*“if I wasn’t so inherently opposed to the potential for extreme socialism no matter how watered down it starts.”
“it’s much more preferable to have a governmental limiter than a natural limiter”*
I think this is one of the points most lacking in clarity: In some form or another everyone perceives and accepts the necessity of authority, yet even the idea of “government” - technically having a quite general meaning - has baggage, it conjures up a lot of associations that are incidental rather than intrinsic.
Communities then have “government” as well, even if informal in many cases. But the usual association there is one of good faith and public interest, right? It always returns to the simple issues of accountability and representation; as a pure ideal, if a government is literally “of the people” then it’s an agreement on how we all may and may not affect each others lives, not control them.
It’s also an interesting point about classical liberalism, and the Southern States used to define that, it was the best fit with justifying slavery for one thing. And of course there we have a very powerful illustration of a government (eventually) mandating that it’s people may no longer exploit a particular “resource”… can this issue really be seen as black or white?
As I’ve indicated before, there is much that I also gravitate to about the Libertarian agenda. I don’t believe the US needs to adopt many policies just because they’ve proven to work elsewhere, if only because they can warp other elements of our system that are unique, with unknown consequences. But reality just seems to put the lie to any absolutist rejection of socialism as undermining competition and ambition - rather the opposite - but yes, it’s all about balance.
Thomas Jefferson was THE classic liberal, and he was also perhaps the stanchest advocate for enforced (or perhaps coerced, heh) redistribution of wealth. Static wealth and influence DO stifle the competitive spirit, that very nearly is an absolute. If we define “the free market” as the sum of all virtues ascribed to it, then those virtues cannot actually be maintained except by continually - and sure, even artificially - re-leveling the playing field.
But even again, the biggest obfuscation in the whole debate is the fact that the unclean energy was never some perfectly free-market phenomenon in the first place. And certainly for the greatest part of this history, demand has been very much artificially controlled as it is. Our lives and livelihoods are already being controlled, so in a sense the argument becomes that we shouldn’t even try to exercise choice in THAT control?
I don’t know, I’m a citizen of the greatest offender here, so I can’t avoid acceptance of the truth we’ll have to pay up one way or another. If leadership on this issue demands sacrifice it’s only what we owe, and if we are unwilling to lead then at some point we’ll be forced to follow, and deserve the consequences.
I’d not ever read Tragedy of the Commons before, though I do recall some references and material. Rather an exhilarating read, I’ll have to run through it once more and maybe organize the inspiration. But I do have caveats about the natural selection assertion - that an appeal to conscience selects for those without conscience. For one it seems to assume a very strictly socialized perspective in the first place, which gets back to the heart of this whole ambiguity about contemporary liberal / conservative ideology. Both sides protect certain forms of control and demonize others.
Hmm… losing focus again for now.
And isn’t it interesting that the only stories worth telling are about strife and conflict in some form or another, and of course usually acts of overcoming such. If we ever achieve perfect peace, will we even be able to relate to those stories anymore, and if not, will we have any stories to replace them?
Hell, even in posing such questions, we always end up anthropomorphizing the future…
[quote=“Solo”]I’m talking about governments tightening regulations within their own countries, not forcing other countries to do so.
Someone has to lead the way.[/quote]
If that someone isn’t the west at least trying to steer the world away from oil etc, it WILL be someone who doesn’t care about their own people as much taking charge who will wholly enslave themselves to pure profits.
Until there is peace on Earth, you have to remain competitive to fuel the defense of your ideals (pun intended). I don’t want to see anything that erodes individual liberties (or outright takes them away or gives you none like we see in China) for the sake of benefiting the top or whole in charge. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
You can’t fight greed (the need to stay ahead in other words) on this; instead you have to give greed a reason to return home to clean energy. Something else will simply have to be better at the job and more profitable or even profitable at all to make a start to a transition.
Will that ever happen as long as greed is merely supplying OUR demand? I could foresee less blood being spilt over securing the flow of oil in the future (when the west stops adversely meddling in the affairs of other countries if at all for its own benefit), but they can tap sources elsewhere until they literally run dry.
Any change-over is going to be slow at this rate. Sadly. In this world, it’s all about following the money. That’s human nature for you. Governments can’t punish businesses for trying to make money especially in light of how that creates jobs. They can, however, make sure no one is being hurt in the process.
The point I am really trying to make is, this is our fault. We’re the ones creating the demand because it is convenient for us as a whole. Trying to change that is like trying to steer a tidal wave. If you want to change that, then you need to start at the source or go with it in a way that is both prosperous and not harmful.
It’s not really anyone advocating individualism. It’s more along the lines of they ARE individual sovereign countries who want to grow their own economies. Who can blame them for doing what they feel is best towards doing that? Again, imo, work with it. It’s the only way. Eventually they will have to imitate leaders anyway if they want to remain viable, assuming they lead the way into a future that is both cleaner and profits them.
Of course, I’m not sure why we’d want to grow the economy of two class tyrannical hellholes, but that’s just my opinion.
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.[/quote]
The damage it has done that cannot be undone should be clear. We can start with setting up fascists in other countries who kept down their own people to become stable client states. Every time anyone buys Saudi oil you are propping up an evil government as well. Etc.
There was that whole gulf of Mexico thing as well. I guess we’re quick to forget that minor detail.
The WARS that have been waged all to ensure buying oil cheaply to ensure vehicles keep moving, were they worth it? They are, essentially, your wars. You’re complicit when demanding the supply no matter where it is supplied from as long as it’s as cheap as possible.
I don’t mean to sound dramatic or anything, but it is what it is.
[quote=“The Ancient”]Communities then have “government” as well, even if informal in many cases. But the usual association there is one of good faith and public interest, right?
It always returns to the simple issues of accountability and representation; as a pure ideal, if a government is literally “of the people” then it’s an agreement on how we all may and may not affect each others lives, not control them.[/quote]
Yes. The temptation to look to others who supposedly know what’s best is too huge when it’s better to follow, lest you fall behind and therefore become less useful, but when people fragment into their own enclaves even that (falling behind) becomes profitable for the leaders, especially if they want less of you in the world. So what happens when we all become just as competitive at every level or at least try? Nature has a much harder time running her evil course.
I honestly think that in that case it was just a matter of time before slaves were recognized as fellow human beings. It was simply the truth (even if only as defined from a moral majority’s point of view). People would have to detach themselves from their conscience to see other human beings as resources, but then again, I’m looking at the modern world and thinking, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
There’s too much detachment in the name of convenience for my liking. Out of sight out of mind?
I would hope that most people would not hesitate to say yes if we abolished slave labor in other parts of the world if they had the power to make that difference, even if it lowered their own standards of living.
It ceased to only be other people’s problems the moment the rest of the world became our business. That old excuse that it is none of our business is a hollow one now when that is exactly what it is.
So, maybe I just have far too much faith in humanity for my own good.
[quote=“The Ancient”]As I’ve indicated before, there is much that I also gravitate to about the Libertarian agenda. I don’t believe the US needs to adopt many policies just because they’ve proven to work elsewhere, if only because they can warp other elements of our system that are unique, with unknown consequences. But reality just seems to put the lie to any absolutist rejection of socialism as undermining competition and ambition - rather the opposite - but yes, it’s all about balance.
Thomas Jefferson was THE classic liberal, and he was also perhaps the stanchest advocate for enforced (or perhaps coerced, heh) redistribution of wealth. Static wealth and influence DO stifle the competitive spirit, that very nearly is an absolute. If we define “the free market” as the sum of all virtues ascribed to it, then those virtues cannot actually be maintained except by continually - and sure, even artificially - re-leveling the playing field.
But even again, the biggest obfuscation in the whole debate is the fact that the unclean energy was never some perfectly free-market phenomenon in the first place. And certainly for the greatest part of this history, demand has been very much artificially controlled as it is. Our lives and livelihoods are already being controlled, so in a sense the argument becomes that we shouldn’t even try to exercise choice in THAT control?[/quote]
That’s like being a pawn in someone else’s game. Free to move a bit but ultimately limited, especially when the game never changes. You can see how self-destructive this game currently is, and yet we all still try to justify it under the banner of short term convenience.
So it will crash over and over again until one day it crashes into a blackhole never to be seen again.
The free market isn’t correcting itself because the free market is still too necessary to stay ahead. And why is staying ahead necessary? Because the game is rigged. Can’t we make it not necessary or do we have to fix a broken universe first?
That’s not a question I can answer. I think you are a lot more knowledgeable than me in this department. I just think it is more beneficial to resist control of any kind when we can break a broken world to our will. There needs to be addictive bait in order to do that.
[quote=“The Ancient”]
I don’t know, I’m a citizen of the greatest offender here, so I can’t avoid acceptance of the truth we’ll have to pay up one way or another. If leadership on this issue demands sacrifice it’s only what we owe, and if we are unwilling to lead then at some point we’ll be forced to follow, and deserve the consequences.
I’d not ever read Tragedy of the Commons before, though I do recall some references and material. Rather an exhilarating read, I’ll have to run through it once more and maybe organize the inspiration. But I do have caveats about the natural selection assertion - that an appeal to conscience selects for those without conscience. For one it seems to assume a very strictly socialized perspective in the first place, which gets back to the heart of this whole ambiguity about contemporary liberal / conservative ideology. Both sides protect certain forms of control and demonize others.
Hmm… losing focus again for now.[/quote]
I think what we have seen is a viable resistance to state-ism, even as the descent into its pitfalls is inevitable. On one hand I see the most successful ideologies as having reality far more on their side, while on the other hand, we see idealism destined to be exploited by that reality.
I have no idea what I am talking about. I don’t really enjoy the world of polarized politics that rip themselves apart as if that was the solution to all of life’s problems. From where I am standing, liberalism has had its definition hijacked so much that it has become bankrupt, and conservatism has been bought and sold; it’s own definition of success has been turned against it to discredit it in the eyes of those who look up to an uncaring example (that is supposed to be necessary to remind you that you are on your own).
[quote=“The Ancient”]And isn’t it interesting that the only stories worth telling are about strife and conflict in some form or another, and of course usually acts of overcoming such. If we ever achieve perfect peace, will we even be able to relate to those stories anymore, and if not, will we have any stories to replace them?
Hell, even in posing such questions, we always end up anthropomorphizing the future…[/quote]
We need something to strive for and strife makes it real. I personally want to strive without strife, but there is a part of me that wants to be a part of something real. No one can take that away from people without destroying them. Without something to strive for, you are already dead.
I honestly cannot understand why some people are so unsympathetic to that plight beyond how it’s gainful somehow to them (when you see the world through the eyes of a cynic, everything makes sense).
I, again personally, will not make any apologies for caring.
I was actually looking into other parts of the world to see what made them so different from us and it was quite surprising to me how paralyzed people are by their beliefs, such as India for example where the people are taught to detach themselves from their feelings and women are taught that their only hope for salvation is to be reincarnated as a man in the next life etc. It doesn’t benefit them but this proves just how much ideas can shape people into who they are.
At least through fiction, all these ideas are free to roam free so we can fall in tune with what reflects us best by soaking up that exposure.
You know, I’m not actually used to having a civil conversation with an opposing point of view. That seems to be impossible to do in this day and age. The only way we mere mortals can make a difference is in the ideological realm by setting a good example for others to follow. I would have been forever lost without those examples, and I was, for a long time.
‘We’ I think you find, You are just as much depend on Oil as anyone on this board (that not meant as dig, just the way it is) And every time we bought a piece of SEGA Hardare that was more often than not manufactured in China , we was propping up a evil Government , every time we bought a game , we was/are propping up a evil governments; given Plastic is not just used in the manufacture of CD or Cart based games, but so are the cases they come in too .
But you know what, They’ll always be Wars and evil Governments with out Oil , History tell us that . And its not Oil that causes most wars, it’s land , Power and religion . Man will always fight for Land and Power, again History tell us that.
You mean people will always kill one another to profit. Yes they will.
So do we want to change that or not?
As for propping up evil governments, we can tap into oil elsewhere. If the democratic process hadn’t been stifled because we prop up fascists who sell oil to “the great Satan” and friends, as well as keeps alive the crippling two class system that has always emerged from political Islam, they would have westernized a long time ago.
Man was fighting battles long before Currency had been invented. Power and land are behind many a battle and has as they land, that will never change
If it was that easy we would have long ago. You really think the UK or the USA like being so dependant on Middle East Oil ?
And where is the alternative to Plastic ?, it’s not easy at all . I bet the keyboard you use to type on this board, is made out of the stuff, and most prob manufactured in China , It’s a bitch… but that’s the cost of the Western Lifestyle
TA, you are wrong; it can change, and will change. There are examples of cultures in the world that are completely peaceful and show for all to see just how much people’s reactionary instincts can be shaped. We are a bit more nurture than nature, so this isn’t the inevitability it seems to be.
Yes they do like being dependent on it, because it is so damned profitable. Peace is bad for business.
The whole Middle East could have become another Europe by now if it wasn’t for western meddling that has helped to artificially prop up police states that stifle a true democratic process.
I more than recognize the reality of this status quo needing blood oil like it needs air to breathe, but to say that people aren’t complicit, especially through their selfishness and apathy, in creating that demand would be a lie.
Soylent green isn’t people until you become the food.
We can tap into oil closer to home. We can even end this demand. But because that isn’t profitable, then the west has to do the next best thing by sucking the Mid East dry instead so that their failed cultures fail on their own, if the west can’t help give their people the choices they need.
Not to America it’s not , have you seen their Budget Deficit ?
If they were Christian maybe. I tend to blame Religion a lot more for the way the Middle East is , rather than Oil
Where ? You do understand why Water Horizon was drilling where it was ?.
That is for the people of the Middle east to decide, not us. I wish we would stay out of there and Africa tbh. We be far better Country if we looked after the People that lived in it, rather than meddle in other countries affairs
You see this is where we are always going to disagree.
If you want to change how religion cripples the Middle East, like I do, then it requires meddling to guarantee that people have access to the choices they need to decide what would be best for them when it is by the very nature of their beliefs to resist change.
Like I said, when the west buys Middle Eastern oil, the west is already meddling. It’s already keeping oppressive systems of control alive.
Hey, I am all for buying oil from people willing to sell, but what I am not for is setting up police states to guarantee the spice keeps flowing.
You want that?
The U.S. can tap closer to home, or in the very least lessen the grip of this addiction, but that’s not playing the rules of this game. The rules are to take whatever you can unless you are stopped. Someone somewhere is going to play by those rules regardless of whatever the cries of anti-politics have to say.
I’ve seen the deficit numbers and you should keep in mind that much of this is fearmongering designed to frighten people into voting the “grown ups” back into power. Because as you have rightly pointed up, the addiction to oil is so hopeless that it literally drives the whole economy, so yes, it is profitable to maintain stable client states so that vehicles can keep running at home.
Again I ask: are all the wars fought over this worth it? Is keeping alive governments that keep their people ignorant and locked in the dark for their gain, worth it?
There’s no denying the fact that the world is still creating the demand for oil when there could be better ways.
Alright TA, going to have to take you to task here
It doesn’t have to be profitable to the US as a country, but it sure the hell is profitable for the corporations that provide it. And not to mention, there are other entire industries that revolve around oil (not just cars, but plastics, too).
This is actually the part I took some issue with. There are over a billion and a half Muslims in the world, the largest population of which live in Indonesia (about 13% of all Muslims live there). Many other countries outside of the Middle East have sizable Muslim populations that do not resort to terrorism. It’s less of an issue with Islamic faith and more of an issue of extremism and fundamentalist thought, combined with the West’s constant meddling in the region in the struggle to maintain control over the oil supply.
The hatred of the West from fundamentalist groups does not come simply from a hatred of Christianity, of “freedom,” or of some intrinsic trait of the Muslim faith, but rather, a reaction towards a perceived oppression by the West.
This part, I agree with. However, as long as we depend on oil, we will have a very vested - and militaristic - interest in the region. Moving away from oil won’t make the West move out completely (we wouldn’t want to give up strategic strongholds in the region, most likely), but it would greatly reduce our presence there. It’s no coincidence that despite all the violence and warfare happening in Africa, for example, that we don’t get involved. We have no vested interest there, as sad as it is.
I’m not on about Terrorism at all here, as I Catholics of Irish decent , I know all about terrorism, in the name of the Catholic faith (well it’s more about Drugs but that’s another Topic) We have Right wing Christian nutters in the USA too. No… one does not have to be a Muslim to be a Terrorist
When talking of the Middle East/Africa I’m about the Lack of ‘Democracy’, lack of any sort opposition parties , free press and where corrupt Families or Leaders are/were in power for decades (which as crippled most of Africa)
Companies and individuals may be getting rich on the Back of Oil. But look at the Budget Deficit of the USA, UK and well most of Europe to that of the Oil Rich Middle East.
Ah, yes - a lack of democracy surely adds to it, but even with democracy in certain areas, it just ensures that only people of a certain religious background would ever get elected (hell, we see that in the US, too). Again, I’d say it’s more about extremism, but then I’d add in a dose of poor education. Recipe for fun times indeed!
As for the deficits of 1st world nations, I don’t necessarily think it’s a result of dependency on oil. Quite separate. In a nation like the US, for example, we operate on a deficit by design. A democratic government isn’t supposed to run on a profit. Surpluses, in the rare case that they have one, are meant to be stored until the next economic downswing. Many of the oil-producing nations, however, are monarchies, and the profits of the nation are kept by individual families with little to no investment in their country’s infrastructure or social services.
Well we have extremism nutters in the USA and UK some of the Christian Right Wing views on same sex relationships or abortion is horrid - somehow it’s ok to blow up people carrying out abortions, but not ok to abort life (which is so hypercritical) . I completely agree about poor education, but I don’t think we can blame Oil for that, more the way some groups 'interpreted ’ the good book and how people should then live their lives by it .
That is not really what I’m saying. I’m saying we really aren’t getting rich (has a country) off the back of it, not compared to the Saudi Ariba and being . the price of Oil has got so bad, I’m pretty sure the USA Government has had to release it Oil stock reserves.
You would given the Military spend alone ;P,we have to borrow for our social system
I know and that is the problem with the lack of democracy. With out Oil Saudi Arabia would be in a complete mess, given it got little else to sell to the world. It’s complete dependence on Oil, maye explain the high unemployment rates over there . But just look at Russia for so many years needed bail outs from the West, now is cash Rich, on the back of profits form Oil and Gas
[quote=“Team Andromeda”]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.[/quote]
Team Andromeda, are you sceptical of human caused climate change because you’re sceptical of the science or because you sceptical of the scientists? I ask this, because 98% of climate scientists support the view that global warming is caused by human activities. Source. It’s always possible that they’re wrong, but when the weight of the scientific community strongly supports one theory, is that not a reasonable belief?
I’m not sure what the solution with be for a replacement of plastic. Bioplastic, may be an option. If it’s not cost effective right now, it may drop in price as it becomes more widely used and the means of production is streamlined. We may also have to accept that electronics will become more expensive and will have to be designed to last longer. Right now we live in a throw away society. It may be time to move towards a society where things cost more, but are designed to last longer. Whether we like it or not, a change will have to occur eventually because of peak oil.
I think he was talking about overpopulation, if that was the section you were referring to? People with the conscience may decide not overpopulate the world by not having children. But, then those values are not passed done to their children, because they don’t have children. So the people who have large families, their values are passed on as the “default”. Other values may be learnt along the way, but by default we hold the values of our parents.
This is where I must disagree. We don’t need oil. It is a tool. If we can replace it with other energy sources, we should.
This is assuming that the economy is the only end goal. Looking after both the local and global environment is important goal too, as the economy depends on the environment in many respects. It’s a layer on which economy depends. So, it’s in the government’s interests to put some environmental interests over economic interests, to prevent further economic problems down the road. Forward planning, rather than reactionary decisions.
The answer is to start fazing out oil and replacing it with renewable energy. Not just because of climate change, but because of local pollution, peak oil, etc. There are multiple strategies to do this, including simply discouraging wastage of fossil fuels. e.g. putting the price of petrol up to encourage the use of public transport.
The environment and the economy aren’t separate issues: they’re an integrated system. The right wingers continually fail to admit this, favouring unregulated growth over both local and global environmental stability. So, we shouldn’t support their policies.
I agree with that last point, Solo. Relying strictly on the free market to adopt those changes will likely result in the “tragedy of the commons.” (i.e. individual actors sharing resources will not change their behaviors because they can continue to exploit those resources to the fullest to maximize personal benefit, but any negative effect of the dwindling resources will be amortized across all people sharing… until the resource is gone and the whole system collapses)
We really do need a global agreement on climate change. At the same time, though, it’s a bit of a chicken/egg scenario. What should come first, the global agreement or the individual nations implementing renewable energy strategies?
I think governments should push for renewable energy, even though there is no global agreement in place. Without renewable energy being successfully implemented, it will difficult to convince other nations to support such an agreement. If they’re convinced that’s it’s possible (by seeing it implemented by other countries), they may be willing to support a global agreement. Here in NZ, the prime minister’s attitude is to leave the development of renewable technologies to other countries. Maybe he’s right up until a point, but if everyone thinks like this, progress will not be made. Europe appears to be leading the way in this area. Other nations would do well to follow their lead.
Not the same scientists that in the 50 and 60’s said we would enter a new ICE age unless action is taken. How come the world had 4 Ice ages and at least 4 warming periods ? . How come even with more and more Carbon being outputting the Earth’s temp as stayed stable the past 10 years ?
To me its brilliant cover and excuse to tax the crap out of people, and to me the Earth’s over pollution and destruction of the Rainforests are far more pressing issues.
Actually, scientists have developed trees whose sap can be used to make plastics. It’s not financially viable just yet, but they’re working on it.
In the meantime, though, that is pretty much what we should be using petroleum for. It’s much more important to us in the form of plastics than it is as a fuel source (since we have viable alternatives for fuel).
Can you please provide a source for this information?
The Earth’s temperature naturally goes in cycles. The difference with this climate change is that there is a correlation between human emissions and rising global temperatures.
I don’t think this is quite accurate. There are some years which are cooler than previous years, but as a whole, the temperature is rising. Here are some graphs from NASA which demonstrate the temperature patterns: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I’m assuming you trust scientists when it comes to some theories. You wouldn’t think germ theory is a conspiracy, presumably? If so, you must have some criteria for trusting some scientists, but not others.
The way science works, it’s a network of independently reviewed evidence. There isn’t a top down scientific authority who decides which facts are released and which aren’t (unlike say, a business, where information about a product is released from a single source). To determine the scientific credibility of an idea, we can look to a consensus of independent experts in the particular scientific field. If anthropogenic global warming is false, why is there not a greater number of climate scientists who have reached a different conclusion?
You’re right that pollution and destruction of the rainforests are pressing issues. But these issues are compatible with reducing human impact on the climate. Destroying rainforests will increase global warming. Pollution, such as oil spills, is linked to the consumption of fossil fuels. You don’t need to trade one important issue for another, that’s a false dilemma.
I always like to point out that the fact that governments and businesses will use warming (or anything else) as a convenient excuse to tax and otherwise exploit people (more than they already do) is not evidence against it existing. That’s what they do!
I also like to point out that “The climate did X however-many-thousand years ago, and we weren’t around then” is a non-argument. Nature is capable of much greater things than us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t affect it. Yes, the world is probably doomed to naturally enter a climatic phase that will severely stress and perhaps eradicate humans and the natural systems they rely on, but that’s no excuse to do things that will artificially hasten said transition.
It’s not financially viable just yet, but they’re working on it.