This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.9 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Monday, 26 January 2009
THE "GREEN AGENDA"
This website has many interesting quotes and reveals the thoughts of highly prominent environmental groups whose membership includes highly influential world figures. Read it and be amazed at what is being openly discussed for our planet.
Oh wait, the global economy just hit the wall and is contracting at record speed, top soil is being lost, dead zones are forming, weather patterns are changing, deserts are expanding, fisheries are collapsing, heavy metals, plastics and toxins are accumulating everywhere, and species extinction is accelerating. Yes, the Club of Rome is really crazy to think there might be catastrophic consequences to our actions and unlimited growth on a finite planet is impossible. But who cares, they want to take our precious fossil fuels away! Our way of life is non-negotiable! Oops. Oil is depleting anyway. Stupid Club of Rome being so right. Let's not mention any of this and claim it's a conspiracy! Get out your tin foil hats!
You should be more worried about the government you have now. The British government has already pledged £31,800 on behalf of each taxpayer to save the banking system with no end in sight. It's on the verge of collapse anyway:
Dash RIPROCK lll - many thanks for your encouragement and the links. I found your website very interesting and have provided a link to the GGWS film through it.
Tim - I agree our government is far from perfect which is why I want them kicked out next year. If we had a world government, like the Club of Rome, we would have no such option.
Right, because the other mob would not spend your money trying to save the banks? They would know how to fix a fatally flawed financial system, reverse declining oil production and bring back the good old days? Governments around the world, both left and right, have gotten into and thrown money at this crisis. They're self serving, short sighted, incompetent GDP worshippers, and the environment is just an election issue to win votes. Generally speaking - there are exceptions.
National democracy is typically a choice between placebos and poison pills. This is not an endorsement of any other political system. The government of the future, as far as it goes, will be regional and even local. The resources will not exist to effectively enforce policies from a greater distance, and people will do whatever they can to survive.
Tim - you say you are not endorsing any other political system, but you are against our current system. That is what I call sitting on the fence. You must either believe in democracy, or not - in which case how should we be governed?
The kind of "survivors" scenario you paint for the future is something which could only happen as a result of some great catastrophe, which is highly unlikely in our lifetime. You are aligning yourself with the doom merchants with placards saying "the end is nigh", and we have all seen how much notice anyone takes of them.
What's the point? What I think won't change the political system now, and it's going to break down anyway into smaller, less stable governments. I may become politically active at the local level, but I'm not going to get in the path of a dying beast. The Iceland government has already been thrown out and there are riots elsewhere. Do you think the UK or US government will remain intact when the bond market fails and they must default on their extraordinary debt or destroy their currency? I'm only pointing out that your hope in the next government is unfounded.
People are already being left to their own devices, and it's getting worse. Governments and municipals everywhere are running into deficit and services are being cut back. Welfare payments are set to stop in California, for example: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/18/02540/6176/997/685480. Retirement funds are evaporating, stocks and real estate are crashing, and unemployment is exploding. Where do you think all that will lead? All you appear able to do is deny problems and make fun of people who face them squarely.
It's not that I expect you to change the system. I am just interested in your view of how you think we should be governed. Whatever happens, someone will be in charge, whether it is a democratic government or an authoritarian regime.
Personally I prefer democracy, with all its faults.
At the national level it's academic. The actions citizens should be taking now involve building community resilience - self governance - using models such as Transition Towns.
You are avoiding the question. I am in favour of local communities coming together in a voluntary way as suggested in your link, but the original post was about replacing elected national governments by unelected "regional" ones.
No I'm not, I'm saying we (increasingly) can't be governed from afar. I don't see larger scale government (elected or otherwise) as a realistic possibility when national governments everywhere are going bankrupt and are unable to provide basic services. National governments are becoming unstable no matter what their political model is. Your post distracts us from the damage the current government is doing and the actions we can take to protect ourselves from the fallout.
When do you think the national government will cease to govern? I am willing to bet you it doesn't happen. Even in the 1930's in the great depression, when there was a lot of unrest, we still had a strong national government. There is a lot of nonsense talked about society breaking down, but it takes a lot for it to happen; a lot more than we are experiencing or have experienced in my lifetime.
Certainly I expect this economic downturn to lead to some rioting and strikes and disruption. This has all happened before (in the 1970's and 80's) and the government (whichever party is in charge) will deal with it. I expect the government to lose the next election, but that is not a breakdown of society.
Even if we had major unrest and massive unemployment we will still have a government. In fact it could turn out to be a very authoritarian one, as happened in Germany. We cannot have a power vacuum, with the sort of arrangements you are advocating. There is no precedent for it anywhere in the developed or even the developing world.
I didn't say there would be no government, I said that it would be ineffective. There are plenty of precedents for that.
The Mugabe regime of Zimbabwe right now is a "government" but it is not governing effectively. The economy is in tatters, the national currency is dead, and cholera is killing thousands.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the government tried to carry on for a while but the people had to look after themselves.
Over the period that the Roman Empire collapsed, the outlying settlements were not governed and ended up fending for themselves.
Maybe Iceland is the first democratic example. You can be sure that once governments default on their debt and are thrown out, the next government will not have anywhere near the financial resources available to them as during the bubble years.
Collapse is a natural and inevitable part of civilisation. It's not the end of humanity, just the end of certain arrangements. I don't know the about timing, but things are moving fast.
Dmitry Orlov elaborates on the process here: http://energybulletin.net/node/23259. Have a read, it will cast a whole new light on current events.
Actually, Orlov offers a good answer to your question regarding how we should be governed at this point it time - with his "Collapse Party Platform". Of course it would not fly because the majority still believe in progress and do not see the collapse yet.
I do not accept the premise of Orlov's article, which is that the USA will collapse in the style of the USSR. While they have serious financial problems, there is vast wealth in the country. If you look back to the great depression in the 1930's, the country did not collapse then, and I do not believe there is anything like the similarity that Orlov makes between the USA and the former USSR.
The USSR was never able to give its people a decent standard of living. It collapsed because it was held together by force and fear. Its people were glad to be rid of it. Americans love their country and they have a strong desire for it to succeed.
Even in the face of real hardship, such as in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane Katrina disaster, the people have gone back and rebuilt their city. There has been no breakdown in government, because despite the negative publicity, the government has helped the people and they know that it is on their side.
Orlov's comparisons are false, and he is deluding himself if he believes them. There is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of authors like Orlov who imagine that some invented crisis will lead to a "new Dawn" of some idyllic life-style where everyone will lead a simple life sharing and caring.
Mankind cannot change his nature. We are competitive by nature. If a government is ineffective then it will be replaced by another more effective one. Russia today still has a strong and authoritarian government, born out of the collapse of the USSR. If Obama does not succeed in overcoming the financial problems, then he will be replaced in 4 years time.
You still have not answered my question - do you believe in a democracy, or would you prefer an unelected government? It is no good saying it is irrelevant, because that is not true. It is fundamental to our life. In a genuine democracy like the UK or the USA there are free elections and anyone can stand. Some countries claim to be democracies but are not true ones, like Zimbabwe, or Russia. There is a big difference - ask the people who live there! It is the true democracies that will survive. The others are the ones which will fail. They will fail because the people have no means of effecting change other than by force.
"If you look back to the great depression in the 1930's, the country did not collapse then". It did collapse to a degree, but that is no proof. The US had yet to reach peak oil production (1970), had not critically degraded their soil, aquifers, and ecology. The population was 40% of what it is today, and was better prepared for hard conditions.
"The USSR was never able to give its people a decent standard of living." Reference please?
"It collapsed because it was held together by force and fear." That seems like a rather simplistic explanation. Can you elaborate and provide references? Do force of foreign occupation (e.g. Iraq), surveillance, incarceration of 1% of the population, and fear of terrorism and not conforming not count?
"Americans love their country and they have a strong desire for it to succeed." That may be so, but it proves nothing about their ability to prevent collapse.
The government response to Katrina was widely criticised, and there was definitely a breakdown in local law enforcement. But, this also proves nothing. I would not expect an isolated incident to bring down the US government or cause collapse of the nation.
"Orlov's comparisons are false, and he is deluding himself if he believes them." Oh? Why are they false? Do you have personal experience with the former Soviet Union? Can you provide evidence to give this statement any credibility?
"There is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of authors like Orlov who imagine that some invented crisis will lead to a "new Dawn" of some idyllic life-style where everyone will lead a simple life sharing and caring." I'm sure Orlov will do well whether collapse occurs or not. You, on the other hand, sound completely unprepared. But your wishful thinking or preferred lifestyle has no bearing on the correctness of your outlook either. You should not resort to ad hominem arguments - you are showing your weakness.
"Mankind cannot change his nature. We are competitive by nature. If a government is ineffective then it will be replaced by another more effective one." What exactly ensures that a government is better than the one before it? It didn't work in the case of the Nazi party or the Bush regime. Why is it not possible in your mind for a string of governments and circumstances to lead to catastrophe? It appears to be a religious like faith.
"Russia today still has a strong and authoritarian government, born out of the collapse of the USSR." Yes, because they had intact trading partners and a rebounding supply of natural resources (notably oil and gas) to achieve this. It is no guarantee for the future.
"If Obama does not succeed in overcoming the financial problems, then he will be replaced in 4 years time." That is no guarantee that collapse will not happen within the 4 years, or that the succeeding government will be equally or less capable of improving the situation.
"You still have not answered my question - do you believe in a democracy, or would you prefer an unelected government? It is no good saying it is irrelevant, because that is not true." I'm not prepared to answer that question for a number of reasons: * I have not done sufficient research to make a firm decision * I have no direct experience with any other system and reports of other systems are often biased. I am not arrogant enough to believe the only system I have encountered is necessarily the best * Diversity is important and there may not be any one best system for all circumstances * It serves no practical purpose at this time * The discussion only serves to divide and distract * I believe any response I give that is not "democracy" will allow you to letterbox and brow beat me. If I say "democracy" then you will smugly take it as an affirmation of your entire world view.
"It is the true democracies that will survive. The others are the ones which will fail." This is a rather bold and meaningless assertion. Which exactly are the "true" democracies? Can you describe how to identify them so that we can verify your assertion? What does it mean for a democracy to survive? Does it survive if the political system is intact but the population destitute? What if the others "fail" and true democracies depend on them or are drawn down in the collapse, by mass immigration or war, for example? Why is failure necessarily framed as the inability to grow and (apparently) increase living standards? There are other ways of measuring success, such as harmony with the Earth.
"They will fail because the people have no means of effecting change other than by force." Why is it not possible to fail because the problem has no solution? A 4 year election cycle provides a large scope for disaster and once again, there's no guarantee that the successor is any more capable.
Nice to meet you Mr. Tipp. Thank you for your efforts against Mr. Gore and this new secular religion.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few videos you may enjoy watching:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/Videos.html
Here are a few peitions that might interest the readers of this site:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html
Shocking!
ReplyDeleteOh wait, the global economy just hit the wall and is contracting at record speed, top soil is being lost, dead zones are forming, weather patterns are changing, deserts are expanding, fisheries are collapsing, heavy metals, plastics and toxins are accumulating everywhere, and species extinction is accelerating. Yes, the Club of Rome is really crazy to think there might be catastrophic consequences to our actions and unlimited growth on a finite planet is impossible. But who cares, they want to take our precious fossil fuels away! Our way of life is non-negotiable! Oops. Oil is depleting anyway. Stupid Club of Rome being so right. Let's not mention any of this and claim it's a conspiracy! Get out your tin foil hats!
You should be more worried about the government you have now. The British government has already pledged £31,800 on behalf of each taxpayer to save the banking system with no end in sight. It's on the verge of collapse anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4325899/Financial-crisis-just-how-big-is-Britains-toxic-debt.html
Dash RIPROCK lll - many thanks for your encouragement and the links. I found your website very interesting and have provided a link to the GGWS film through it.
ReplyDeleteTim - I agree our government is far from perfect which is why I want them kicked out next year. If we had a world government, like the Club of Rome, we would have no such option.
Right, because the other mob would not spend your money trying to save the banks? They would know how to fix a fatally flawed financial system, reverse declining oil production and bring back the good old days? Governments around the world, both left and right, have gotten into and thrown money at this crisis. They're self serving, short sighted, incompetent GDP worshippers, and the environment is just an election issue to win votes. Generally speaking - there are exceptions.
ReplyDeleteNational democracy is typically a choice between placebos and poison pills. This is not an endorsement of any other political system. The government of the future, as far as it goes, will be regional and even local. The resources will not exist to effectively enforce policies from a greater distance, and people will do whatever they can to survive.
Tim - you say you are not endorsing any other political system, but you are against our current system. That is what I call sitting on the fence. You must either believe in democracy, or not - in which case how should we be governed?
ReplyDeleteThe kind of "survivors" scenario you paint for the future is something which could only happen as a result of some great catastrophe, which is highly unlikely in our lifetime. You are aligning yourself with the doom merchants with placards saying "the end is nigh", and we have all seen how much notice anyone takes of them.
What's the point? What I think won't change the political system now, and it's going to break down anyway into smaller, less stable governments. I may become politically active at the local level, but I'm not going to get in the path of a dying beast. The Iceland government has already been thrown out and there are riots elsewhere. Do you think the UK or US government will remain intact when the bond market fails and they must default on their extraordinary debt or destroy their currency? I'm only pointing out that your hope in the next government is unfounded.
ReplyDeletePeople are already being left to their own devices, and it's getting worse. Governments and municipals everywhere are running into deficit and services are being cut back. Welfare payments are set to stop in California, for example: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/18/02540/6176/997/685480. Retirement funds are evaporating, stocks and real estate are crashing, and unemployment is exploding. Where do you think all that will lead? All you appear able to do is deny problems and make fun of people who face them squarely.
It's not that I expect you to change the system. I am just interested in your view of how you think we should be governed. Whatever happens, someone will be in charge, whether it is a democratic government or an authoritarian regime.
ReplyDeletePersonally I prefer democracy, with all its faults.
At the national level it's academic. The actions citizens should be taking now involve building community resilience - self governance - using models such as Transition Towns.
ReplyDeletehttp://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/12Steps
You are avoiding the question. I am in favour of local communities coming together in a voluntary way as suggested in your link, but the original post was about replacing elected national governments by unelected "regional" ones.
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not, I'm saying we (increasingly) can't be governed from afar. I don't see larger scale government (elected or otherwise) as a realistic possibility when national governments everywhere are going bankrupt and are unable to provide basic services. National governments are becoming unstable no matter what their political model is. Your post distracts us from the damage the current government is doing and the actions we can take to protect ourselves from the fallout.
ReplyDeleteWhen do you think the national government will cease to govern? I am willing to bet you it doesn't happen. Even in the 1930's in the great depression, when there was a lot of unrest, we still had a strong national government. There is a lot of nonsense talked about society breaking down, but it takes a lot for it to happen; a lot more than we are experiencing or have experienced in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteCertainly I expect this economic downturn to lead to some rioting and strikes and disruption. This has all happened before (in the 1970's and 80's) and the government (whichever party is in charge) will deal with it. I expect the government to lose the next election, but that is not a breakdown of society.
Even if we had major unrest and massive unemployment we will still have a government. In fact it could turn out to be a very authoritarian one, as happened in Germany. We cannot have a power vacuum, with the sort of arrangements you are advocating. There is no precedent for it anywhere in the developed or even the developing world.
I didn't say there would be no government, I said that it would be ineffective. There are plenty of precedents for that.
ReplyDeleteThe Mugabe regime of Zimbabwe right now is a "government" but it is not governing effectively. The economy is in tatters, the national currency is dead, and cholera is killing thousands.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the government tried to carry on for a while but the people had to look after themselves.
Over the period that the Roman Empire collapsed, the outlying settlements were not governed and ended up fending for themselves.
Maybe Iceland is the first democratic example. You can be sure that once governments default on their debt and are thrown out, the next government will not have anywhere near the financial resources available to them as during the bubble years.
Collapse is a natural and inevitable part of civilisation. It's not the end of humanity, just the end of certain arrangements. I don't know the about timing, but things are moving fast.
Dmitry Orlov elaborates on the process here:
http://energybulletin.net/node/23259. Have a read, it will cast a whole new light on current events.
Actually, Orlov offers a good answer to your question regarding how we should be governed at this point it time - with his "Collapse Party Platform". Of course it would not fly because the majority still believe in progress and do not see the collapse yet.
ReplyDeleteI do not accept the premise of Orlov's article, which is that the USA will collapse in the style of the USSR. While they have serious financial problems, there is vast wealth in the country. If you look back to the great depression in the 1930's, the country did not collapse then, and I do not believe there is anything like the similarity that Orlov makes between the USA and the former USSR.
ReplyDeleteThe USSR was never able to give its people a decent standard of living. It collapsed because it was held together by force and fear. Its people were glad to be rid of it. Americans love their country and they have a strong desire for it to succeed.
Even in the face of real hardship, such as in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane Katrina disaster, the people have gone back and rebuilt their city. There has been no breakdown in government, because despite the negative publicity, the government has helped the people and they know that it is on their side.
Orlov's comparisons are false, and he is deluding himself if he believes them. There is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of authors like Orlov who imagine that some invented crisis will lead to a "new Dawn" of some idyllic life-style where everyone will lead a simple life sharing and caring.
Mankind cannot change his nature. We are competitive by nature. If a government is ineffective then it will be replaced by another more effective one. Russia today still has a strong and authoritarian government, born out of the collapse of the USSR. If Obama does not succeed in overcoming the financial problems, then he will be replaced in 4 years time.
You still have not answered my question - do you believe in a democracy, or would you prefer an unelected government? It is no good saying it is irrelevant, because that is not true. It is fundamental to our life. In a genuine democracy like the UK or the USA there are free elections and anyone can stand. Some countries claim to be democracies but are not true ones, like Zimbabwe, or Russia. There is a big difference - ask the people who live there! It is the true democracies that will survive. The others are the ones which will fail. They will fail because the people have no means of effecting change other than by force.
"If you look back to the great depression in the 1930's, the country did not collapse then". It did collapse to a degree, but that is no proof. The US had yet to reach peak oil production (1970), had not critically degraded their soil, aquifers, and ecology. The population was 40% of what it is today, and was better prepared for hard conditions.
ReplyDelete"The USSR was never able to give its people a decent standard of living." Reference please?
"It collapsed because it was held together by force and fear." That seems like a rather simplistic explanation. Can you elaborate and provide references? Do force of foreign occupation (e.g. Iraq), surveillance, incarceration of 1% of the population, and fear of terrorism and not conforming not count?
"Americans love their country and they have a strong desire for it to succeed." That may be so, but it proves nothing about their ability to prevent collapse.
The government response to Katrina was widely criticised, and there was definitely a breakdown in local law enforcement. But, this also proves nothing. I would not expect an isolated incident to bring down the US government or cause collapse of the nation.
"Orlov's comparisons are false, and he is deluding himself if he believes them." Oh? Why are they false? Do you have personal experience with the former Soviet Union? Can you provide evidence to give this statement any credibility?
"There is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of authors like Orlov who imagine that some invented crisis will lead to a "new Dawn" of some idyllic life-style where everyone will lead a simple life sharing and caring." I'm sure Orlov will do well whether collapse occurs or not. You, on the other hand, sound completely unprepared. But your wishful thinking or preferred lifestyle has no bearing on the correctness of your outlook either. You should not resort to ad hominem arguments - you are showing your weakness.
"Mankind cannot change his nature. We are competitive by nature. If a government is ineffective then it will be replaced by another more effective one." What exactly ensures that a government is better than the one before it? It didn't work in the case of the Nazi party or the Bush regime. Why is it not possible in your mind for a string of governments and circumstances to lead to catastrophe? It appears to be a religious like faith.
"Russia today still has a strong and authoritarian government, born out of the collapse of the USSR." Yes, because they had intact trading partners and a rebounding supply of natural resources (notably oil and gas) to achieve this. It is no guarantee for the future.
"If Obama does not succeed in overcoming the financial problems, then he will be replaced in 4 years time." That is no guarantee that collapse will not happen within the 4 years, or that the succeeding government will be equally or less capable of improving the situation.
"You still have not answered my question - do you believe in a democracy, or would you prefer an unelected government? It is no good saying it is irrelevant, because that is not true." I'm not prepared to answer that question for a number of reasons:
* I have not done sufficient research to make a firm decision
* I have no direct experience with any other system and reports of other systems are often biased. I am not arrogant enough to believe the only system I have encountered is necessarily the best
* Diversity is important and there may not be any one best system for all circumstances
* It serves no practical purpose at this time
* The discussion only serves to divide and distract
* I believe any response I give that is not "democracy" will allow you to letterbox and brow beat me. If I say "democracy" then you will smugly take it as an affirmation of your entire world view.
"It is the true democracies that will survive. The others are the ones which will fail." This is a rather bold and meaningless assertion. Which exactly are the "true" democracies? Can you describe how to identify them so that we can verify your assertion? What does it mean for a democracy to survive? Does it survive if the political system is intact but the population destitute? What if the others "fail" and true democracies depend on them or are drawn down in the collapse, by mass immigration or war, for example? Why is failure necessarily framed as the inability to grow and (apparently) increase living standards? There are other ways of measuring success, such as harmony with the Earth.
"They will fail because the people have no means of effecting change other than by force." Why is it not possible to fail because the problem has no solution? A 4 year election cycle provides a large scope for disaster and once again, there's no guarantee that the successor is any more capable.
Awesome!
ReplyDelete