Sustainable development and globalisation
-
Along these lines do you think it is possible for us to "save" the Earth and provide for everyone at an acceptable level? We have heard endlessly how if everyone on Earth lived like an American we would need ten Earths or something. But an acceptable level is far below that of an average American. Acceptable is access to clean water, electricity, basic foods and shelter. (Once there we can take it to the next level, but first lets learn to walk...) However it is no good trying to save humanity when the Earth is going to hell in a hand basket. Plus "saving" the Earth is going to be a mammoth task. Not only will it mean throwing lots of money into renewable energy but it also means changing our ways. That is what America is so against, having to kurb their ambitions so as not to rape the planet in the process. Also if you ask me, 4 year presidencies means short-term achivement seeking. So no president is going to sacrifice his 4 years to a long term goal and in so doing so be voted out of office and remembered as the man who kurbed American/Australian/Canadian/Brazilian/XXXen growth. It also seems to me that part of saving starving children in Angola is mass production. Pumping out food and blankets and bricks and electricity and water pipes etc. etc. all to be sent to Angola to help the people. But by ramping up production to save the Angolans surely then we are having a negative impact on the environment? So can we sustain and improve 6.4billion human being lives and change our ways to save the planet? 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 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 $$$$ and necessity is the mother of invention. We are researching alternative energy, but we haven't made it cheap enough yet.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Paul Watson wrote: We have heard endlessly how if everyone on Earth lived like an American we would need ten Earths or something. If everyone on Earth were as productive as Americans we wouldn't need any more. We feed ourselves and half of the rest of you. Paul Watson wrote: But an acceptable level is far below that of an average American. So, are you in favor of taking away my big screen TV??? Stay back foul creature!!! I would argue that only competition and profit (:omg::eek: capitalism!) will "save the planet". There is no better motivator than $$$$ 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!"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
-
Along these lines do you think it is possible for us to "save" the Earth and provide for everyone at an acceptable level? We have heard endlessly how if everyone on Earth lived like an American we would need ten Earths or something. But an acceptable level is far below that of an average American. Acceptable is access to clean water, electricity, basic foods and shelter. (Once there we can take it to the next level, but first lets learn to walk...) However it is no good trying to save humanity when the Earth is going to hell in a hand basket. Plus "saving" the Earth is going to be a mammoth task. Not only will it mean throwing lots of money into renewable energy but it also means changing our ways. That is what America is so against, having to kurb their ambitions so as not to rape the planet in the process. Also if you ask me, 4 year presidencies means short-term achivement seeking. So no president is going to sacrifice his 4 years to a long term goal and in so doing so be voted out of office and remembered as the man who kurbed American/Australian/Canadian/Brazilian/XXXen growth. It also seems to me that part of saving starving children in Angola is mass production. Pumping out food and blankets and bricks and electricity and water pipes etc. etc. all to be sent to Angola to help the people. But by ramping up production to save the Angolans surely then we are having a negative impact on the environment? So can we sustain and improve 6.4billion human being lives and change our ways to save the planet? 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: 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
-
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
My words. Sonork 100.15206;PavelK
-
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
Ok first I was just using America as an example because it is the best known example. If you ask me how the average Jap lives I would think in a tiny alley with skinned dogs and caged chickens nearby. i.e. I would be VERY wrong, but at least with Americans I am only a yard or two off. So don't think I think the Americans are the enemy and everyone else is my friend. Everyone is guilty. Virtually all countries are trying to be mini-Americas with SUVs and hand-held video cameras. Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. You laugh, shake your head or don't believe me but yes, I am trying to change my ways. Granted it is very difficult. I like junk food, it tastes great. I like gas guzzling fast cars, they feel great. But at the same time I would sacrifice those things knowing I am doing my part. The only problem is 90% of the rest of people won't do the same, so my 0.000000000000000000001% is not going to help much, but then I cannot be a hypocrite and slam Americans/Swiss/Japanese for their evil ways when I do the same thing. I am between a rock and a hard place, so I am rather going to do something good and sacrifice a few luxuries than do nothing. I might just inspire a few others who might just inspire a few others etc. etc. Yeah yeah, laugh all you want :) Also nobody believes radical changes are going to happen. Not even Greenpeace think that, and they are quite mad. And radical changes are not needed. Virtually all of the studies done show that simply reducing to pre-90 levels of consumerism will make a huge difference. That was what the whole Rio and Kyoto thing was about. It was still a huge change to places like America because 1% out of their production is a massive amount, but for the average citizen in all countries to make a difference does not require a huge change. Basically to me it seems like it has to come from the people, not the leaders. If everyone slows down a bit, thinks a bit longer about the choice between a Big Mac or a home cooked rice stew then things will be better off. Also then the producers will have to follow, as they rely on us (yes I know we rely on the producers for jobs, but we can edge it down, dropping one side, then dropping the other, then dropping the other, all in a controlled fashion.) I could take a bus to work (would be a pain but I could) or make
-
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
Watson you're a technical person. Therefore you should know that all technical problems have a (technical) solution. Humans can't fly but someone solved it. Productivity too is a technical problem. And given enough money it too will be solved. Paul Watson wrote: That is the whole point of that "10 Earths" study. Another moronic study by another moron. If the study does not take into account productivity increases and technological innovation (which is hard to predict) into account it's worthless. And pathetic. Paul Watson wrote: Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards Who said anything about 6.4 billion people? Don't you know that's why wars exist? As a means of population control :) Paul Watson wrote: Wouldn't you change your ways to save the Earth? This leads right to the heart of the problem. The solution is technical and it can be found. The difficulty lies in achieving the political consensus amongst all to reach that technical solution. Remeber that all technical problems are solveable, it's the political problems that are intractable. No amount of geek tools will ever solve those. Paul Watson wrote: 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. Calm down Paul! Let's not get too passionate here and make some silly mistake shall we! :) The reason we can communicate in spite of the thousands of miles separating us is because someone took a risk and built a computer. You decided to buy that computer and the person who sold it to you wanted to be compensated for the risk. After all you might not have bought that machine. Profit/Money is just another form of power and power is what underpins all human and animal relations. Money is to human societies what predators are to animals in the wild: a means of natural selection, of evolution. Power has always been about control over other people. What's changed (or not) is the different form it takes. 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. And this is why I'm a pessimist in these matters: to change anything you need to change human nature. And that's bloody hard. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomo
-
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: 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? In all honesty? Kind of, yeah. :-O I'm all for saving the earth, I recycle what I can, don't drive any more than I have to, etc, etc. But if saving the earth comes down to resorting to 19th century living without the 19th century factories, etc, then the Earth be damned if I'm not going to be around to see it. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. Paul
-
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: i.e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. Who do you think is a driving force in the discovery of new energy sources? Zimbabwe? Kenya? Uraguay? If we do not progress, we will stay exactly where we are or even fall back to an even worse polluting technology. Paul Watson wrote: Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. Tell me, how can you strip the Earth bare, without actually taking anything from it and hurtling it out into space. It's all still here. The Earth will reclaim it all in time. We do not live on a static globe. We do a decent job of recycling and we aren't polluting like we used to. Admittedly, we are a consumer culture, but isn't that what all humans do? I'd bet that if South Africans had the same level of income as Americans, you would be driving SUVs too. Consuming is not a bad thing. Blaming your problems on a country on the other side of the globe is a bad thing. 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. Everyone is driven by profit, even the tree huggers. You can deny it all you like, but its true. We must strive to make profit a secondary impulse instead of the primary.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Watson you're a technical person. Therefore you should know that all technical problems have a (technical) solution. Humans can't fly but someone solved it. Productivity too is a technical problem. And given enough money it too will be solved. Paul Watson wrote: That is the whole point of that "10 Earths" study. Another moronic study by another moron. If the study does not take into account productivity increases and technological innovation (which is hard to predict) into account it's worthless. And pathetic. Paul Watson wrote: Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards Who said anything about 6.4 billion people? Don't you know that's why wars exist? As a means of population control :) Paul Watson wrote: Wouldn't you change your ways to save the Earth? This leads right to the heart of the problem. The solution is technical and it can be found. The difficulty lies in achieving the political consensus amongst all to reach that technical solution. Remeber that all technical problems are solveable, it's the political problems that are intractable. No amount of geek tools will ever solve those. Paul Watson wrote: 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. Calm down Paul! Let's not get too passionate here and make some silly mistake shall we! :) The reason we can communicate in spite of the thousands of miles separating us is because someone took a risk and built a computer. You decided to buy that computer and the person who sold it to you wanted to be compensated for the risk. After all you might not have bought that machine. Profit/Money is just another form of power and power is what underpins all human and animal relations. Money is to human societies what predators are to animals in the wild: a means of natural selection, of evolution. Power has always been about control over other people. What's changed (or not) is the different form it takes. 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. And this is why I'm a pessimist in these matters: to change anything you need to change human nature. And that's bloody hard. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomo
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: i.e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. Who do you think is a driving force in the discovery of new energy sources? Zimbabwe? Kenya? Uraguay? If we do not progress, we will stay exactly where we are or even fall back to an even worse polluting technology. Paul Watson wrote: Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. Tell me, how can you strip the Earth bare, without actually taking anything from it and hurtling it out into space. It's all still here. The Earth will reclaim it all in time. We do not live on a static globe. We do a decent job of recycling and we aren't polluting like we used to. Admittedly, we are a consumer culture, but isn't that what all humans do? I'd bet that if South Africans had the same level of income as Americans, you would be driving SUVs too. Consuming is not a bad thing. Blaming your problems on a country on the other side of the globe is a bad thing. 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. Everyone is driven by profit, even the tree huggers. You can deny it all you like, but its true. We must strive to make profit a secondary impulse instead of the primary.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: Who do you think is a driving force in the discovery of new energy sources? Zimbabwe? Kenya? Uraguay? Germany from what I've seen. Hell, I hate all this blind America bashing as much as most Americans, but there are other developed countries... you know that, right? You're not the driving force behind everything. ;) Disclaimer: at the very most, half-serious Paul
-
Ok first I was just using America as an example because it is the best known example. If you ask me how the average Jap lives I would think in a tiny alley with skinned dogs and caged chickens nearby. i.e. I would be VERY wrong, but at least with Americans I am only a yard or two off. So don't think I think the Americans are the enemy and everyone else is my friend. Everyone is guilty. Virtually all countries are trying to be mini-Americas with SUVs and hand-held video cameras. Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. You laugh, shake your head or don't believe me but yes, I am trying to change my ways. Granted it is very difficult. I like junk food, it tastes great. I like gas guzzling fast cars, they feel great. But at the same time I would sacrifice those things knowing I am doing my part. The only problem is 90% of the rest of people won't do the same, so my 0.000000000000000000001% is not going to help much, but then I cannot be a hypocrite and slam Americans/Swiss/Japanese for their evil ways when I do the same thing. I am between a rock and a hard place, so I am rather going to do something good and sacrifice a few luxuries than do nothing. I might just inspire a few others who might just inspire a few others etc. etc. Yeah yeah, laugh all you want :) Also nobody believes radical changes are going to happen. Not even Greenpeace think that, and they are quite mad. And radical changes are not needed. Virtually all of the studies done show that simply reducing to pre-90 levels of consumerism will make a huge difference. That was what the whole Rio and Kyoto thing was about. It was still a huge change to places like America because 1% out of their production is a massive amount, but for the average citizen in all countries to make a difference does not require a huge change. Basically to me it seems like it has to come from the people, not the leaders. If everyone slows down a bit, thinks a bit longer about the choice between a Big Mac or a home cooked rice stew then things will be better off. Also then the producers will have to follow, as they rely on us (yes I know we rely on the producers for jobs, but we can edge it down, dropping one side, then dropping the other, then dropping the other, all in a controlled fashion.) I could take a bus to work (would be a pain but I could) or make
The driving force behind rampant consumerism is people living beyond their means. Visa, Mastercard and the big banks are driving it all and laughing all the way to the bank vault. I don't own an SUV because I can't afford one, but there are thousands of American idiots who make less than me and they take out a $40k loan for a Humvee. Get rid of American debt and the lifestyle encouraged by the credit companies and you will eliminate some of the problem. Unfortunately, if everyone eliminated their debt (for good) our economy would collapse and we would all be thrown back to the middle ages.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Jason Henderson wrote: Who do you think is a driving force in the discovery of new energy sources? Zimbabwe? Kenya? Uraguay? Germany from what I've seen. Hell, I hate all this blind America bashing as much as most Americans, but there are other developed countries... you know that, right? You're not the driving force behind everything. ;) Disclaimer: at the very most, half-serious Paul
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!" -
Paul Watson wrote: i.e. Our Earth is not capable of sustaining 6.4billion people at American standards. Who do you think is a driving force in the discovery of new energy sources? Zimbabwe? Kenya? Uraguay? If we do not progress, we will stay exactly where we are or even fall back to an even worse polluting technology. Paul Watson wrote: Consume, consume, consume is going to kill us all eventually and leave behind a ravaged Earth. Tell me, how can you strip the Earth bare, without actually taking anything from it and hurtling it out into space. It's all still here. The Earth will reclaim it all in time. We do not live on a static globe. We do a decent job of recycling and we aren't polluting like we used to. Admittedly, we are a consumer culture, but isn't that what all humans do? I'd bet that if South Africans had the same level of income as Americans, you would be driving SUVs too. Consuming is not a bad thing. Blaming your problems on a country on the other side of the globe is a bad thing. 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. Everyone is driven by profit, even the tree huggers. You can deny it all you like, but its true. We must strive to make profit a secondary impulse instead of the primary.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: Consuming is not a bad thing. Blaming your problems on a country on the other side of the globe is a bad thing. Sorry Jason. I did not mean to portray myself as someone who blames all the worlds evils on America. I don't, as I said America is amazing. I simply used America as it is the best known example ok? If I used someone else the impact of the example would not be as strong. Blaming the Swiss just does not have the same ring to it :) And I am just as guilty of over consumption as any American. We are all guilty. Jason Henderson wrote: If we do not progress, we will stay exactly where we are or even fall back to an even worse polluting technology. I fully agree. However we might have a problem in that before we reach producing a cheap and easy technology to save the world that there will be no world left to save. We need to be more efficient in our quest for progress. Flailing about is no good anymore, it worked in the old days but it is not working now. Jason Henderson wrote: Tell me, how can you strip the Earth bare, without actually taking anything from it and hurtling it out into space. It's all still here. The Earth will reclaim it all in time. We do not live on a static globe. LOL I used to argue that too. Then I realised that 5 hectares of barren, toxic ground is not the same as 5 hectares of fertile, clean ground. So by ravaged I mean unusable. That is what sustainable is all about, it is about using resources but in such a way as that what we produce can go back into the system and become more resources. Re-use, like good coding :-D Jason Henderson wrote: Everyone is driven by profit, even the tree huggers. You can deny it all you like, but its true. We must strive to make profit a secondary impulse instead of the primary. Hell I totally agree. Most "environmentalists" are in it for the faim and peer-respect. Tons of musicians hug trees just to sell more records, not because they really care about the environment. As you said in your other post... It is living beyond our means that is bad. Consumption is good, we need it of course. It is over-consumption, glutony, that is bad. 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 pe
-
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.