I should hang around here to discuss the world with you guys more often since I am a bit more grounded in reality these days. Plus it helps when I am not seen as the devil.
It makes me realise how much I miss the worlds of places like Panzer Dragoon as bleak as they are. At least they don’t sugar coat reality. Whether we like it or not, we are all a part of this war of ideas heating up to boiling point at the moment anyway.
We should try to resist the temptation to flush the world down a black hole, though.
I was actually reading through your PD theory here again, Heretic, and something struck about how true it is when you said the ancients saw themselves as the enemy.
It reminds me of the question that was asked in Planescape Torment: what can change the nature of a man? For me the answer is love. For the world, maybe studying hyper-dimensions. God talk about something that is underrated.
I need to pry myself away from the net. Catch you guys later!
Wow, this thread had exploded since I last check. Not going to have time to join in the conversation that followed, but just wanted to clarify one thing.
“Socialism” is simply a method. A tool, if you will. There is no inherent danger in socialism - at least not any more than, say, Capitalism. Each has its benefits and its weaknesses, and each is a tool that is most effectively used in different situations. We already have socialized institutions in the US (public utilities, police, fire departments, roads, etc) and think nothing of it. One of the biggest booms in the country was seen right after the implementation of one of the biggest socialist policies (New Deal). Now, socialism has become a bad word in the US, primarily due to propaganda and boogeyman tactics by conflating small “s” socialism with big “C” Communism.
In the case of Japan, heavily socialized policies and programs have helped create a safety net for its citizens and have helped keep the middle class alive and healthy. On the flip side, it can be argued that Japanese is possibly too socialized, which discourages large companies from setting up offices there, due to high levels of corporate taxes. It’s not a black and white issue - it’s a gray scale. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to have that sort of discussion here at home nowadays because the moment you mention socialism, people start shouting “THE RUSSIANS WILL KILL US ALL!!!” (I’m exaggerating of course.)
Just wanted to clarify that I was not suggesting that socialism is the be all end all cure for society’s woes - it is a tool that can be used to great effect in some situations. But in the US, it seems like every problem looks like a nail because the only tool we’re allowed to talk about is the hammer (i.e. capitalism).
Great post, Abadd. If socialist policies can narrow the rich/poor gap while still giving buisnesses the drive to innovate, I am all for such policies.
In relation to the topic, power is one aspect of modern life that is virtually essential. Since power is becoming an increasing environmental issue, having an impact on the society as a whole (and the rest of world via CO2 emissions), I think it would make sense to socialise power. Add a tax for electricity (or include the tax in rates), but make it a free utility, as water is to our homes.
To solve the climate crisis we really need a “top down” approach to managing such resources. The reactionist, “bottoms up” approach of capitalism is problematic so long as businesses go for the cheapest form of energy. Unless there are some serious regulations added to the current capitalist approach, we’re headed for disaster; it’s too risky to just let the market decide.
The experts in those fields know best. If we want to end to addiction to oil, for example, then it starts with ending the demand. Make a better product.
Abadd, all I was saying is they have been shaped by American ideas really drastically, especially Conservative ones.
Empowerment begins with the individual. It’s better to have millions of self-reliant individuals than people looking up to their leaders all the time. Unless control is the aim of the game. America really already is socialistic in a sense especially after bailing out the banks anyway. Corporatism taking jobs to slave labor countries (that is too inconvenient for anyone to change) destroys the middle class as well which results in a two class system by the accident (or design) of greed. Tax breaks for people who didn’t need it as well who aren’t even being taxed fairly in the first place?
By not investing money back into the system, it still creates the nightmare they apparently despise. What we saw in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the evil empire go bankrupt because they ran out of other people’s money. The west was still kind of willfully oblivious to it despite how it controlled and stopped people from truly living.
Now the example of resilience and making it on your own is something to be admired. It’s not done in a vacuum, that is what people can sometimes forget.
So by nature we should hold our leaders to account, always. They serve us, not the other way around, and if that ever changes, then we’ll change our leaders. Let them sell their ideas to people if we are willing to buy. That, however, is simply not the reality it should be with so much money and brainwashing involved.
Not sure I follow here. Care to elaborate? There are certain things in Japan that are specifically influenced by the US, but the influence there is a much broader spectrum of Western ideas. Much of the pop culture is definitely influenced by the US mainstream pop culture, but much of the traditional culture is still very distinctly Japanese.
True, but again, this isn’t a black and white issue - it’s a gray scale. People should be self-reliant to a degree, but there are many, many things that people cannot accomplish on their own (hell, it’s biological - we’re heard animals for a reason). Should we believe our leaders 100% of the time without any hint of skepticism? Or course not. Since nobody is calling for that, it’s a bit of a false dichotomy.
People should be self-reliant, but do you think the people living in the tsunami-affected areas would be able to restore their livelihoods without the help of government? Do you think all of the people who were rescued would have survived if the government did not organize relief and rescue efforts?
Actually, that’s also corporatism. Socialism would be to have a government-run bank. The losses have been made public, but the profits are still privatized. Not quite socialism there
Though this one’s tricky. If the banks had been allowed to fail, we would likely have seen the entire collapse of our system. I’m not talking in hyperbole, either. Before the bailouts were approved, we were having trouble getting major retailers (like Best Buy level retailers, not mom-and-pop shops) to buy any products to put on the shelves because they did not have the capital to float the purchases, nor could the banks give them the usual business loans. It was pretty bleak. However, that being said, they didn’t have to give the banks a strings-free bailout, though. They should have been required to certain regulatory restrictions, etc.
Politically, post-war Japan adopted a balance of ideas and moved away from classical liberalism more towards social conservatism to balance out anarchy right up until not long ago (being leaders until the 90s recession). Japan are still among world leaders in scientific research as well I see.
No one should be dependent on a centralized authority to rescue them. The key word here being dependent. Things will happen regardless of course but you cannot expect to rely on help because that will give such authority the power of life or death as people settle into expecting it. After all, you may still be on your own anyway until help arrives. It’s amusing how things become balanced with extremes.
I think the whole “too big to fail” dynamic was exploited too much especially by whole countries whose industries have been shipped abroad. The housing market, for example, has been artificially propped up as a side effect of this instead of falling in line with people’s actual spending power which it should have after the crash and would have if we didn’t pretend that perceived value hadn’t changed.
But you know what? Any system that traps people in a cycle of few opportunities as if that would make them better won’t get any respect from me regardless of the political forces responsible. It pays to keep people in the dark too much because that means sharing less, which disgusts me too much.
If it’s financially the cheapest option to sell oil and coal instead of produce alternative energy, why would the oil companies choose the latter? There’s no reason to believe they have the best interests of humanity at heart: profit is the primary goal in business. It’s all very well to say “make a better product”, but if they have no motivation, why would they care?
I think on this issue, government intervention is required.
But people are the ones buying. IMO they need to be made aware of the damage it causes, and to be honest, the warmongering it causes.
They may start to care then.
This cannot happen by overstepping the democratic free process. You can’t really interfere without destroying livelihoods. I think it is the mentality of doing anything to make a buck unless you are stopped that is the problem.
I think that at this point, the only thing that would encourage people to swap over to cleaner energy is everything else nearly running out. I don’t like it, but that seems to be the only thing that will change anything when people have wanted to end these addictions for almost half a century.
OH WELL. Let’s move to Mars to escape all the madness until the cycle repeats itself.
And this is the problem with discussing things simply in terms of liberal vs conservative. There are many aspects of Japanese politics and culture that are conservative, and many aspects that are liberal. As I mentioned before, Japan has implemented many socialist programs since the war, but the “conservative party” has ruled since the war (up until earlier this past decade, actually). Even Japan’s conservative party is more liberal than the “liberal” Democrat Party here in the US, though.
And I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “balance out anarchy.”
And I’m not entirely sure what the point of this comment is, to be honest. Sure, people should always strive to be able to save themselves. But oftentimes, they will not be able to. Does that mean they’re dependent on authority? No. It simply means that they are in a situation where they cannot save themselves. So, if the choice is die or hope the government can help, which do you think people will choose?
Do you think people who are pinned under their houses after the earthquake would rather stay there than accept help from the government? How do you propose those people “save themselves” from being pinned under debris that is impossible to move without tremendous resources? How do you propose people rebuild roads to get supplies back into towns? How do you propose people get supplies into towns before those roads are rebuilt? How do you propose people get food when all of their farmland has been wiped out and contaminated with seawater?
Not quite. The problem with the “too big to fail” dynamic was an issue with not enforcing proper regulations and monopoly laws. There was a reason why previously, savings & loan/insurance/etc were all required by law to be separate entities. After the Gramm-Beach-Bliley Act was implemented in 1999, banks were allowed to wholly own other financial institutions, quickly setting up a precarious house of cards. Interestingly enough, that was prevented previously by the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which helped balance out the financial world after the Great Crash. Is it any coincidence that we experienced another crash 10 years after it was changed?
But essentially, what the 1999 act allowed to happen was that banks could now sell financial instruments (i.e. bundles of toxic loans) that had essentially been laundered within its own company (between the different groups) so that it could hide just how toxic those bundles of loans were. So they would then sell these loans to other banks. Everyone started doing it. Once the downfall started happening, nearly every bank got hit, and since every bank was now a major conglomerate, it started taking down the entire financial backbone of the country.
See my previous statement. The spending power bit is partially true, but only insomuch that the banks were encouraging overspending because they no longer cared how toxic loans were. It was a systemic failure brought about by the structure of the banking system.
What was sadder was everyone following in the footsteps of market leaders in order to remain competitive. That was robotic and avoidable. This is a mentality built on screwing people unless someone stops them.
Why not let it crash? It is not their job to create wealth. It’s their job to take yours. That’s it. Let’s at least, you know, tax the rich the same as everyone else. But we all know that slave labor is what took the profiteers abroad.
Not that I’d disagree with the bailout but honestly, that really needs to stop. The economy itself was being built around fictional money and THAT is what has been propped up when the market for affordable housing should be massive (but as you can see from all the empty homes in the states), it’s not. And the banks are still making profits.
I think a change in mentality is in order here.
This is interesting Abadd in how we are seeing these ideas collide on a global scale.
For a start, you don’t build cities on faultlines or beneath a damn. In the face of less potentially fatal alternatives, the free market will win.
Yeah, I LIKE that form of liberal Conservatism because it does not try to change the system. It says to itself “ok this is how things work, so let’s help everyone become a part of it instead of try to radically change what it means to be human”.
It’s beautiful.
What you have in the states as far as the left wing goes is a watered down form of liberal socialism with close corporate ties that has gained much of its power from racial division and dependency I would argue. Feel free to disagree. We can debate the specifics of that point and how the media has played a role, but is it really debatable? Real liberals stopped having power in the states a long time ago? It seems like it to me because of the necessity to adapt to such a hostile climate. I would be one myself if I wasn’t so inherently opposed to the potential for extreme socialism no matter how watered down it starts.
All I am saying is, and history does back me up on this fairly solidly, is that to give a central authority the power to both save you or let you die, is incredibly dangerous, not merely because people expect to rely on it, so justify relying on themselves less.
Power needs to be decentralized so that it’s more from the ground up starting with the individual, then community around them and upwards from there. Classic(al) liberalism stands more for free thinking than anything else, which you know, can be adverse to any sense of order. I’m glad the Japanese oligarchy were influenced by it enough to recognize its importance which they were smart enough to do. It’s like they took the best of both Europe and America (pop culture notwithstanding) and fit them into their political framework.
To be honest, in today’s world I have never before seen so many people so sharply divided on so much to the point of intolerance from those who are supposed to be its champions. Politics are to blame, but now we risk going too far off topic.
Corporations, despite having legal personhood, have no actual morality. Therefore, it’s entirely too easy for corporations to tend towards competitiveness (i.e. greed) without moral temperance. So, when market leaders begin to climb ahead via questionable practices and those practices are not punished, it soon becomes the norm amongst the vast majority of competitors (not all, though). That being said, there are many things that a corporation can accomplish that individuals or small companies cannot. Again, it’s a natural extension of our herd instincts. It’s also why strict regulations should be in place for corporations that are actually enforced.
Because I like having a job? I like having a stable society? I don’t really want to know what it felt like to live through the Great Depression?
Housing prices are still falling and are returning to levels that are at least somewhat within reason, when you take inflation and whatnot into consideration. The big issue with affordability lies in the issue that real wages for the median American have only risen a token amount since the 80s (I believe I saw that it’s somewhere along the lines of 3% in the last 2 decades or so), whereas CEO pay has skyrocketed. Lack of fair taxation and corporatist mentality in Washington is helping us along those lines.
Except that people have always built civilizations in the path of natural destruction. Oftentimes, it’s the natural dangers that make for very fertile areas (flood plains, for example). And hell, almost all of Japan is one giant fault line - do you expect them to abandon their entire country? Even in the US, what parts are immune to natural disaster? It was the free market that allowed these places to develop, in reality. In fact, I would guess that because many areas were populated specifically because of the free market. Cheap land to develop. That’s the free market. Where government regulations come in is managing the potential damage that can be wrought by unchecked “free market” rules.
Care to explain? Not sure who is trying to change what it means to be human.
I would argue that the left in the US only appears liberal/socialist when compared to the right wing. They push for some socialist policies, but are often hamstrung, half-assed efforts or are watered down through corporatism. Not sure where you get the racial division and dependency bit. I would argue that part of the description (as well as the corporatism, which is a symptom on both sides of the aisle) sounds more apt for the conservative side. Perhaps not a systemic dependency, but rather a dependency on leadership to provide protection from the villain of the week (whether it immigrants, terrorists, drugs, liberals, or what have you).
Definitely agree. Hell, pretty much every pre-Bush I president would be considered a liberal at this point if you just look at their policies and actions.
And what danger would that be? There are plenty of very socialist countries throughout the world (small “s” socialist, not Communist) that are doing just fine.
No one is saying that the central authority should have power over your life and death. What gives you the impression that they are?
But everything in balance. Which is why we are a representative republic instead of a straight up democracy. “Tyranny of the majority,” as it’s called. Individuals should be empowered, but that power must be tempered with protections. Otherwise how do you guarantee the liberties of others? What is to stop me from taking away your liberties through force? Or how about my town from invading your town to take resources? Or a largely Christian country from oppressing other religions? Those are extreme examples, sure, but they represent the very essence of why a centralized power is necessary to protect those very same liberties.
How is the individual supposed to combat a corporation without protections provided by the government?
I’d say that’s giving them too much credit hahaha
They have their fair share of problems (xenophobia, waaaaay too much bureaucracy, etc).
Not sure if this is where you were going with this, but it’s not intolerance to be intolerant of intolerance…
Edit: people cannot respect differences enough imo as we look for what is supposedly most efficient for achieving our goals. You have to try to see through their eyes and understand why people have the prejudices that they do. For example, if you want to change religious beliefs, then making that the enemy only makes them that much more defensive. Politically we have almost become children in our attempts to prove the other side wrong.
Building a city on a faultline really has to be the result of no other choice. That and people have short memories so don’t really care when the next earthquake hits in 50 years. That’s either shortsightedness (for which no one is to blame who couldn’t see it coming and something of which we are guilty as hell when we know it is) or desperation/no other choice.
So why build it there to become dependent on aid in the first place? Because I assume the help wouldn’t exist unless demand for it was frequent so in other words, disasters are good for us? They should not be that inevitable but they are because we make it so, especially in this day and age.
And people wonder why we are fucked up as a race. Lol.
All I am saying is the more self-reliant the better. The temptation to not be that is (too) huge and filled with potential pitfalls.
The Democrats safely have the immigrant vote, and the votes of most minorities, so it pays to not control the border, and corporatism benefits from the cheap labor as well. Their votes are being bought. If you really wanted to give those people a better life, you wouldn’t make slaves out of them. They are being used as pawns, and that is why the media overlooks it so much or outright defends it. It’s all about votes and slow eventual gradual changes.
If something isn’t working in reality, it will crash eventually anyway no matter how much people try to delay that inevitability. The top 1% of a society having all the wealth WILL crash the rest. We’ll be crushed under their obese weight. Living beyond our means WILL likewise crash anything.
Sooner or later, people have to accept the harsh realities of reality: money has to come from somewhere. It frustrates me to see people being forced by the situation to change their ways.
That kind of greed is self-defeating. We both want a society that profits from crippling social mobility to fail, right?
Socialism makes people addicted to the state. That’s the problem with it. It may work for small self-sustaining societies but not anything that hopes to bring the best out of people. It fails to create the same kind of opportunities that allows people to decide their own fate as much (partly because it has no need to compete) especially as people learn to expect help from society when in reality, we are all on our own.
IMO, you have people in power protecting the interests of the rich too much now (as the reinstatement of the Bush tax cuts for the mega rich showed). Sadly the answer is not to steal from them no matter how much people may feel that justice is on their side. They made that money by selling something to you and I. The answer is to help others follow. That is far more empowering than helping people survive on crumbs until only surviving becomes enough for them. It’s a trap. A very cleverly disguised trap. Unfortunately it benefits to not let others follow in the obese fat cat’s footsteps.
If people were actually aware of just how much they were being screwed, and there were better fairer alternatives, they wouldn’t let themselves be screwed. Needless to say.
No one is too big to fail. Empires have failed. You cannot argue with reality. You stand in front of that tidal wave and it will crush you. The system at the moment is basically the product of people doing what is convenient today and not tomorrow because today is all that matters. If that is the case then we can say goodbye to the future of future generations. Maybe we can profit from correcting the past’s mistakes, like true capitalists.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]But people are the ones buying. IMO they need to be made aware of the damage it causes, and to be honest, the warmongering it causes.
They may start to care then.
This cannot happen by overstepping the democratic free process. You can’t really interfere without destroying livelihoods. I think it is the mentality of doing anything to make a buck unless you are stopped that is the problem.[/quote]
People are unlikely to change their buying habits significantly, so long as is it is cheaper to buy unclean energy. Each person acting in his own self interest has no motivation to change his habits unless everyone changes their habits. Simply making a personal choice not to purchase unclean energy will not make a significant difference unless a critical number also make that choice - and that’s unlikely to happen unless, since each individual will see no benefit in making the change while everyone around him continues to poor petrol into their cars.
Tighter government regulations would force businesses to adopt renewable energy programs. Some businesses may suffer losses as a result, but so what? That’s a lot better than experiencing the damage that climate change will cause.
By the way Geoffrey, if you haven’t read Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, I strongly recommend doing so. The article was written in the 60’s, but is perhaps the definitive article on this issue. Anyone doubtful of the dangers of leaving the allocation of the commons to individuals would do well to read it.
If you want to argue for unregulated individualism, you really have to defeat Hardin’s arguments.
‘limitless freedom of expression within constraints’
A phrase emerging out of a convergence of stimulus this evening / morning…
I’ve been in a very emotional state lately, at least in contrast to what has been my own analytical standard. Solo I just read that essay under the influence of finishing off a full bottle of wine - not really an intention… and also under the influence of listening to this…
It would be impossible enough to muster enough focus to qualify the explosion of thought this thread; that linked article; my recent indulgences of distraction; the events in Japan; and various personal and general reinforcements have effected, even if I were sober. But even that is illustrative:
External limiters are intrinsically valuable, even comforting because they can impose control and safety on the aspects of our impulses that we do not already have graceful control of.
I seriously can’t find confidence in verbalizing this at the moment… but this is what it’s about, right here and now. A tome still wouldn’t be enough to truly explain, but I’ll try to get back into this discussion - that I greatly instigated - after getting some sleep and dealing with tomorrows mundanities.
Parallel to the challenge focusing and restraining abstract expression is for me, emotional expression / indulgence becomes a plurality to the point of utter chaos. And I seem to be at a point of needing to deal with that aspect of myself, one way or another, as a condition of any peace and prosperity. Apologies (and thanks) for subjecting anyone here to any part of that process…
Hopefully I’ll reach a better accommodation with this madness next post.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]But people are the ones buying. IMO they need to be made aware of the damage it causes, and to be honest, the warmongering it causes.
They may start to care then.
This cannot happen by overstepping the democratic free process. You can’t really interfere without destroying livelihoods. I think it is the mentality of doing anything to make a buck unless you are stopped that is the problem.[/quote]
People are unlikely to change their buying habits significantly, so long as is it is cheaper to buy unclean energy. Each person acting in his own self interest has no motivation to change his habits unless everyone changes their habits. Simply making a personal choice not to purchase unclean energy will not make a significant difference unless a critical number also make that choice - and that’s unlikely to happen unless, since each individual will see no benefit in making the change while everyone around him continues to poor petrol into their cars.
Tighter government regulations would force businesses to adopt renewable energy programs. Some businesses may suffer losses as a result, but so what? That’s a lot better than experiencing the damage that climate change will cause.[/quote]
The problem is if the west forces people away from unclean energies instead of finding a more profitable way, other less desirable powers will sell it to a world that cannot resist the convenience of it anyway as long as there is a market for it. Someone will always do whatever earns them the most money.
So instead of fight that, beat it at its own game. I firmly believe that the market for better more renewable cleaner energy sources is waiting to be tapped. You just have to make them more appealing - or appealing enough to transform them gradually into an inevitability.
Unless of course, you propose a global solution, but again, everyone has to agree on it, or unless you want to end greed and how these people define success (by it never being enough) somehow. That can only be defeated in the arena of ideas, but when it makes so much money, it will always win in a world where money buys everything.
I’m not arguing for anarchy. I’m just arguing to work within human nature, because it is more realistic. I’ll read that when I get a chance.
However, dependency always becomes a bargaining chip used to hold people to ransom in these matters, which is why I advocate more self-reliance to not NEED others like we need air to breath and thereby give them the power of life or death over us. The temptation to rely on others is too huge and ripe for exploitation.
[quote=“The Ancient”]‘limitless freedom of expression within constraints’
A phrase emerging out of a convergence of stimulus this evening / morning…
I’ve been in a very emotional state lately, at least in contrast to what has been my own analytical standard. Solo I just read that essay under the influence of finishing off a full bottle of wine - not really an intention… and also under the influence of listening to this…
It would be impossible enough to muster enough focus to qualify the explosion of thought this thread; that linked article; my recent indulgences of distraction; the events in Japan; and various personal and general reinforcements have effected, even if I were sober. But even that is illustrative:
External limiters are intrinsically valuable, even comforting because they can impose control and safety on the aspects of our impulses that we do not already have graceful control of.
I seriously can’t find confidence in verbalizing this at the moment… but this is what it’s about, right here and now. A tome still wouldn’t be enough to truly explain, but I’ll try to get back into this discussion - that I
greatly instigated - after getting some sleep and dealing with tomorrows mundanities.
Parallel to the challenge focusing and restraining abstract expression is for me, emotional expression / indulgence becomes a plurality to the point of utter chaos. And I seem to be at a point of needing to deal with that aspect of myself, one way or another, as a condition of any peace and prosperity. Apologies (and thanks) for subjecting anyone here to any part of that process…
Hopefully I’ll reach a better accommodation with this madness next post. [/quote]
Don’t worry, humanity is a closed serpent eating its own tail and we are the skin being shed to smoothen its edges.
Let’s kill the snake imo.
I really think people are smarter than needing consequences to beat us into shape. It’s good training, however!
From where I am standing, reality is actually very boring. I think we just need more stories to immerse ourselves in like warm sunny beach water that never loses its warmth. As I always say, if reality wants our money, then it can make a better product.
I’m talking about governments tightening regulations within their own countries, not forcing other countries to do so.
Someone has to lead the way. Businesses won’t do it on their own, so long as it is more profitable to sell unclean energy. The largest emitters would do well to roll out renewable energy strategies (within their own countries) to set an example, but also because they will eventually have to do so anyway. So why not start now, and lessen the impact on the climate? Once the technology has been deployed in some countries, it will be more feasible for smaller countries to adopt. It’s really going to take government action from the largest emitters (the US and China in particular) to make these changes. We can help quicken the process by voting for political parties who are more likely to support such policies.
I agree with you that if some countries reduce their unclean energy consumption, others will continue to do so. But as more countries start to adopt renewable energy, the more feasible it will be for the remaining countries to adopt it on a large scale because it will have already been trialed. Someone has to go first.
We are in the process of creating a global agreement. The Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord are a start, although they are not enough. What we can do is throw support behind those who are advocating a global agreement. It won’t help if people are advocating individualism on this issue, when it is clearly a global problem that requires cooperation rather than competition. And simply waiting for a global agreement isn’t enough either, because a global agreement may not happen.
We should throw our support behind any policies that are working towards elevating the problem, whether that be restrictions on energy companies, government-lead energy strategies, or global agreements.
That sums up my point in a single sentence. On this issue, it’s much more preferable to have a governmental limiter than a natural limiter because the natural consequences are horrific.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]But people are the ones buying. IMO they need to be made aware of the damage it causes, and to be honest, the warmongering it causes.
They may start to care then.
[/quote]
damage in what way ?, because I for don’t buy the Global warming is all MAN made for starters , and speaking of Oil… I see no alternative at all to Oil in the near or present future.
Oil isn’t just used to power cars or Power stations but to also in the process to make Plastic (and where’s the alternative to that ? ) because in the Western world Plastic is used everywhere in nearly ever product we buy - hell even our games and keyboards are made out of the stuff.
