) how to get your side across. Americans seem to make the worst debators because they just sit back and argue amongst themselves about how they automatically know better! If you think you know better - share it, but be prepared to defend yourselves like everyone else. That's the way it works for everyone else - don't expect any special treatment. And to curb this before it even starts - the Irish are stupid, Frenchmen smell and the Welsh... well the Welsh are a bunch of sheep loving hypies. :|
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Paul Watson wrote: We definitley do need help though. As much as I want us to fix our own problems we are not in a position to effectively do so. Every "first world" nation in existance today was a second rate nation or third world country or even a flipping wilderness at some point in it's past if you look far enough back. NONE of them became what they are today by constantly recieving hand-outs from anybody. In EVERY case, it was the people's hard work and determination, their sweat and their blood and their tears that forged their nation into what it is today. Every nation on earth has a painful past and national heroes that have sacrificed. If a third world country's leaders are corrupt they need to be removed, by any means necassary. Millions have died to forge the great nations of earth in mankind's history. Sad, even tragic, but it is the nature of man. It will be no different for the third world countries. If the leadership is solid but the country lacks resources, they need to get creative, create a niche for themselves through tourism, banking laws, special industry, etc. Will it be easy? Hell no! Will it be quick? Probably not. Will your children and grand-children be better off? Certainly. If in the end, a nation has no resources and cannot make a go of it, then maybe, just maybe they were never destined to be an independent nation in the first place and they need to be swallowed by a neighbor. Remember, national borders are a man-made invention. Does the US (and other first world nations) need to do a better job with the the environment? Absolutely. Should we help poor nations when we can? Yes, but always with the idea of helping them to become more independent. Should poor nations demand anything from anybody? No, in fact when they do, it shows they aren't operating with the correct mind-set to become independent.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Does the US (and other first world nations) need to do a better job with the the environment? Absolutely. Should we help poor nations when we can? Yes, but always with the idea of helping them to become more independent. Should poor nations demand anything from anybody? No, in fact when they do, it shows they aren't operating with the correct mind-set to become independent. I agree with all of that. Please don't get me wrong in thinking that I am some nutter who believes the first-world owes us third-worlders anything. You don't, we got ourselves where we are, not you. It is our fault for sure. The thing though is we need help from ourselves. There are very few people like me in Africa who think that we are our own worst enemy, that the first world owes us nothing. Most Africans believe what their leaders tell them, that America, Europe, Asia, Whateveronia raped Africa and now they must pay us back. It is drivel but the common people believe it. Also we can start working hard now and we will only get somewhere in 100 years, if we are lucky and everyone in Africa pitches in. Or we can get some serious help from the world, have everyone in Africa honestly pitch in and achieve some results in 50 years time. I would like to be around to see Africa do well, I believe Africa has some serious potential. Mike, I appreciate your help and I apologise for the idiots in Africa who throw your help back in your face. Believe me there are people here who really care and want to work together for a better Africa and a better world. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: assorted basket cases, Thats me. Brian Azzopardi wrote: But when aid is given what happens to it? It gets stolen. This does happen. It doesn't seem possible to police exactly what happens to the money for some reason. You can see it getting spent on the right stuff, but you then need to police what happens to that stuff. It usually gets sold off or used by the army or some such before it gets to the real destination :mad: As TPLC's having "Not tried". I think your being a little harsh in this one. Some of these countries from ex-colonialism didn't have the right infrastructure at the time they went independant. The people do not receive the education they need to boot strap themselves out of poverty, this leads to the same thing happening to the next generation etc.. So they are today, where they were when they "gained their freedom" - trying to get enough food to live. What does seem to happen is that a well intentioned person gets to the top, aiming to help the people and then becuase they get the best of the stuff that is around, they get corrupted and end up worrying more about their personal position/luxury than whats happening to their country. :mad: Polititions needs to have the guts to do what is right even if its not popular with the people. This also means that politions should have no outside directorships etc, as all these things may influence them from doing what is right. If politics is a career, then they should stick to politics and not get involved in business (although they must understand how business works). Government also needs to be more open and accountable. Just my addition to a reasonable rant. :-D Roger Allen Sonork 100.10016 I think I need a new quote, I am on the prowl, so look out for a soft cute furry looking animal, which is really a Hippo in disguise. Its probably me.
Roger Allen wrote: Polititions needs to have the guts to do what is right even if its not popular with the people And then they would be ex politicians. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: If everyone on Earth were as productive as Americans we wouldn't need any more. You are quite mad. That is the whole point of that "10 Earths" study. Basically if every human being on earth had an SUV, ate ten McDonalds burgers a week etc. etc. as Americans do* then we would need the resources of 10 Earths to sustain us all. i.e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. If everyone was as productive as America then Earth would already be beyond saving. It would have been totally and utterly stripped bare. America is x% of the Earths population but is responsible for x*5 the environmental damage, the co2 emissions, the toxic waste, the stripping of forests etc. etc. i.e. America has a far larger impact on Earth than it's size would make you think. You guys are not efficient, clean or environmentally producers. However I am impressed and amazed at America. It is an incredible creature. Americans have worked damned hard to get where they are and for that they are great. The rest of us should take a leaf out of your books. However at the same time we need to "live within our means." We need to take American hard work ethics and apply it to long-term Earth future thinking. Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. * this is just an example ok? Not saying yanks eat ten burgers a week, I am sure it is more... ;) Jason Henderson wrote: So, are you in favor of taking away my big screen TV??? Stay back foul creature!!! If it means the difference between saving the planet and not, then yes. Wouldn't you change your ways to save the Earth? Or would you rather live it large while you are alive and screw the future generations who have to live here later? Jason Henderson wrote: There is no better motivator than $$$$ Unfortunatley that is true. And it is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now, because of profit over people. Profit over the Earth. Profit over decency, immediate profit over our future. It is cheaper, and more profitable, to mass produce and not implement environmentally safe procedures than it is to mass produce and be environmentally safe. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people w
Paul Watson wrote: .e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. So cut the population down to where it can support them in that manner. Paul Watson wrote: However at the same time we need to "live within our means." We need to take American hard work ethics and apply it to long-term Earth future thinking. Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Its really a simple equation. Less people means less resources needed. New technology means better production and use of available resources. Don't like bio engineered food. Great - go eat a tree. Have 3.5 kids and wonder why its getting crowded. Paul Watson wrote: Unfortunatley that is true. And it is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now, because of profit over people. Profit over the Earth. Profit over decency, immediate profit over our future. No profit= no business. No business= no new technology. No new technology=stagnation. stagnation=slow sure death. Forget about everything but population control. Everything else will take care of itself. Actually population control will eventually take care of itself - either thru war or starvation or disease or a combination of those factors. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
Paul Watson wrote: provide for everyone at an acceptable level? What's acceptable for you is not acceptable to me. Getting the whole world to agree on what's acceptable is hard. Paul Watson wrote: Earth lived like an American we would need ten Earths or something Instead of mentioning Americans why don't people mention Switzerland, Japan or Hong Kong? These are richer than America. Would we need 10 Earths if everyone on earth lived like a Japanese? Paul Watson wrote: but it also means changing our ways. That is what America is so against Are you willing to radically change your ways Paul? I don't really think so. Neither do I to be honest. And I'm guessing that rich countries such as Japan and Switzerland are not too eager either. Anyway you can't blame the US for not wanting to change it's ways: it's too hooked on Oprah and who could possibly replace her? :) Paul Watson wrote: acceptable level is far below that of an average American You're asking for the impossible here. You want people who are living beyond the acceptable level to reduce their level of consumtion. What do you suggest: changing the tv channel only once every second instead of twice to save on the energy consumption? Paul Watson wrote: 4 year presidencies means short-term achivement seeking Yep. As in most democratic countries, politicians don't want to impose harsh, but necesarry, policies on their voters for their successor to reap the rewards. Personally, I never was a great fan of democracy :) Paul Watson wrote: Plus "saving" the Earth is going to be a mammoth task. Mammoths were large animals. They are also extinct. So describing saving the earth as being a mammoth task is spot on :) Paul Watson wrote: But by ramping up production to save the Angolans surely then we are having a negative impact on the environment? It's good someone realized that there is a cost to everything - even to good deeds. What compromises to make is a hard and difficult choice and an Earth summit is not conducive to good decision making. It's just a PR exercise. The aims and goals of different countries make it impossible for everyone to reach agreement and, like all summits, it descends into a mud-slinging / war of words. The only rational reason I've come up with to explain these summits is: 1 - the middle-level of
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Yep. As in most democratic countries, politicians don't want to impose harsh, but necesarry, policies on their voters for their successor to reap the rewards. Personally, I never was a great fan of democracy In a democracy rule is given to the populance. The majority wins. The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference. If you are not a fan of democracy or some sort of democratic goverance then just what are you a big fan of ? There aren't a great many choices. Its kinda like a switch - ON-OFF Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
Paul Watson wrote: .e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. So cut the population down to where it can support them in that manner. Paul Watson wrote: However at the same time we need to "live within our means." We need to take American hard work ethics and apply it to long-term Earth future thinking. Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Its really a simple equation. Less people means less resources needed. New technology means better production and use of available resources. Don't like bio engineered food. Great - go eat a tree. Have 3.5 kids and wonder why its getting crowded. Paul Watson wrote: Unfortunatley that is true. And it is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now, because of profit over people. Profit over the Earth. Profit over decency, immediate profit over our future. No profit= no business. No business= no new technology. No new technology=stagnation. stagnation=slow sure death. Forget about everything but population control. Everything else will take care of itself. Actually population control will eventually take care of itself - either thru war or starvation or disease or a combination of those factors. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
So in short just leave things alone and they will sort themselves out? Short of that, drop a few nukes and kill at least 3 billion people. Ok, gotcha. Richard Stringer wrote: Don't like bio engineered food I was listening to some scientist or other the other night and she stated that there is no bio-engineered food in mass production today which has increased crop yields in any meaningful way. Is that for real? I always thought there were bio-engineered crops in use today which have been proven to increase yields regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Yep. As in most democratic countries, politicians don't want to impose harsh, but necesarry, policies on their voters for their successor to reap the rewards. Personally, I never was a great fan of democracy In a democracy rule is given to the populance. The majority wins. The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference. If you are not a fan of democracy or some sort of democratic goverance then just what are you a big fan of ? There aren't a great many choices. Its kinda like a switch - ON-OFF Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: The US is not a democracy So is there a democracy anywhere on earth? And what is the difference between what the US is and what a democracy should be? And why does US say it is a democracy (they waltz around the world after all trying to change dictatorships into "democracies".) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The US is not a democracy So is there a democracy anywhere on earth? And what is the difference between what the US is and what a democracy should be? And why does US say it is a democracy (they waltz around the world after all trying to change dictatorships into "democracies".) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
You are on the internet - look it up. And NO there is no country that has a real democracy. There are democratic FORMS of government however. And we don't waltz around the world tring to change dictatorships into democractic forms of gov. per se. Richard Come On Grow up a bit When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
So in short just leave things alone and they will sort themselves out? Short of that, drop a few nukes and kill at least 3 billion people. Ok, gotcha. Richard Stringer wrote: Don't like bio engineered food I was listening to some scientist or other the other night and she stated that there is no bio-engineered food in mass production today which has increased crop yields in any meaningful way. Is that for real? I always thought there were bio-engineered crops in use today which have been proven to increase yields regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
Paul Watson wrote: So in short just leave things alone and they will sort themselves out? Short of that, drop a few nukes and kill at least 3 billion people. May be the most humane way. Starvation is a bitch. But is gonna happen one way or the other. When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: If everyone on Earth were as productive as Americans we wouldn't need any more. You are quite mad. That is the whole point of that "10 Earths" study. Basically if every human being on earth had an SUV, ate ten McDonalds burgers a week etc. etc. as Americans do* then we would need the resources of 10 Earths to sustain us all. i.e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. If everyone was as productive as America then Earth would already be beyond saving. It would have been totally and utterly stripped bare. America is x% of the Earths population but is responsible for x*5 the environmental damage, the co2 emissions, the toxic waste, the stripping of forests etc. etc. i.e. America has a far larger impact on Earth than it's size would make you think. You guys are not efficient, clean or environmentally producers. However I am impressed and amazed at America. It is an incredible creature. Americans have worked damned hard to get where they are and for that they are great. The rest of us should take a leaf out of your books. However at the same time we need to "live within our means." We need to take American hard work ethics and apply it to long-term Earth future thinking. Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. * this is just an example ok? Not saying yanks eat ten burgers a week, I am sure it is more... ;) Jason Henderson wrote: So, are you in favor of taking away my big screen TV??? Stay back foul creature!!! If it means the difference between saving the planet and not, then yes. Wouldn't you change your ways to save the Earth? Or would you rather live it large while you are alive and screw the future generations who have to live here later? Jason Henderson wrote: There is no better motivator than $$$$ Unfortunatley that is true. And it is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now, because of profit over people. Profit over the Earth. Profit over decency, immediate profit over our future. It is cheaper, and more profitable, to mass produce and not implement environmentally safe procedures than it is to mass produce and be environmentally safe. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people w
If everyone was as productive as America then Earth would already be beyond saving. It would have been totally and utterly stripped bare. America is x% of the Earths population but is responsible for x*5 the environmental damage, the co2 emissions, the toxic waste, the stripping of forests etc. etc. i.e. America has a far larger impact on Earth than it's size would make you think. You guys are not efficient, clean or environmentally producers. I disagree. The US produces 25% of the world's pollution. People love to say the words "the world's biggest polluter" in reference to the US. What they aren't saying is that the US produces 30% of the world's goods. Think about that for a minute. That means the US produces 1.2 units of goods for 1 unit of pollution. By simple math, the rest of the world produces 75% of the world's pollution, and 70% of the world's goods. That means they make 0.93 units of goods for 1 unit of pollution. So, when measured per-person, the US looks like a horrible polluter. When measured against economic output, the US is BETTER than the rest of the world. I think you should ask yourself again whether the US is an efficient, clean and environmentally-friendly producer. (In your defense, Europe does better than the US does, but it's also an indication of how HORRIBLE other countries in the world are as far as pollution goes. Even worse, they turn around and point fingers at the US, even though they are far worse polluters! As an example, a coworker of mine from Bombay tells me that Americans have NO idea what pollution is compared to his experience of Bombay.) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Yep. As in most democratic countries, politicians don't want to impose harsh, but necesarry, policies on their voters for their successor to reap the rewards. Personally, I never was a great fan of democracy In a democracy rule is given to the populance. The majority wins. The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference. If you are not a fan of democracy or some sort of democratic goverance then just what are you a big fan of ? There aren't a great many choices. Its kinda like a switch - ON-OFF Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Nitpicking start here: A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. There are two major forms of democracy: represenetative democracy and personal. The "personal" form means that in parliament everyone i.e. the whole population votes on each and every law. In a countries with a population of millions this is not really practical. So the representative form emerged. In this form there are sub-forms with the difference between them being how the representatives of the people are chosen. Some (like the England) have a first-past-the-post system while others have proportional representation (Germany). Others are a constitutional republic. Please note that in political science every form of state (including dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, etc) have a constitution whether written or unwritten. The constitution lays out the separation powers (or lack thereof) between the 3 major organs of the state: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. In the US system there is a clean separation between all 3 branches while in the English system (the best IMHO) the executive and the legislative are practically the same (espec under Blair) but the judiciary is independant. So the US is a form of DEMOCRACY! Got that? Now the above is all theory. In real life there are major lobbying groups that pay alot of money for "access" and thus the fundamental democractic principle of one man == one vote is broken. Which is a pity. Campaign finance reform is needed but consider this: why should an incumbent politician reform campaign finance when that same system put him into power? Richard Stringer wrote: If you are not a fan of democracy or some sort of democratic goverance then just what are you a big fan of ? Too complex/long to go into here. Lets just say that I believe that contrary to the US constitution's preamble I do not believe all men are created equal when it comes to policy making (and in so many other things). Richard Stringer wrote: Its kinda like a switch - ON-OFF Life is not so simple. Neither in theory nor in practice is democratic governance a binary switch. Especially in practice. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
You are on the internet - look it up. And NO there is no country that has a real democracy. There are democratic FORMS of government however. And we don't waltz around the world tring to change dictatorships into democractic forms of gov. per se. Richard Come On Grow up a bit When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: And we don't waltz around the world tring to change dictatorships into democractic forms of gov. per se. Oh sorry you are dead right, I must have misheard Bush (or it may have been one of his cronies) stating how they wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Simon Walton wrote: "You come across a lot of people who call themselves realists, when they are actually pessimists attempting to look intelligent."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Nitpicking start here: A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. There are two major forms of democracy: represenetative democracy and personal. The "personal" form means that in parliament everyone i.e. the whole population votes on each and every law. In a countries with a population of millions this is not really practical. So the representative form emerged. In this form there are sub-forms with the difference between them being how the representatives of the people are chosen. Some (like the England) have a first-past-the-post system while others have proportional representation (Germany). Others are a constitutional republic. Please note that in political science every form of state (including dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, etc) have a constitution whether written or unwritten. The constitution lays out the separation powers (or lack thereof) between the 3 major organs of the state: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. In the US system there is a clean separation between all 3 branches while in the English system (the best IMHO) the executive and the legislative are practically the same (espec under Blair) but the judiciary is independant. So the US is a form of DEMOCRACY! Got that? Now the above is all theory. In real life there are major lobbying groups that pay alot of money for "access" and thus the fundamental democractic principle of one man == one vote is broken. Which is a pity. Campaign finance reform is needed but consider this: why should an incumbent politician reform campaign finance when that same system put him into power? Richard Stringer wrote: If you are not a fan of democracy or some sort of democratic goverance then just what are you a big fan of ? Too complex/long to go into here. Lets just say that I believe that contrary to the US constitution's preamble I do not believe all men are created equal when it comes to policy making (and in so many other things). Richard Stringer wrote: Its kinda like a switch - ON-OFF Life is not so simple. Neither in theory nor in practice is democratic governance a binary switch. Especially in practice. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
The point that I was trying to make is that in a true democracy one would not have politicians. In our form of Gov. we elect a representative and he/she is supposed to vote his/her position in place of all of us. that is fine and good if the person votes as promised but that is not a guarantee that the majority viewpoint will be expressed. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Too complex/long to go into here. Lets just say that I believe that contrary to the US constitution's preamble I do not believe all men are created equal when it comes to policy making (and in so many other things). Really ? Are we to disallow wome the vote? maybe only individuals with a net worth over say 100000.00. Degree needed. Property owners only. Tis a fine line here. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Life is not so simple. Neither in theory nor in practice is democratic governance a binary switch You missed the whole point. Either the populance governs itself ( Democratic form of Goverment ) or not. This is as binary as a NAND gate dude. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
The point that I was trying to make is that in a true democracy one would not have politicians. In our form of Gov. we elect a representative and he/she is supposed to vote his/her position in place of all of us. that is fine and good if the person votes as promised but that is not a guarantee that the majority viewpoint will be expressed. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Too complex/long to go into here. Lets just say that I believe that contrary to the US constitution's preamble I do not believe all men are created equal when it comes to policy making (and in so many other things). Really ? Are we to disallow wome the vote? maybe only individuals with a net worth over say 100000.00. Degree needed. Property owners only. Tis a fine line here. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Life is not so simple. Neither in theory nor in practice is democratic governance a binary switch You missed the whole point. Either the populance governs itself ( Democratic form of Goverment ) or not. This is as binary as a NAND gate dude. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: Are we to disallow wome the vote? Richard Stringer wrote: Property owners only Isn't that the way the USA rebel colonies were originally set up ? And then some darn liberal got the idea of adult sufferage, and so it has continued .... Richard Stringer wrote: In our form of Gov. we elect a representative and he/she is supposed to vote his/her position in place of all of us. Yeah, it's a representitive democratic for, its not a true democracy. Richard Stringer wrote: The point that I was trying to make is that in a true democracy one would not have politicians. Maybe it's the other way, all entitled voters would be politicians ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.