Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: cooing with delight at Madonna & Co when they're not rubbing their hands raw with hard labour. Lets face it, the foundations of our success are rotten. The structure needs complete demolition.
I'm sorry if I've offended you and I think we've both got sidetracked but I dont think 'theatrical' political statments (as above) add anything worthwhile to the debate. I have met a number of people who have what I refer to as 'fashionable' green outlook frequently backed up by statments such as yours. I am not implying that you are in anyway one of them, just making an observation.
OK, spooky060, I'm not scientific in my speech, and maybe for that reason I shouldn't be on a science forum. I saw the programme last night, and joined the forum because I wanted to get stuff off my chest. Guess I'm not alone there. I am political; and, as Swindle was also unashamedly political, I reasoned that it was perfectly in keeping with the topic to throw a few political counter-punches. I'm sorry you thought that inappropriate, and its kind of you to tone down your "high spirits" slightly (though I wasn't so much offended as shocked at such an onslaught); but I really do think this topic is about Swindle and not specifically about the science, so I hope you'll just grin and bear it if I continue to make my theatrical and political points. I'm not a scientifically minded person, so I'll probably clear off after this particular debate is over, and you need never be bothered by me again.
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: OK, spooky060, I'm not scientific in my speech, and maybe for that reason I shouldn't be on a science forum. I saw the programme last night, and joined the forum because I wanted to get stuff off my chest. Guess I'm not alone there. I am political; and, as Swindle was also unashamedly political, I reasoned that it was perfectly in keeping with the topic to throw a few political counter-punches. I'm sorry you thought that inappropriate, and its kind of you to tone down your "high spirits" slightly (though I wasn't so much offended as shocked at such an onslaught); but I really do think this topic is about Swindle and not specifically about the science, so I hope you'll just grin and bear it if I continue to make my theatrical and political points. I'm not a scientifically minded person, so I'll probably clear off after this particular debate is over, and you need never be bothered by me again.
That would be a shame if you cleared off, we could probably have an interesting debate face to face.
Getting to the point i.e Swindle - yes there was some political point scoring but no more than in the Al Gore presentation which I watched 3 months ago.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I was given the job of reducing Co2 emissions for the organisation (quite large) I work. I have reduced the said emissions by 19% over the last eight months and theres more to come. However, while doing this I have become increasingly aware that Co2 might have been oversold in the climate change scenario. The worry now is that the strategies adopted by my company and indeed globly may not be the best long term solution(s) if even half of Swindle is accurate.
Originally posted by myktaylor: I would just like to add that the single most important thing we can do for the environment and life on this planet is to stop doubling our population every 50 years or so.
Unless we find a reasonable to do this, everything else we do will be a waste of time.
I have studied a little about population growth ands it is posited that world pops will peak at approx 9 to 12 billion people - there are more than enough resources - if used sensibly - to support that level of population.
What factors will cause the population to stop growing at 9 - 12 billion?
In the study of population dynamics there are three main density factors that control population size.
Starvation disease Predation
The first two relate directly to humans, while the human equivalent of the third is war and crime. So if you are right about the population peaking at 9 -12 billion. Which of these factors will cause it to stop growing?
I think it will be a combination of all three unless we figure out a way to do it rationally
Yep, total sense spooky060. I have been sceptical (believe it or not) for quite some time now about many of the claims made by proponents of Global Warming Theory. I'm more sceptical, however, about the motivation than the science. Personally, I believe environmental scare stories are told in order to drive people out of fear to live prescribed lifestyles (not dissimilar to the Blair-Bush - or Blush as I call it - anti-terror campaign which has really made fools of us all). Hollywood loves it too.
What I was maybe inadequately trying to put across, was that there are many positive reasons to live a life that many might dub "green". You don't need the stick. The problem, however, in a democracy, is that the carrots offered by science with regard to healthy living &c largely go ignored, because science also softens the consequences of not following the carrot. There is no sence of emergency, making it a near impossibility to co-ordinate a C-change of any lasting effect upon society as a whole.
The stick is then used to beat us all into submission through fear. And we've all, with few exceptions, fallen for it.
So science has essentially failed to help us live more socially and individually healthy lives. It's great at keeping us ticking over, not not so great at making us go like clockwork, if you get me. Sorry, this must be a terribly annoying style for you to read!
To get to the point, maybe we need to take science down from its status as the solver of all human (and non-human) ills, and think more creatively about how we want our immediate environment to look. What is our dream? I think/hope that humanity has progressed far enough philosophically to understand that there is no upopic solution, life is hard, and death happens, so I'm not suggesting a heaven on earth realisation. I'm just suggesting an alternative to this eternally nasty competitive World Order that only seems to fragment communities and make us haughty and self-seeking. Just as the whole raison d'etre of the bourgoisie was to imitate the aristocracy, so our modern form of democracy and freedom seems to be for the masses to imitate the bourgoisie immitating the aristocracy. Just look at people's faces in the rush hour. There's a disdain, a misanthropic lack of interest in everyone and everything. Why does everyone look so bl***y miserable? OK, end!
Originally posted by keyhole67: I think that we have to direct any action on the population problem towards India and China - the two main culprits...
This is the lamest quote I've read so far.
I am not a supporter of the chinese regime, but at least they have recognised and introduced the one child per family rule... for better or worse.
Why not blame the avarage westener, who probably eats 8 times the amount of food as someone in China or India, given the obeisity issues here in the west.
The only contribution that the west has for controlling population is the continual bloody war in the Middle East!
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: Yep, total sense spooky060. I have been sceptical (believe it or not) for quite some time now about many of the claims made by proponents of Global Warming Theory. I'm more sceptical, however, about the motivation than the science. Personally, I believe environmental scare stories are told in order to drive people out of fear to live prescribed lifestyles (not dissimilar to the Blair-Bush - or Blush as I call it - anti-terror campaign which has really made fools of us all). Hollywood loves it too.
What I was maybe inadequately trying to put across, was that there are many positive reasons to live a life that many might dub "green". You don't need the stick. The problem, however, in a democracy, is that the carrots offered by science with regard to healthy living &c largely go ignored, because science also softens the consequences of not following the carrot. There is no sence of emergency, making it a near impossibility to co-ordinate a C-change of any lasting effect upon society as a whole.
The stick is then used to beat us all into submission through fear. And we've all, with few exceptions, fallen for it.
So science has essentially failed to help us live more socially and individually healthy lives. It's great at keeping us ticking over, not not so great at making us go like clockwork, if you get me. Sorry, this must be a terribly annoying style for you to read!
To get to the point, maybe we need to take science down from its status as the solver of all human (and non-human) ills, and think more creatively about how we want our immediate environment to look. What is our dream? I think/hope that humanity has progressed far enough philosophically to understand that there is no upopic solution, life is hard, and death happens, so I'm not suggesting a heaven on earth realisation. I'm just suggesting an alternative to this eternally nasty competitive World Order that only seems to fragment communities and make us haughty and self-seeking. Just as the whole raison d'etre of the bourgoisie was to imitate the aristocracy, so our modern form of democracy and freedom seems to be for the masses to imitate the bourgoisie immitating the aristocracy. Just look at people's faces in the rush hour. There's a disdain, a misanthropic lack of interest in everyone and everything. Why does everyone look so bl***y miserable? OK, end!
I guess the thing is allthough the reasons for global warming are becoming mixed there are still compelling reasons to live a 'green' lfestyle. The problem perhaps is the term 'green'. It conjours up images science v green. Saving energy can only be a good thing whatever the reason. I sometimes think that the pro Co2 lot and the anti group are so set in their ways, they become blind to other possibilities. very sad.
Originally posted by myktaylor: I would just like to add that the single most important thing we can do for the environment and life on this planet is to stop doubling our population every 50 years or so.
Unless we find a reasonable to do this, everything else we do will be a waste of time.
population increase will naturally level off with increased development. Cost of putting children through school - women starting a family later due to career ect.. family sizes naturally decrease. ALso worth pointing out that Malthus' predictions of global starvation have not been accurate. Yes there is hunger in the world - but that hunger is due to global inequality and injustive - not population
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
Totally agree, and you have so neatly put in a nutshell what has taken me ten rather wordy posts to try to explain. The politicisation of science not only detracts from the science itself, but also from the often less scientific (nonetheless valid?) arguments that underpin a political cause.
Originally posted by keyhole67: I think that we have to direct any action on the population problem towards India and China - the two main culprits...
Have you never heard of China's one child policy. Their population growth is low for a developing country.
As far as I am aware the one-child policy in China is not working - the population is still growing. The populations of India, Pakistan & Bangladesh are also out of control.
Their 'culture' demands large families to ensure eventual care for the parents. No hand-outs there.....
Why do you attack the Middle Class are you a lefty!?!? : ) I didn't think the class system existed anymore, if you own your house that means you work a full 32 hour week and pay your bills luv. Come on!!no need
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: Well, all of you seem to have physics degrees or the like. Well done. Does that mean I have to go back to school in order to learn how to live my life?
Whoopy-doo-dah-day! Global warming is bunkum. So I can dump my bike, bomb around the country in a car, jet off abroad whenever I feel like it, and get ugly, obese, and patronising like the rest of them.
Because that's what we're talking about. Lifestyles. Or am I wrong? Fine, do a programme that challenges the prevailing view of climate change (free speech and all that); but don't use as your preface, summaries, and conclusion the suggestion that we can all continue living these fast, hectic, and essentially unhealthy lifestyles. Because, by so doing the science is immediately politicised, just like the science it is supposed to be challenging.
Do I cycle everywhere because I think it's gonna impede the rise of the oceans some centuries hence? No I don't. I do it because I've got a social conscience. More pedestrians and cyclists = safer, more cohesive neighbourhood + healthier, happier individuals. Simple: didn't need a degree to work that one out.
I'm aware of the patronising and potentially dangerous effect particularly middle-class environmetalism has on majority world populations struggling to compete in an environment dominated by minority world nation states. But, again, this is politicising the science. A programme on the validity of the nation state, a concept imposed upon the majority by the minority, would be helpful. And all the assumptions surrounding industrialisation and "development" need to be explored: longevity, education, health. Is it really the model for a decent society? The effects of nationalisation upon semi-nomadic, pastoral and hunter-gatherer lifestyles should not be ignored either. The effects of a non-industrialised geographic area upon its inhabitants, highlighted very selectively by Swindle, were not dissimilar to those experienced by the new urbanising masses of Britain's factories, mines, and slums in the nineteenth century. Wey hey, so we've got it cushy as a consequence (not to mention all the slavery, and colonial exloitation), but can we simply pass off all those miserable lives as necessary sacrifices?
All I'm saying is, if you want a genuinely scientific debate (and this is to both sides), keep politics out of it. There are many good reasons to live a "green" life.
Bye for now.
I hope you are not calling me middle class or patronising!
I come from a working class background. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that. As it happens I do have a degree in physics. It was not handed to me on a plate, it is not an easy subject, it requires a lot of study and rigour.(Certainly when compared with the almost ubiquitous business studies, which is to my mind a huge bunch of nonesense!)
You can't waffle your way through physics. It is not a namby-pamby hand waving pie-in the sky make-it-up-as-you-go-along sort of made up subject. You have to be able to prove your work against obvservable facts, and it doesn't matter how clever your arguments, or how elegant the theory, or how correct the math is, if the theory don't fit the facts, chuck it out with the trash, cos that's what it is. I would hope that the study of world climate is persued just as rigourously.
(It might be clever and elegant trash, but you don't get marks for stlye in physics!)
I happen to agree that here are other reasons for supporting so called 'green' or 'environmental' issues. (I hate those buzzwords don't you?) As you point out, bycicles are inherently safer than cars, and let's not forget that burning fossil-fuels puts a lot more than just CO2 into the air, and I don't really want to even think of the amount of stuff we pile into landfill these days.
The measures required to truly fix the way we do things in 'the west' actually require governments to do something real. That of course is something they will avoid like the plague, for fear of being accused of (horrors!) socialism. Especially it seems the Labour party. Instead they prefer to tinker around with taxation, and hope that 'enlightened self intrest' will do the rest.
That is why it is so mixed up with politics.
So never mind whether or not the science is good, bad, indeferent or even if it's a complete pile of dingoe's kidney's. There's no way that anything is going to be done which will make a difference.
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: Yep, total sense spooky060. I have been sceptical (believe it or not) for quite some time now about many of the claims made by proponents of Global Warming Theory. I'm more sceptical, however, about the motivation than the science. Personally, I believe environmental scare stories are told in order to drive people out of fear to live prescribed lifestyles (not dissimilar to the Blair-Bush - or Blush as I call it - anti-terror campaign which has really made fools of us all). Hollywood loves it too.
What I was maybe inadequately trying to put across, was that there are many positive reasons to live a life that many might dub "green". You don't need the stick. The problem, however, in a democracy, is that the carrots offered by science with regard to healthy living &c largely go ignored, because science also softens the consequences of not following the carrot. There is no sence of emergency, making it a near impossibility to co-ordinate a C-change of any lasting effect upon society as a whole.
The stick is then used to beat us all into submission through fear. And we've all, with few exceptions, fallen for it.
So science has essentially failed to help us live more socially and individually healthy lives. It's great at keeping us ticking over, not not so great at making us go like clockwork, if you get me. Sorry, this must be a terribly annoying style for you to read!
To get to the point, maybe we need to take science down from its status as the solver of all human (and non-human) ills, and think more creatively about how we want our immediate environment to look. What is our dream? I think/hope that humanity has progressed far enough philosophically to understand that there is no upopic solution, life is hard, and death happens, so I'm not suggesting a heaven on earth realisation. I'm just suggesting an alternative to this eternally nasty competitive World Order that only seems to fragment communities and make us haughty and self-seeking. Just as the whole raison d'etre of the bourgoisie was to imitate the aristocracy, so our modern form of democracy and freedom seems to be for the masses to imitate the bourgoisie immitating the aristocracy. Just look at people's faces in the rush hour. There's a disdain, a misanthropic lack of interest in everyone and everything. Why does everyone look so bl***y miserable? OK, end!
You make the mistake here of separating science out as some sort isolated discipline. Science is not an answer to any social ills, nor the cause of the same. Science rather is a tool which if used properly (and there's a whole discussion in itself) can help us realise our goals and understand our limits.
The fact is that science is one of mankinds most sucessful acheivements to date. That fact alone makes it attractive to try and present all sorts of nonesense as science.
What the global warming thing is about is obviously an indication of a limit to how we can behave. If the science is right then whatever else we do we need to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere or do something about removing it. Probably a bit of both.
Also it has to be borne in mind that science is not all about technology, and engineering. The basic science behind the transistors in your PC is an interesting field of study (I studied it for my degree, so I know a bit about it.) but it does not tell you how to build a computer. In fact although the transistor was discovered during semiconductor research, it was not invented as result of research. (In fact it tok a lot of study to figure out how the darn things actually work!) As is so often the case the technology leads the science.
As you say we need to decide what kind of world we want to live in, but to try and do that without utilising every tool at our disposal would be a foolish thing to do. Science will be an important part of the process. Indeed much of waht is done politically would benefit by the application of a similar degree of discipline and rigour as applied to 'hard' science.
However it is important to recognise that science should never be allowed to be anything more than a tool, albeit probably the sharpest and most versatile tool we have at out disposal. We have suffered in the past from that error. (I'm thinking of game theory here, which became a 'scientific' model for human behaviour. In fact it is incorrect to even call it science, as it is a branch of mathemetics, and mathematics is not science, because mathematics is based on assumptions and not on observalble phonomena.)
There are plenty of wooly and often downright dangerous ideas which masquerade as science. These need to be watched for and as soon as one is spotted, it should be knocked smartly on the head, and for preference bagged, binned, weighted down with chains, and dumped overboard into the deepest ocean trench so that it will never be seen again.
So please do not confuse science with technology, but recognise it for what it is, a very useful tool, and never accept anything dressed up as science which is based on some vague idea which cannot be verified experimentally.
Thank you, grond, for your replies. I do not mean to insult individuals or academic achievement. Neither am I anti-science. This thread is about people's deference to science (in all its guises) for lifestyle and, dare I say it, moral guidance. And science also ensures that we don't pay the full consequences when we fail to follow that guidance. This is generally a "Western" privilege. If you read my posts carefully, you will understand that I am not pointing the finger of blame at science. I am concerned with the undue weight given to science in making certain decision. That is hardly the fault of science. You will see from other posts (on other threads) that I am very pro-science.
When I talk about the "middle classes", I have in mind someone who is well-educated, upwardly mobile, ticking all the boxes, who thinks they are "saving the planet" by piling their organic and fair-trade food shopping into their 4x4. The same person will no doubt be using the whole carbon offsetting claptrap in order to continue in their addictive flying habits with a clear conscience. I'm not targetting individuals, grond; but, surely, the person I've described could be one of many people. And, yes, it's a patronising existence. It's basically saying that, generally, if you're white and on a certain income, you can pollute the environment, but black masses can stay put, working their fair-trade plantations, crafting their quaint fair-trade ware, and keeping the white tourist happy.
Horrible generalisations and labels, I know, but that's the beauty of language - it ain't scientific!
Having said all that, I do actually agree with the essence of your posts.
Black or white, rich or poor, middle class or not, the real villains of the piece are those who contribute to world population growth by having more than 2 children.
The extreme makes it clear: if nobody ever had another child, in 100 years there would be no anthropogenic CO2. Problem solved. By contrast if everyone has 6 children world population will double, treble, quadruple... and anthropogenic CO2 along with it.
A childless person who drives a 4x4 and takes many flights a year will eventually cause far less CO2 to be emitted than someone who stays at home and has, say, 3 children. Think of all the CO2 those children and their children will cause to be emitted - however green they try and be. And the grandchildren of even today’s poorest will be CO2 producers just like the rest of us. Just look at China, India, South America. Economic growth is good – it aids the poor. Population growth is bad.
Society is vilifying the wrong people. The CO2 guilt should be felt by those who have more than two children. Having more than two children, and thus increasing population and anthropogenic CO2, is the most un-green thing anyone can do.
