Sustainable development and globalisation
-
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.