View Full Version : America and England: true love?
Shabbaman
30-10-2003, 11:03
Yesterday I posted on some other forum in the OT zone (the place where normal things don't happen very often), something I don't do that often. What triggered my response was something written by an U.S. citizen on when the next world war will start.
Of course, this is a pure theoretically subject, but someone made a pretty decent argument that an escalated indian/pakistan issue (not that unlikely) could force china to intervene (not that unlikely either).
This "bloke" responded that that would never happen, since the U.S. would take a side and no one would dare oppose the U.S.. Well, I never thought too highly about the american school system, but what he said next made me shiver: he found it more likely (compared to above example) that the next ww would be between the U.S./G.B. and Europa/Russia!
Ahem.
Well, obviously I'm missing his joke here, since he couldn't possibly mean something like that seriously (my former roommate is in the states now at some university, the emails she writes are really, really disturbing...) but it made me wonder: of course everybody and his mother suspects that blair is actually G.W.'s lackey, but I suppose the english people still fancy europeans more than the american people. The dislike of the E.U. is obvious, but I thought that it'd end there. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[shabba]
P.S. No offence intended towards our intelligent american member, their response is more than appreciated.
Lt. Killer M
30-10-2003, 11:10
ah, I think Americans on average are smart, but instilled with a 'we are the center of the universe, God's own country, the best of the best, Heil America (Canada beware, we will annex you, smae as Mexico)' feeling throguhout their kindergarten, school and college time that it really is hard for them to see the US as a normal country among others.
I have found that many quiet Americans feel Bush atm is making the not-so-absurd notion that the US is a bully come true for the rest of the world - but people who feel like that usually lie low in the US.
So, there is no surprise if they totally misunderstand the love/hate relation between England and the rest of Europe - and how no British citizen would be so dumb as to subjugate his will to (that is a quote) 'hamburger munching degenerates who got kicked out of all proper countries in the world'....
Shabbaman
30-10-2003, 11:32
quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman
P.S. No offence intended towards our intelligent american members [blush]
I saw a newsitem last tuesday about soldier wives and that they were wondering wtf they we're doing in iraq. So luckily they're not that silent.
And I've no doubt that there are very smart people in the states. I think the 'premium' universities are of a very high standard. My roommate (as a clarification, my roommate in the room where I'm working at the university) is at the university of Delaware atm, and she has attended some courses on 'Western European Politics', and even the professors there have a strange, tainted view on Europe.
Well, I'll probably have the same strange, tainted view on the US...
Lt. Killer M
30-10-2003, 11:44
well, Shabba, as opposed to most Americans, for you or me it involves only a short drive to leave our home countires - for many Americans, it takes a far longer drive just to leave their state...... If you have no contact with different cultures at all - how can you even imagine some being different without fitting the TV image?
Ehecatl Atzin
31-10-2003, 07:44
Some people (including myself) would argue that a there has been a third and currently a fourth world war: the third ocurried during what the western world was engaged in the so-called "cold war" The States and the U.S.S.R. where at war and the "third world" was the wargrounds, hence Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Afganistan... That war ended with the subsequent fall of the U.S.S.R. and the emergence of the States as the first world power. The fourth and current world war is this whole globalization crap where the targets are cultures not in-line with western society and it's values: "liberty, equality and democracy" Or as I like to say it: Liberty to screw whoever country they can, equality amongst themselves and democracy as the retoric to enforce it. And there you have the entire "with us or against us" policy of that fuckball Bush; you either support our world view or you die, end of story. When Mexico decided to vote against the war in Iraq in the Security Council we got screwed economically, politically and of course the border thing got sour.
The States have already anexed more than half of our territory; culturally they've anexed the entire elite ...Mexico is an efective colony, welcome to globalization... and then they have the cojones to push for the "Free trade zone of the Americas"!?! they have some fucking nerve!
Hmmm... lotsa steam there, but this does have a point... there have been, in my view, three world wars, and we are currently engaged in a fourth.
Shabbaman
31-10-2003, 08:33
Well, no doubt that the cold war is a war, but that's not the kind of war I'm really afraid of. That view doesn't do right to the millions of casualties in both the first and second world war.
Killer, you're right, but that's still their own choice. I can have a proper view on america without even been there (of course, that's a weak spot...), so could they vice versa.
I think part of the problem is that the USA does not 'import' cultural things from other countries like other countries are forced to do with the USA.
Many of us know about the USA's foreign policy because they enforce it wherever they like. We know about what they do in many other ways because of American TV that is beamed around the world. We are forced in to stupid and damaging (to us) trade agreements because they are the largest (and only super-) power in the world.
The next world war may not be in the USA, but it will be started by them, of that I am sure. Maybe World Wars can't even happen anymore - I think EA's comments (and the recent wars in the Middle East) demonstrate that the USA feels it doesn't need to consult the rest of the world or get them on side in these arguments. You can see how many countries roll over when the economic embargos and the briberies start piling in from the USA.
Hmm, I guess the only real chance of a true World War is if the whole muslim/arab world unites against the USA, and I think that this is definitely a possibility that should be considered. The "war on terrorism" seems to be the only excuse the USA needs to openly flaunt the Geneva Convention on human rights and attack and kill and imprison whoever they want. This can only escalate tension in the arab/muslim world, and even if the USA doesn't directly initiate it we could see terrorist nuclear attacks happening in the USA, and then the Middle East.
In summary: we're fucked, so enjoy it while it lasts!
Shabbaman
31-10-2003, 14:31
You know, the U.S. doesn't have to stay number 1. They aren't the economic powerhouse they once were. Of course, this might trigger war in itself...
quote:I think part of the problem is that the USA does not 'import' cultural things from other countries like other countries are forced to do with the USA.Except Nutella, mmmmm Nutella, though I am not sure where the ‘forced’ part comes into play.
On topic I think it likely that the next WW will be fought in the middle of the EurAsian zone. Current best candidate for fire starter is definitely India/Pakistan, and they have a few small nukes too! Could be lots of fun. But there is also allot of tension in the southern and eastern former USSR, not to mention Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc. It may well be that the US will play only a peripheral roll in the next WW, it would take a serious Islamic alliance to bring a large number of US troops into that sort of conflict. I don’t think the cohesion exists among them now, and it would probably take a generation or three for it to develop.
The US will be fine if we can get stupid buttholes like Shrub out of the white house. As long as we don’t get into religious mode, like that arse Boykin’s, and see the world as an opportunity for a holy war.
Edit - in some ways Africa has been in the middle of a WW for quite a while now. Just doesn't rate the same attention as the rest of the world.
quote:By [shabba]:
he found it more likely (compared to above example=Pakistan/India) that the next ww would be between the U.S./G.B. and Europa/Russia!
Made me think, too.
But then again, along w/ Cuba etc, Germany is in the axis of weasel and France is even worse. A government that doesn't officially support US foreign policy seems to be regarded as potential foe... there you have Europe as foe image. Just look at Killer's sig which says basically "Every country has to decide: Either be on our side or..."
Propaganda is a powerful tool to polarise the folks.
Btw, recent polls show decreasing support for the 'anti-terrorism' war in Iraq, strange - an at least 5 years old video showing cruel police methods is *somehow* making its way to the editorial department of that Faux organ.
Lt. Killer M
02-11-2003, 18:42
quote:Originally posted by Grille
quote:By [shabba]:
he found it more likely (compared to above example=Pakistan/India) that the next ww would be between the U.S./G.B. and Europa/Russia!
Made me think, too.
But then again, along w/ Cuba etc, Germany is in the axis of weasel and France is even worse. A government that doesn't officially support US foreign policy seems to be regarded as potential foe... there you have Europe as foe image. Just look at Killer's sig which says basically "Every country has to decide: Either be on our side or..."
Propaganda is a powerful tool to polarise the folks.
Btw, recent polls show decreasing support for the 'anti-terrorism' war in Iraq, strange - an at least 5 years old video showing cruel police methods is *somehow* making its way to the editorial department of that Faux organ.
sad is it is, most Americans even do not realize the parallels and differences between the two people my sig quotes....
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 09:09
Gothmog has a point on the whole religious thing, the States have a fundamentalist cristian in the presidential seat...
@Shabbaman--- hmmm.. millions of people dead because of the 2 world wars.. what about the millions that die because they can't compete with big business and have to sell their lands at dirt cheap prices just to scrap by.. or entire families that are chained to the maquiladora system and can't leave it even if they wanted to. There are other forms, uglier forms, of violence and death, not just a bullet... compared to that, a bullet seems almost painless. What about the korean farmer that took his life in Cancun in a protest against the WTF and the world bank? was his sudden death any less harsh that the long, agonizing struggle for survival in his homeland? War isn't just bullets, cannons and nukes... violence is violence, and povery is it's worst example, specially if it's caused by the bottom line.
EDIT-- but if body count is that important, let us count all those that died when the States invaded or directly supported terrorist regimes that killed it's own people: Chile 3,000+ under Pinochet, Argentina: 60,000+ when the military coup took power in 76 I believe, East Timor, Nicaragua, Panama, Vietnam, Korea... I'm sure that number can add up and match those that died in the first 2 wars.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 09:14
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
violence is violence, and povery is it's worst example, specially if it's caused by the bottom line.
A bullet is intended to kill a specific person that you can see. Move from there to bombs (can't see hem normally), ordering the dropping of bombs, ordering 'make war', supporting that war, cutting down the rainforest, buying eating sticks made from these trees, buying sports equipment made in Third World countires, trying to be affluent in the First World...... basically, it is just a gradual thing :( - and at the end there usually is no malintent (or even consciousness of it) at all.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 09:22
Ignorance (can a nike exec, really ignore where his/her product gets made???) is no excuse for it, nor does it remove the stain of guilt.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 09:45
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
Ignorance (can a nike exec, really ignore where his/her product gets made???) is no excuse for it, nor does it remove the stain of guilt.
at THAT level, there is no ignorance.
But, can a consumer who gets lied to be companies, press, politicians etc. really be called informed when all the products he gets to choose from are more or less 'bloody'? Where would he get the information on 'clean' products? And would he be able to afford them? There is 'fair trade' coffee on the market here - but even that is far from perfect. And I know of very few other products that do not involve exploitation of Third WOlrd countries in one way or another.
Hmm, how about the following as a start for any consumer in the first world:
1) Don't buy Nike or other 'big brand' clothing.
2) Buy fair-trade coffee (or rather, don't by non-fair trade)
3) Buy fuit and veg from local markets, not supermarkets OR
Better than (3) - buy fruit and veg from a health food shop that gets it produced locally.
If you really want to go all out don't support the meat industry - it is a big offender when it comes to abusing the worlds resources.
I agree that it is hard - but by saying consumers are not to blame you are making the system worse. We have to blame everyone in the system (in which I include myself) if we are to ever make a difference.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 10:43
I agree with Anarres, there is plenty of info out there for anyone interested in what company does what. I get along just fine not wearing nikes and buying locally. Frankly, I feel quite proud that most of my clothes are made right here by people who I buy from and know they are the ones getting the money.. not some company that doesn't give shit 'bout me but what's it's brand on my butt. I personally grow some of my veggies and fruits... info is out there for anyone interested, that's what the internet is for; retaking a now-slogan: where do u wanna go today? ;) you can find porn and video game sites here, but you can also find info on Che Guevara, the zapatista movement, clean and dirty industries, consumers have a lot of power when they decide to use it. Sometimes they just don't know it, they lack social class consciousness.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 10:45
quote:Originally posted by anarres
I agree that it is hard - but by saying consumers are not to blame you are making the system worse. We have to blame everyone in the system (in which I include myself) if we are to ever make a difference.
your suggestions only cover about a 10% reduction or so - locally produced fruit is only marginally better as the people alos use cars, wear nikes which essentially you pay for.... etc.....
I am not saying blame is wrong, but we should put the vast majority of the blame where it belongs - our standard of living and the people who order the actual abuse. Sure consumers are to blame, but I have to admit that I do not think consumers, especially those in countries like the US where a few big companies control all the supermarkets, can really change things.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 10:47
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
I agree with Anarres, there is plenty of info out there for anyone interested in what company does what. I get along just fine not wearing nikes and buying locally. Frankly, I feel quite proud that most of my clothes are made right here by people who I buy from and know they are the ones getting the money.. not some company that doesn't give shit 'bout me but what's it's brand on my butt. I personally grow some of my veggies and fruits... info is out there for anyone interested, that's what the internet is for; retaking a now-slogan: where do u wanna go today? ;) you can find porn and video game sites here, but you can also find info on Che Guevara, the zapatista movement, clean and dirty industries, consumers have a lot of power when they decide to use it. Sometimes they just don't know it, they lack social class consciousness.
well, good! But that only lowers your level of guilt, it doesn't cut it down to zero :(
Indeed Killer. But are you saying that because we are not perfect we shouldn't do anything? That is a bit defeatist....
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 10:52
Well, that depends on what level of freedom you asign to people. If u 'spose that people tend to do what big brother says then... we are pretty much royally and irrevocably screwed. If you believe people still have the power to decide over their very existence and organize and fight the good fight, push the rock up the hill and raise a barn and what not, then that's real liberty, not market liberty, not "buy at the best price fuck the guy who did it" liberty, not "I'm free to eat myself into morbidly obesse country" liberty.
If people are essencially free and responsable for the decisions they make, they also have to deal with the consecuence of buying dirty merchandise when the info on it is at the click of a mouse; but of course, it's always easier to ignore that and buy big 'cause it's closer and cheaper ...as a friend of mine (statesman) once said: in the States, it's all about us...
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 11:04
anarres: not at all! I just wanted to point out that blaming the consumer for not being perfect is too harsh ;) and demands too much. Why do you think I work for less money than I could get because I do not want to support drilling oil etc?
EA: I fully agree with you, we are royally and irrevocally fucked.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 11:10
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
EA: I fully agree with you, we are royally and irrevocally fucked.
hehe, no, you don't. I gave two options, regretably, you chose the one I did not. I still believe people have to power to choose over their own existence... call me an idealist [blush]
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 11:13
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
EA: I fully agree with you, we are royally and irrevocally fucked.
hehe, no, you don't. I gave two options, regretably, you chose the one I did not. I still believe people have to power to choose over their own existence... call me an idealist
I know, I know, I didn't mean we both agree on how it is but I agree with your assessment that if, then....
and I think we are. I just need to look around and see what people fight over, what they damend of life etc. I admire all idealists, I used to be one, but the older I get the less can I believe in the good in human nature. It doesn't exists, and those who think like you are on the way out. Always was like that: the most powerfull wins [b]in the long run.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 11:20
aahhh, yes, experience, that pathelic little thing old people use to deter young people from making mistakes and experimenting and implementing something new and diferent, radical and shinny. If the most powerfull wins in the long run, then why bother? why not take that job that pays more and let the earth get more drills in then a cheap hooker? someone is gonna get it anyway, why not you? If u stop believing in the goodness of humanity then basically u stoped believeing in yourself... since u are human, after all. People don't ask for alot, just a place to call home, food on the table, a [b]decent[\b] job and a better future for their kids, basically that's it. But fear and greed do tend to take the better of us, but even then we are free to decide to stop. Humanity is free, inspite of itself. Sartre I think.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 11:25
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
aahhh, yes, experience, that pathelic little thing old people use to deter young people from making mistakes and experimenting and implementing something new and diferent, radical and shinny. If the most powerfull wins in the long run, then why bother? why not take that job that pays more and let the earth get more drills in then a cheap hooker? someone is gonna get it anyway, why not you? If u stop believing in the goodness of humanity then basically u stoped believeing in yourself... since u are human, after all. People don't ask for alot, just a place to call home, food on the table, a [b]decent[\b] job and a better future for their kids, basically that's it. But fear and greed do tend to take the better of us, but even then we are free to decide to stop. Humanity is free, inspite of itself. Sartre I think.
a) I do not intend to deter anyone! If it shows any promise of working believe me, I will be the first to jump on the train
b) I am not even close to old
c) I am an idealist turning slowly realist. Dumb, I know. Either, get into the system and abuse it, or get in, climb up, and change it. both will not let me sleep soundly, first because of my conscience, second because I am not good at lying.....
btw, people ask for a HELL of a lot more than decent food and a home, they ask for a SUV and an car per kid and caviar.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 11:32
I didn't mean u where detering anyone, I meant experience (daily life) is detering you. That's still food and home, only the package changes. A studio flat is no less of a home then a mansion on key west. I'm noy saying rich guys should give everything to everybody else; but everyone should have the same oportunities to attain those things. When big business, imperial countries, the WTF and the world bank conspire to efectively close the door to real progress on "3rd world" countries then that's violence and that's a war. Everyone should have the right to oportunities, the right to choose and not get right down screwed by someone else.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 11:40
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
I didn't mean u where detering anyone, I meant experience (daily life) is detering you. That's still food and home, only the package changes. A studio flat is no less of a home then a mansion on key west. I'm noy saying rich guys should give everything to everybody else; but everyone should have the same oportunities to attain those things. When big business, imperial countries, the WTF and the world bank conspire to efectively close the door to real progress on "3rd world" countries then that's violence and that's a war. Everyone should have the right to oportunities, the right to choose and not get right down screwed by someone else.
I cannot argue with that at all!
But: if you give all these opportunities to the poor of the world now, you will run into two problems:
- ecology
- lower standard of living in now-rich countires.
the first doesn't matter much (although it is the long-term scarier one), the second is what keeps it from working. Tell people here they cannot have a car for each of their kids and they will skin you alive. :(
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 11:47
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
I cannot argue with that at all!
But: if you give all these opportunities to the poor of the world now, you will run into two problems:
- ecology
- lower standard of living in now-rich countires.
the first doesn't matter much (although it is the long-term scarier one), the second is what keeps it from working. Tell people here they cannot have a car for each of their kids and they will skin you alive. :(
You could argue that the standar of living in rich countries is very much deplorable... being the fatest nation on the face of the earth (The States) is not a very good indicator of "standard of living" nor is the constant and sickening fear and paranoia that society lives in. And if that doesn't work... who builds their cars? who harvests their crops and makes their sparkling wine? I'll tell u who: poor countries, migrant workers, kids in sweat shops [hammer] The factory won't work without the workers [hammer]. To quote Marx: Workers of the world unite!
EDIT-- and if that doesn't work, well... violence can and usually does get an answer with violence. Do you think 9/11 was an "unprovoked" agression? At least I can tell u that in Mexico there was more than just one smiling face and more than one person said: damn gringos got what they deserved... yeah, it's harsh and cruel, but when u see the one that has opresed and abused u ever since u can remember take a hit, u can't help but feel somewhat glad that retribution does exist.
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 11:52
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
I cannot argue with that at all!
But: if you give all these opportunities to the poor of the world now, you will run into two problems:
- ecology
- lower standard of living in now-rich countires.
the first doesn't matter much (although it is the long-term scarier one), the second is what keeps it from working. Tell people here they cannot have a car for each of their kids and they will skin you alive. :(
You could argue that the standar of living in rich countries is very much deplorable... being the fatest nation on the face of the earth (The States) is not a very good indicator of "standard of living" nor is the constant and sickening fear and paranoia that society lives in. And if that doesn't work... who builds their cars? who harvests their crops and makes their sparkling wine? I'll tell u who: poor countries, migrant workers, kids in sweat shops [hammer] The factory won't work without the workers [hammer]. To quote Marx: Workers of the world unite!
I fully agree again! But try taking something from the fat&rich.........
In the area where my parents live there are about 1,4 parking spaces per flat. People now complain when their cars are towed because they park on the ped corssings because 'there are too few parking spaces'. Well, nobody forced them to buy cars when they have no place to park them. There is subways and busses. And there are parking places less than 400m away. But they think it is their God-given right to park right in front of their houses...... [rolleyes]
and if the workers unite they are laid off - there is always someone in so dire need of a job that he will take the money and think of his stomach and his kids rather than stand united - and starve.
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 11:56
read my edit
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 12:02
I agree again - but you kknow who will be the first losers if it comes to that.
personally, I will not have children - simply because the world they would have to live in will be decidely not-nice.
Shabbaman
06-11-2003, 12:33
quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
People now complain when their cars are towed because they park on the ped corssings because 'there are too few parking spaces'. Well, nobody forced them to buy cars when they have no place to park them.
In the city where I live there's a test project where a locally lower environmental quality is compensated (compensation is key here) with other 'qualities'. That project was discussed in an environmental planning class I was in last year, before it was completed. The professor pointed out that the new occupants would complain about the lack of parking space: one of the new 'qualities' is that the quarter has a limited acces for vehicules. This is possible through two things:
a. it's a 5 minutes walk to the center of the city (now that's really close...)
b. it's build on top of a parking basement (underground)
Two weeks ago I read in the local newspaper that people were complaining about the non-existence of parking places in their new neighbourhood. Some people are too stupid...
Now, I'm still waiting for a response to my question: do brits like americans better than continentals?
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 12:38
quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman
[quote]Originally posted by Lt. Killer M
Two weeks ago I read in the local newspaper that people were complaining about the non-existence of parking places in their new neighbourhood. Some people are too stupid...
sorry for the threadjacking...
where my parents live it gets to the point that cars are parked so that children crossing the road are in danger of being run over - and the city ignores this as they fear the wrath of the car owners....
Shabbaman
06-11-2003, 12:40
I know. Car owners are evil.
[shabba]
Lt. Killer M
06-11-2003, 12:52
quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman
I know. Car owners are evil.
[shabba]
sometimes, I'd like to [estwing] theri cars - last week I had to walk 50 meters down one road to cross it as the corssing was parked full bumper to bumper - by people working at Mercedes-Benz - they need the car to go to work though the bus station is 300m off and there is a direct line......
Ehecatl Atzin
06-11-2003, 22:41
quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman
Now, I'm still waiting for a response to my question: do brits like americans better than continentals?
Well, brits and gringos do have a special relationship, having fought together in two world wars, a common languaje (with all it's inate diferences) does give bonds that are hard to break. That and they share most interests. GB has always been adamant in showing it's distance from the continent, living in an island sorta makes you like that I supose, but to go as far as to say they might be on oposite sides of the battle field, nah; never gonna happen. All brits can go to the streets and protest and the gov'ment will still back up the States, and vice-versa.
Lt. Killer M
07-11-2003, 08:56
quote:Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
GB has always been adamant in showing it's distance from the continent,
to the point where they are the nuisance of the entire EU atm.....
but I still think that the would never side against the EU - amongst other reason because German airplanes can still reach GB cities. 'Wouldn't be prudent at this junction'. Same for the US - they will never fight them either, because of history, but also because of the simple knowledge of how the US might react in a war with a nation armed with nukes.
Let's not forget that the UK arms most of the developed world with smart weapons. Who would the US and Europe pay for munitions if they decided to attack us? [rolleyes]
Shabbaman
07-11-2003, 12:46
Holland Signaal, hurray! [shabba]
I applaud all efforts to help reduce unfair trade practices and the inherent violence of poverty. However, I notice that you do not address the issue of European agricultural trade practices’ impact on poverty in the developing world. Locally produced produce, etc., has its issues too. Nor do you include computers as part of your list of things for first world consumers to avoid. We all have our vices.
For my part, I do what I can to reduce my ‘footprint’ on the environment (I would be ashamed to own a SUV), but I must admit that I want to provide my children with the best of everything. I also enjoy my current standard of living.
I would like to offer this little tidbit from an environmentalist earth science perspective:
To the extent that Westerners support development in, and extension of their prosperity to, the rest of the world, they sow the seeds of everyone’s destruction.
The key problems are energy use and population.
Gothmog, I am the first person to realise the irony and hypocracy of someone like me making 'token' gestures towards sustainable living. ;) I for one am more than ready to consider myself 'part of the problem'.
However, the alternative to that is to give up all pretense of giving a toss about the world, and to drive SUV's, to eat at McDonalds and Burger King, to buy Nike trainers and to eat lots of intensively farmed meat. Is this what you recommend instead of the hypocrital efforts? I doubt it...
On the issue of population - is it not a fact that the developed world is not growing anymore (or at least it won't be for long)? Maybe I heard wrong about growth rates. I know that population in the developing world is still amazingly high, but I think more worrying is the HIV pandemic in africa that we have ignored in the west. Some countries have 50%+ infection rates. [eek] :(
Ehecatl Atzin
07-11-2003, 19:58
yes, energy use is a problem; but is using most of the energy that's being produced? most of it is used by "developed" countries and their multinationals. Over here the debate wether to allow the private sector to invest in energy production is very heated, especially since the private sector is composed mostly by foreign companies that have little or no respect for the local ways of production, enviroments, comunities... And that's a real part of the problem, the west is still imperialistic, it still assumes it can push and do what ever it considers best, regardless of what other countries say or think. The hiv pandemic is a very good point of this; where is all this democratic humanitarian help the west is so fond of when it comes to something that isn't financially sane. Why do western goverments support the protection of farmaceuticals that labs create and sell for a ridiculous high prices that none or very few of the african nations can afford? It isn't just about not eating here and there and not buying a pair of sneakers, the problem goes a lot deeper than that, the system isn't working, the system is broke. Why did feudalism, despotism and communism fail? because they stopped giving answers to the problems society threw at them; capitalism, neo-liberalism and imperialism are also failing to give answers... at least to the "developing" world, that has stopped believing in the values the west has tried to implement: democracy, liberty, fraternity.. blah blah blah; that's what postmodernism is about, the so-called third world no longer believes in the west, we don't give a fuck about a democratic process because they have proved their failure, the west has been greatly responsible for this.
quote:Holland Signaal, hurray!
Didn't the French Thales buy Holland Signaal ?
[shabba]
I hear you anarres, we are all part of the problem – and potentially the solution. I think that not buying from Nike, as a protest against their labor practices is a good start. I do question the value of buying locally produced produce, mass production is less intensive per unit food produced and is easier to regulate. Farmed meat is clearly an environmental problem but I love steak as much as I love my computer [love], I’m just not going to give it up anymore than I would live in a slum so that I can donate more money to the homeless. I love the unspoiled world and have spent a good part of my life studying and working on ways to help.
The western values of democracy and capitalism have only failed when measured against a metric of utopia. The system isn’t broke, it never worked in the first place. Unfortunately for all of us the world is a tough place, no Garden of Eden. People have never lived in peace, prosperity, and freedom. There are certain things that we all want for our children, we want them to live to adulthood, we want them to have the same opportunities we had – or preferably more. In practice this means that we need to have common defense, mass food and energy storage, strong infrastructure, a working public health system as well as a robust medical profession. Local ways of production, environments, etc. are fine until crisis occurs. The world is a cruel place and thinks nothing of imposing a 40-year drought that makes local agriculture impossible, or even a disease that kills half the population of a given area. It may be that some cultures are able to come to grips with this sort of mortality, I do not know of any.
Western governments support the pharmaceutical companies because they are the rout to better and cheaper medicines. At present there is no ‘cure’ for HIV nor is there a vaccine. There are drugs that can help maintain an infected individual. There is lots of federally funded research on HIV, but private companies are a much larger research force. There are huge amounts of humanitarian help being given, but there is no cure. Some people would argue that the aid given to Africa etc. is as much a part of the problem as anything else. It is easy to criticize but hard to propose practical solutions. How do you suggest we approach the problem? We already spend more money on HIV research than on many other diseases that kill many more Americans. Of course we also spend more on research towards Viagra etc., but that actually helps fund the more philanthropic research. We give food to the starving, but the rate of population increase is staggering and the route to give the food leads to wealth in the hands of brutal political regimes. It would be great if the world were as simple as good and evil, but it just isn’t so.
I am not saying that we should not want to extend ‘western’ levels of prosperity to all of humanity, I am saying that if and when we do we will have a new crop of problems to solve involving anthropogenic influence on the environment. I don’t have any other solution to offer though, I want my children to have all the advantages that I enjoyed in my life.
Lt. Killer M
08-11-2003, 12:46
well, you are quite right, but why do you all bash meat?
Admittedly, intensive-farming-propped meat......
Luckily, here, I can get meat from low-intensity-ranching, actually meat from cows and sheep that are NEEDED to preserve special ecosystems - at a slightly higher price, no subisides involved. I really cannot grasp why this is not possible in the US midwest, for example....
smalltalk
08-11-2003, 17:43
On US/UK relations:
This may be a cliche, but it seems to me, that US' policy is still dominated by WASPs, or at least by people with a european heritage. But there are also the Blacks, the Hispanics and the asian immigrants. Those groups might have different feelings about their heritage. For them, the UK might look as far away as France, Siberia, Argentinia...
quote:Sure consumers are to blame, but I have to admit that I do not think consumers, especially those in countries like the US where a few big companies control all the supermarkets, can really change things.
I rather feel that we as consumers can exort more power at the cash counter, than we can do as voters at the ballot box.
And about the supermarkets: didn't the idea of natural food and independent food stores start in the US?
quote: I admire all idealists, I used to be one, but the older I get the less can I believe in the good in human nature. It doesn't exists, and those who think like you are on the way out. Always was like that: the most powerfull wins in the long run.
Yeah, but who says that sanity or compassion isn't more powerfull than greed in the long run?
quote: I notice that you do not address the issue of European agricultural trade practices’ impact on poverty in the developing world. Locally produced produce, etc., has its issues too.
Trade practices are a matter of economics.
The EU wants to ensure agricultural self-sufficency. Therefore they heavyly support the local farmers. More food is produced than what is needed, the overhead is thrown away or dumped at foreign markets. Together with import taxes for food, this destroyes any possibility for 3rd world producers to get into the EU market.
Local food production is a matter of ecology.
Transportation needs energy. Isn't it strange that food is shipped through whole countries or continents, while my local farmer could grow it as well?
(I realize, that nowadays 50% of all people live in the cities. I also realize, that rice does not grow, where I live. )
quote: I do question the value of buying locally produced produce, mass production is less intensive per unit food produced and is easier to regulate.
As long as mass production of food goes hand in hand with the use of herbicides and insecticides - that is poisons, I cannot agree. Substances like that should not be released into our environment - or into the food chain. I could envision mass production of natural food though.
Then there is the issue of gene manipulated plants. While I have no general problems with GMOs, I have many specific. Most kinds of manipulated plants are engenieered to take heavy doses of herbicides - btw produced by the same company that sells the GM seed.
I just wonder, when farmers will have to pay licence fees for planting a certain seed.
quote:but why do you all bash meat?
You need about 7 kg of crops to produce 1 kg of meat.
Killer, it is nice that you can buy meat from low-intensity-ranching but that is not a solution that works for a mass market. The amount of space needed per unit production is simply too large.
Yes, trade practices are a matter of local economics. I was pointing out that they have an impact on poverty in the third world too, there are no easy solutions. It is all about trade offs. Even in the case of Nike, the people who work there in the third world are in general quite thankful for their jobs.
It is not only mass produced food that makes use of herbicides and insecticides, and most of these do not persist in the environment. In fact the peel of an apple is chock full of pesticides, it is simply a good strategy. Again, trade off's, not using pesticides reduces your yield and makes the process much more labor intensive. It also increases the risk of simply not producing enough food for your population in a given year. As I stated before, it is also much easier to regulate localized production.
You also do not address fertilizer use, which IMO has a larger ecological impact than pesticides, and is again used by both mass and locally produced food. The core issue is ecological impact per unit food produced, all the research I have seen implies that this impact is about the same or larger for locally produced food. And this doesn't even touch the issue of per unit cost, or stability of suply, which become very important when you start talking about how to deal with poverty and starvation.
All the research I have seen suggest that GMO's reduce overall pesticide use (per unit food produced). The way's that they achieve this varies from crop to crop and varient to varient, let me know if you want to discuss a specific example. If they did not then what would be the point from a farmers point of view? Let's see, they would have to spend more for the seed, and more for the pesticide (per unit food produced)? Where is the advantage?
Ehecatl Atzin
10-11-2003, 03:34
quote:Originally posted by Gothmog
The western values of democracy and capitalism have only failed when measured against a metric of utopia.
They've failed because they haven't been able to give adequate answers to the problems that society, especially in "third world" contries, is expiriencing. How can we, in good judgement, decide to follow contries that speak of democracy while they bomb and kill, sometimes our very country. They have failed because they all have been proyects that are not at tune with the reality of this society. How can a foreign plan work when the ideology of the society where it is trying to be implemented doesn't match with it?
quote: Western governments support the pharmaceutical companies because they are the rout to better and cheaper medicines....How do you suggest we approach the problem?
They research it, yes. But they also charge more than ten times the cost of production just to get a hefty profit early on and then start lowering the price, very, very slowly. So high a price than only a few of those infected can attain medicine. There are other labs that use similar products to the "original" but at lower prices so everyone can buy them, but governments, instead of supporting the wellbeing of their people, they pass legislation against such companies.
quote:I am not saying that we should not want to extend ‘western’ levels of prosperity to all of humanity, I am saying that if and when we do we will have a new crop of problems to solve involving anthropogenic influence on the environment.
If there will be a new crop of problems.. why extend "western levels of prosperity"? and then try to solve them? that sounds alot like "the white man's burden" idea. Why not let other countries find their own path instead of thinking that the western standard is the best thing just because it has worked there? People have a right to selfdetermination, and the west just hasn't gotten the point, it continues to push its standard of living, along with its culture and views, unto other countries; efectively destroying native cultures.
Shabbaman
10-11-2003, 09:17
Bringing humanity on the same level of prosperity is one aim towards sustainability. This does not have to be the 'western' level of prosperity though... Prosperity reduces population growth. Environmental impact consists of population, the rate of consumption and the efficiency of production. These three components will all rise in the years to come though. Bad news for the environment.
I'll use this place to counter a misconception of americans about europe, concerning our 'agricultural protectionism'. What the U.S. of A. doesn't see is the European trauma caused by the second world war: in that period it became apparent that the Netherlands couldn't "pay the upkeep" for their own population. This was caused by the low intensity and scale of the dutch agriculture in that period (so far for the dutch being agricultural...) and it resulted in a focus on domestic production after the war. The dutch have greatly influenced the E.E.C., and later on the E.U. on that matter. One might consider this 'obsolete' by todays standard, and it is no longer a common goal. The E.U. does see the domestic production as an opportunity to regulate food quality and environmental control (see for example the problems with genetically engineered crops from the usa), but it is very unlikely it'll hold long (obviously: you can demand a standard from imported crops, and less domestic production means a lesser environmental impact in the E.U. (but a larger one overall...)). This notion of self-sustainability (or autarchy, if you like) is not more, or less, stupid that rejecting the idea of dependancy on foreign power sources (and then start conquering them) [rolleyes]
There are 3 problems that prohibit the reduction of support right now:
1. France (oh, how will George W. like this one...). France is atm the greatest beneficient (?) of this system.
2. "Unemployment benefits": every citizen in the E.U. has the right on a decent life standard. Unlike "some other countries" where they just like the word 'right', in the E.U. this right results in actual support on the part of the government: the solidarity principle. Unemployed people get support in the form of money, in the amount of 700-1100 euros a month. Some european farmers don't even earn that amount of money (net, of course) (but then they leave out the less obvious: they don't make that much for their own life support, but they still own a farm which they can sell when they retire. Discount that and they're pretty rich).
European law (U.S. law probably as well) requires compensation for the lost income if the E.U. would scrap the contribution. That, combined with the above 'unemployment benefits' means that it is too costly to cancel the support.
3. The new members. The 10 new members of the E.U. are, compared to the current members, highly agricultural. They want that money, or they won't join. It's a form of blackmail. Maybe after a couple of years...
Cancelling the support would mean a collapse of domestic production, and a larger dependancy on foreign production. That is not a bad thing per se, but in the years to come the world food demand will only rise. It'd be a good start if the union would scrap overcapacity, and thus export.
One more thing: I've done research on the "brilliant" concept called the 'Ecological Footprint', so I object to the use of the word 'footprint' for sentimental reasons. It makes me want to bash my keybord into my screen (not a good idea). Footprints SUCK. [:O]
quote: They've failed because they haven't been able to give adequate answers to the problems that society, especially in "third world" contries, is expiriencing.
I agree, but again by that metric all humanity has been a failure throughout history. Thus my reference to utopia. When measured against other implemented systems I don’t see how capitalism and democracy have been a failure.
The pharmaceutical companies spend huge amounts on research; they are recouping some of their investment. I agree that many times they overcharge, but the fact is that they are privately owned and financed companies – regulating them out of existence is not the answer IMO. The argument with the ‘other labs’ is that they did not create the products to begin with and those products are protected by patents. If companies are not allowed to patent their products they will not have motivation to invest in research. I will note that some concessions to this model have been made by US companies to help combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Most of the outstanding problems have to do with manufacturers in Africa exporting their products for sale in other locations (at a similarly large profit I might add). I am not saying the system is perfect, no human system that I know of is, but the current system has led to the biggest increases in human healthcare in history. If we are going to enact changes we need to do so carefully.
quote: why extend "western levels of prosperity"? and then try to solve them?
Again I agree, it may be that the whole world cannot live at western levels of prosperity. The problem is that when humans are presented with the option, the vast majority will choose western levels of prosperity. Who wants to lose half their population to disease or starvation every generation or three? Who wants to die of a disease for which there is a known cure? Do we have an obligation to send food to Africa during famine? People certainly have a right to self determination, and I don’t feel I have the right to tell them they cannot enjoy the same standard of living that I enjoy. We are a short sighted race. But as I also mentioned, it would take a lot for me to give up the prospect of western levels of prosperity for my children.
@Shaba – I understand that there are good reasons for the current European model of agricultural protection. Your analysis is pretty much right on. I was just pointing out that it is all about trade off’s, there is no perfect solution that I know of. I’ll try to stay away from the word ‘footprint’ just to save your screen! ;) I did swap to use of ‘impact’ in most of my writing anyway, we need to have some language to use in this context what would you prefer?
Shabbaman
11-11-2003, 07:56
It may be that the whole world cannot live at western levels of prosperity, but should the west even want to be at that level? Not in my opinion: consumerism does not equal quality of life for me. Unfortunately, there are very little people who think that way. What if a sustainable world could only reach a certain amount of 'prosperity' (or environmental pressure): the higher level of consumption of one group would always go at the cost of others. If you can live with that, you're an anti-social asshole.
Gothmog, the 32-year old IPAT-equation always works for me, if you have to describe interconnections within society. In this, the I is for 'impact', works fine for me :p
Well, I wasn't really referring to rampant consumerism when I spoke of western levels of prosperity. Personally, I am not much of a consumer. I have found that quality of life is directly related to quality of human relationships, and that is how I live my life.
Here is what I said above in an effort to describe what I meant by western levels of prosperityquote:There are certain things that we all want for our children, we want them to live to adulthood, we want them to have the same opportunities we had – or preferably more. In practice this means that we need to have common defense, mass food and energy storage, strong infrastructure, a working public health system as well as a robust medical profession.I was also thinking of our 40 hour work week, our schools, our ability to have some control over our career, etc. etc.
Yes, I think that these things are good and I want my children to have access to them. I would not deny this standard of living to anyone and I do think it could be achieved sustainably (depending on how you define this). I have not seen any convincing evidence that it could not. IMO, education is the key. The first thing I would do as king of the world is to provide free education to everyone.
If it could be shown that a sustainable world economy could only reach a certain level of prosperity and that level was available to all, of course I would live within that limit. I would have to be an anti-social asshole not to. However, this has very little to do with the current state of the world. As I am sure you know, currently in the IPAT equation T is a function of A, and A is a function of T. And how the hell do you define T anyway? Not only that but it seems that P in general has an inverse relationship to A, and that your physical location in the world has a direct impact on I (e.g. some places are better suited for food production and others for mineral extraction, tec.).
This formulation of sustainable impact also assumes that the whole world is on board and ready go get along, which is the real pie in the sky. Politics and religion trump science every time in the current state of affairs.
Gotta love pie in the Sky :D
But seriously this is an amazing OT thread for the quality of its input, extensive knowledge as well as manners of its excellent posters, CFC OT should take some lessons ;)....
However to be honest its probably because everyone agrees more or less with everyone and ppl are extending on details but not arguing on base principles.
But anyway this thread is very refreshing and I would like to thank ALL of its impressive participants : keep it going forever please :)
Ehecatl Atzin
11-11-2003, 20:36
quote:Originally posted by Gothmog
...When measured against other implemented systems I don’t see how capitalism and democracy have been a failure.
You measure them against themselves. You measure democracy and capitalism with the things they have promissed and the things they have given. True, they have worked in "developed" countries, specially Europe and the States; but not so in the rest of the world. That's why postmodernism is basically a staple of latinamerican societies; we've stoped believing in western values because they have failed to measure up to what they promise. After their independence from Europe, they all had a basic search for an identity and thus placed their eyes in Europe, fascinated by that way of life and trying to emulate it, but all this changed when the great war started, how could our societies try to emulate others that so blindly destroyed and butchered themselves? The first desilution happened. Then modernism began, displayed best on literature represented by Jose Marti, Ruben Dario, Enrique Gonzalez Martinez, Borges, Quiroga. After that they turned their eyes towards the States... and then came the mushrooms clouds over Japan, the bombardment of the Palacio de la Moneda in Santiago de Chile, the invasion of Nicaragua and Panama, the military coup in Argentina... Thus came postmodernism, if the societies that created those values have made it clear that the support them inside their borders but not outside them (why does the States spend millions each year supporting despotic goverments around the world just to protect it's interests?) then why should we support those values that come from the very societies that repress and abuse us? How can we adecuatly implement them when the States have made it abundantly clear that it will destroy any hint of democracy, real grass roots power to the people democracy, in Latin America?
quote: – regulating them out of existence is not the answer IMO.
I'm not saying regulate them, just don't give them more protection than the one they already have. Let's face it, these are huge multinational companies that can afford to not have the goverment by their side, or in their pockets. They can very well make it on their own without it. The goverment should support those that can efectively protect the interests of the people, not big business. Yes, they have to get a profit, that's what they are in it for and I'm not saying they shouldn't; it's a business, it's legal. But they also try to get what they invested and the profit in a month of sales instead of reducing price, thus reducing their immediate surplus but also allowing more people access to their medicine. As long as they don't see the biger picture the "other labs" will continue to push and people like me will continue to support them, even if it means using patents than do not belong to them. They may have the pattent, but that doesn't give them the right to choose who gets to live and who doesn't by tying a price tag unto that pattent.
quote: The problem is that when humans are presented with the option, the vast majority will choose western levels of prosperity.
Well of course, when you speak of material things, who wouldn't want to be able to buy what they want and live where they want. But westernizing societies isn't just about a free market economy, it envolves inyecting culture, values, social relations and cosmovisions that not always match with the ones that are trying to be suplanted. Prosperity isn't the same as way-of-life but one, generally, does come with the other. And to have prosperity, at least in the western civiliatory process/model, you need democracy; and you won't get that in latinamerica because of what I've typed before.
smalltalk
12-11-2003, 00:01
quote:Originally posted by Gothmog
You also do not address fertilizer use,...
True. Maybe I was staring at the word "Poison" like a rabbit would stare at the snake, while ignoring euphonic terms like fertilizer. High nitrat levels can be as poisonous as pesticides.
quote:It is not only mass produced food that makes use of herbicides and insecticides, and most of these do not persist in the environment.
...
The core issue is ecological impact per unit food produced, all the research I have seen implies that this impact is about the same or larger for locally produced food.
I tried to google some links about the impact of pesticides on the environment and on humans. I have to admit, that I didn't find much - at least when leaving out Greenpeace and industry pages.
- until I searched Sciam:
Explaining California's Amphibian Declines:
"While crucial to the agriculture industry, pesticides by their very nature can result in serious harm to wildlife both by directly killing animals and through subtle effects on reproduction, development and behavior,"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C2EBE-2E0E-1C68-B882809EC588ED9F&catID=1
Controversy heats up about chlorfenapyr, a.k.a. Pirate--a pesticide some claim is the next DDT:
In an EPA-mandated lab study by American Cyanamid, mallard ducks were fed 2.5 parts per million of chlorfenapyr--an amount an EPA official stated was close to the residue left in the wild. That group laid 30.13 eggs, compared with 50.75 for the control group, and the hatching rate was 48 percent, compared with the control's 65 percent. The final average weight of adults was also lower.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005E4B6-E81E-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&catID=2
Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
That's the conclusion of a new study in today's issue of Nature, which compared the economics of organic apple farms and conventional ones. "The organic system was more energy efficient, it was better for the environment, it had better soil quality, its yields were as good as the other systems, it was more profitable, and its apples were slightly sweeter and firmer," says co-author John Reganold of Washington State University.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F36A1-998D-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F&catID=1
Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
In 1978 the researchers began studying four plots of land planted with winter wheat, potatoes, beets, grass clover and barley (see image). Farmers cultivated two of these fields conventionally. For the remainder, they utilized organic methods, substituting compost and manure for synthetic fertilizers and using mechanical weeding and plant extracts instead of chemical pesticides. The scientists found that organic soils harbored about 50 percent fewer nutrients (because plants received no artificial fertilizer) but yielded on average only 20 percent less crop. Thus, plants farmed organically used available nutrients more efficiently. How does this happen? It seems that biodiversity on organic land is far higher than in traditionally cultivated soils. Moreover, root-colonizing fungi that help plants absorb nutrients, as well as pest-eating spiders and nutrient-cycling soil microbes, exist in significantly greater numbers on organically tilled plots.
Detractors of organic farming point out that even though such methods may work well in Switzerland, they might not be profitable in countries where the government does not subsidize farmers. In addition, such so-called natural methods may be difficult to apply on a larger scale, as in commercial farms in the U.S. But this 21-year study suggests that organic cultivation may be both more sustainable than traditional pesticide and fertilizer-driven practices and as prosperous. "I think our research could stimulate governments to encourage [organic methods] by showing long-term benefits," Mäder remarks. "These results are encouraging for farmers, because they can see that yields are stable over time and that soil fertility has increased."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00009157-9E6C-1CFB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=1
Shabbaman
12-11-2003, 09:04
quote:Originally posted by smalltalk
I tried to google some links about the impact of pesticides on the environment and on humans.
Heh. My roommate did a thesis on that. It's an extremely difficult field, in which you could produce any result you want. For instance, a researcher with a background in biology somehow will always find adverse effects on other (especially his pet...) species. A researcher with a background in statistical analysis will prove it's insignificant. A fact is (not going to prove it for you, take it) is that a lot of chemicals that might have an (direct)impact on humon health work on the 'hormonal' (I hope that's the right word) level. So they might interact with other, human, hormones, but the medical understanding of those principles is still rather weak.
The point here is that it'd be best if you'd use the precautionary principle. If you'd do that, there's very little room for commercial innovation though.
That is exactly the T-component of the IPAT equation, technological innovation. The equation reads like this: someone eats an amount of something and that is produced like this, having this environmental impact. The T factor is, well, production capital. The A is affluence, not inversed to P: affluence is the consumption per capita (per person), independant of P (well, if you'd have a fixed amount of food (for instance) and P rises, A has to drop obviously). You could read A as 'standard of living' if you like.
Your real pie in the sky is indeed the real problem as well. That's at least how I perceive it, and it isn't really motivating. In my field, the basis for assumptions is the equity principle (same share for each), since this would rule out the 'need for the same as my neighbor', and thus end all wars. Voila, world peace. Obviously, I doubt that. My motivation is the simple 'knowledge is power'.
Equity amongst people is pretty far away, but I hope equity amongst nations is something I'll see in this lifetime. The point EA describes connects to that I think. Equity amongst nations includes laws prohibiting exploits abroad.
The only (major) problem here is the same thing what's hindering international maritime agreements: all countries in the world have to comply. The Kyoto protocol is a nice example... But think how many ships have a panamese flag...
@Ehecatl Atzin: I will not try to justify Americas foreign policy in South America, I certainly would have done things differently. Same for support of non-democratic governments. But that is a huge topic. My point was simply about capitalism and democracy, they are not a failure from my perspective. Specific systems as implemented by humans will always have their shortfalls. I truly hope that the South American postmodernists can come up with a system that works for them as well capitalism and democracy has worked for us. I wouldn’t be surprised if that system did implement parts of liberal democracy, and capitalism, in another (hopefully more moral) guise. Just because humans are inherently imperfect, and the US has made some terrible foreign policy decisions, doesn’t mean that liberal democracy and capitalism couldn’t work in SA at some point in the future. These systems don’t inherently involve injecting all types of values and social relations, just a few and ones I happen to hope are universal (freedom and vested interest).
I am interested in what direction you see for SA to obtain prosperity of the type we have been discussing.
I would not say that they have the right to choose who gets to live, but I would caution that it is the prospect of profit that has brought most of these drugs into existence in the first place.
@Smalltalk – Yes, as Shabba says consensus in this field is hard to find and the hormonal link is the most troubling. Rest assured that we would know if there was a large direct effect from a pesticide. From what I understand the majority of the hormonal mimics that you find in nature are from two sources: first, plastics (PVC etc); second drugs. The drugs are typically from urban centers, you piss them out when you take them (some active metabolites in this category), people also dump unused portions. The drugs are also used in the livestock and poultry industries. It may be that organo-phosphorus compounds also play a role. The dying frog issue has been around for a long time (30 years?) and no consensus has been reached. I did not say that there is no impact from pesticides, I have a background that includes environmental toxicology, I said there were trade off’s. Also that locally produced food (in general even organic) uses pesticides and insecticides too and is harder to regulate. Finally that the issue is ecological impact per unit food produced, and that locally produced food doesn’t win hands down on this metric. I have read the apple farm article before, along with various rebuttals. It does seem that organic farming is better for the soil; there is emerging consensus on that point. But even that (obviously pro-organic) article states: “"There's been criticism that organic yields are lower than conventional yields," Reganold says. "In general that is true, but not always. This study showed that with apples, organic yields can compare favorably with integrated and conventional systems." Apples are a good organic crop because (as I mentioned above) their peels contain high levels of ‘natural’ pesticides. I already pointed out some of the trade offs mentioned in the last article, reduced yield, more labor intensive. Also that many of the techniques used do not transfer well to farms of the size we have in America.
@Shabba – My point was that technological innovation increases with prosperity, and prosperity increases with technological innovation, there is a definite feedback at work here – a nonlinear relationship. If T goes up, A goes up also, and yet I often goes down. It is A that allows people in Europe and America to decide to support organic agriculture in the first place. Also, if we look at the rate of population growth, it is certainly inversely related to A. Also, my point about physical location in relation to I was meant to be a point about one of the pitfalls of distributed production as opposed to localized production.
The best example I know of is the Montreal Protocol, it actually is working. Kyoto was a good example of how politics and local concerns are often the bottom line (e.g. the way that carbon credits for forest growth etc. are included). FWIW I have worked on both in my life, from the science side. I collected and analyzed data that is used to verify the Montreal Protocol as a postdoc, and also published a paper that was referenced by the IPCC document used by the Kyoto protocol to help define the science (estimating the residence time of methyl bromide in the atmosphere, a gas I was studying in relation to the Montreal Protocol). I believe in a better future, and am trying to do my part to make it real.
I do not know if humans are capable of living in harmony, either with nature (sustainable development) or with themselves (world peace, heck even local peace). I have seen no evidence that this is the case. IMO it will take a well developed system, political and economic, to enforce these things.
Ehecatl Atzin
12-11-2003, 20:34
quote:Originally posted by Gothmog
...My point was simply about capitalism and democracy, they are not a failure from my perspective.
Well, no, cause they've worked for you [:p] I think latinamerican societies are simply tired of trying to implement them when there is so much stuff working against it, I mean, with deals like NAFTA we aren't even free to pass legislation anymore.
To start with, these societies do not have in their historical process a democratic experience; most jumped from a colonial regime to republics. Ideologies are very hard to change; as I like to say about Mexico, "we went to sleep a monarchy and awoke a republic"; stuff like that just doesn't happen over night unless there is a willingness to do so; there wasn't one over here. So now that societies wanted democracy and capitalism and all that they ofered... imperialist nations acted against it, the same nations that gave the world democratic ideas...
quote: I am interested in what direction you see for SA to obtain prosperity of the type we have been discussing.
I'm inclined to say monarchies. A parlament system is, at least in Mexico, a reasonable idea. Mexicans aren't democratic, we do not have that in mind, we are a paternalistic society, we look for a leader, a person, and follow him/her; not institutions. I guess that's the heritage of monarchic goverments under aztec/maya/tarasco/mixteco/zapoteco... rule plus 300 years as a colony, social moldings like that are hard to break. I think it could be a constitutional monarchy with a strong federal system that allows states to decide on their own issues backed by a strong national plan; national monopolies like oil and energy production and strong goverment aid/protection to agriculture.
That sort of system could work, but it's very improbable with the whole economic interdependency LA has with the States and Europe; basically, the States, the World Bank and the WTF won't let it happen.
smalltalk
12-11-2003, 20:57
Gothmog, from what I heard, I agree that hormonal effects are mostly caused from non-agricultural substances.
quote: Rest assured that we would know if there was a large direct effect from a pesticide.
Of course. But what about the combined effects of small doses of various substances?
quote: I did not say that there is no impact from pesticides, ... I said there were trade off’s. ...
Also that locally produced food (in general even organic) uses pesticides and insecticides too and is harder to regulate.
Let me clarify that I would rather see organic food in mass production, than local production of high-tech food.
There have been reports that "organic" farmers would use copper-containing compounds as "natural" pesticides. I guess you know that copper is potent cell-poison. But do you know that this practice has only been outruled by local natural food distributors as late as 2003?
On the trade-offs. Basic question is: do we want cheap food? Or do we want to avoid applying substances that might or might not turn out to be unhealthy?
The economical side is:
I just today bought a few organic cucumbers at 2.29 EUR.
The same amount of cucumber bought at a supermarket might have cost .99 EUR.
The use of energy intensive chemicals is cheap, while the use of human labour is expensive.
The ecological side:
Look at safety procedures that come with pesticides. You have to wear safety clothing. You have to watch exposure time. You have to avoid spills and so on.
This does not assure me of the harmless nature of those substances.
Not treating crops at all with any substance should be more healthy than any treatment. (On the other hand: some microbiological funghi are very toxic. So the use of funghicides might be quite healthy.)
One last remark about organic food: I guess most consumers would be shocked to find a snail while preparing their salad. [scared2]
smalltalk
12-11-2003, 23:59
Very random and incoherent musings about Utopia.
Also an all-round-about ranting on the state-of-the-world in general:
quote:Ehecatl Atzin
...capitalism, neo-liberalism and imperialism are also failing to give answers... at least to the "developing" world, that has stopped believing in the values the west has tried to implement: democracy, liberty, fraternity.. blah blah blah;... the so-called third world no longer believes in the west, we don't give a fuck about a democratic process because they have proved their failure, ...
Do you blame the very principles here? Or do you blame the West, that has not been able to live up to its own standards?
It's quite a difference.
quote:Gothmog
The problem is that when humans are presented with the option, the vast majority will choose western levels of prosperity.
A decade ago, eastern Germany was facing this question. They choose in favour of western cars, cable TV and having debts on their bank account...
quote:Gothmog
Unfortunately for all of us the world is a tough place, no Garden of Eden. People have never lived in peace, prosperity, and freedom.
Well, here in Germany, nobody has to starve. Even if you choose to drop out, public welfare will supply you to your basic demands: food, dwelling, a washing machine and a TV-set. You might find yourself in short supply of beer, wine and weed though.
Europe has been a rather peaceful place for half a century. And I enjoy lots of liberties when compared to my Chinese or Saudi-arabian co-humans. I'm allowed to pull out the verbal [estwing] without being put into jail.
quote: Politics and religion trump science every time in the current state of affairs.
Viewed on a large time-scale, it is rather science and a humanistic mind-set that trumped over religion and machiavellian power-politics. Temporarily and local drawbacks not withstanding. Religious people like Martin Luther have open some new paths, so that the scientific/philosphical ideas of Copernicus and Galilei et al. could have been discussed at large. The whole western civilization is based on the unbiased discussion of ideas, where still every participiant has to face fierce, but not necesarily malovelent critizism by his peers.
quote:I was also thinking of our 40 hour work week,
more than 400 years ago, Thomas Moore wrote in his Utopia novel, that 4 hours of work a day should be enough for mankind, if only the real needs of the people were adressed, and no superfluent stuff was produced.
But who is to decide what is superfluent: a certain car? Cosmetics? Defense budget?
Now of course, many people desire to rather drive a Merc or a BMW than a Toyota. Even less people consider going by train...
Isn't it strange, that with all our machines and computers we have to work more that your average Yanomani savage?
What is really necessary?
I realize that population density is much higher now than it was when we were "noble" savages. Rendering hunter-seeker strategies impossible.
About military and defense:
Germany has got more tanks than India. Probably, after the Soviet Union fell apart, Germany has got the worlds greatest tank army!
Likewise, the US are spending more than 1/3 of the world "defense" budget. We Europeans are spending the next 1/3 of it. The whole rest of the world, including
Russia, China, India, Southern America, Africa, Arabia is spending the remaining 1/3.
Now who has to worry?
I don't want my tax to be spent on such issues. I could understand, if the Dutch would prepair against a German invasion. But I really don't see why we Europeans prepare for the onslaught of the Arabs or the Africans by bying more Eurofighters. We got too much money to spare, I feel.
quote:I do not know if humans are capable of living in harmony, either with nature (sustainable development) or with themselves (world peace, heck even local peace). I have seen no evidence that this is the case.
Viewed from a geological time-scale, the human race is quite fresh. It was only yesterday, when we climbed down the trees.
It was only 500 years ago (compared to 15.000.000.000 years of universe age), when Copernicus realized, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. It was only 140 years ago, when Darwin realized the descent of mankind. 100 years age, psychologists opend a door into our unconsciousnes. About the same time, Einstein reshaped our idea of Space and Time.
And so on ...
What I want to say: we have only yet began to understand. We are only on the verge of becoming an intelligent species. Still we are often governed by insticts.
I often use this metaphor:
Imagine the world to be a loave of bread. Human Civilization is like a mould that broke out on various places. The bread is still not entirely covered by the mould by now!
As soon as modern civilization will have reached any place in the world, we are about to see sort of a phase change. We can only destinguish ourselves from the anmimals, if we are able to think in terms of non-linear differential equations as opposed to simple yes/no answers.
Anyway. Friendly cooperation is one of the most efficient tools we have at hand.
quote:anarres
in summary: we're fucked, so enjoy it while it lasts!
This is cultural pessimism. I guess, we would have been fucked more in the ancient times.
I'm not sure, whether the "human condition" is improving, but it is surely not deminishing.
I am totally convinced that the human condition is improving. Europe and America are totally unprecidented in terms of the number of people working together, and the amount of peace and levels of prosperity that we have enjoyed in the last 50 years. Even with that, we have been involved in wars and (in America at least) we have people living with hunger. I don't think it is impossible that humans will someday live in harmony with nature and each other, I even have moments of optimism, but if we take history and current affairs as our guide there is little evidence to suggest such a thing.
On pesticides, local acute toxicity in fact has little to do with ecological impact. In general toxic things are also unstable things, and thus don't persist in the environment for long enough to do serious harm. DDT for example was a problem specifically because it is relatively inert, that and it's ability to bioaccumulate.
As for work, I enjoy my work. I think that humans in general are happier when they feel that they are involved in and contributing to something important. Something larger than themselves. To do that does take some input of time, 4 hours a day seems a bare minimum.
Ehecatl Atzin
14-11-2003, 21:11
quote:Originally posted by smalltalk
Do you blame the very principles here? Or do you blame the West, that has not been able to live up to its own standards?
It's quite a difference.
It's a mix of the two. On one hand there is the West that has given these values of freedom and democracy to the world, but on the other hand it has made it clear it will not support them outside it's borders. Why can The States and Europe pass legislation protecting their agriculture and industry but when the same legislation is passed by other countries they are imediatly slaped with detering trade and unfair practices? Why can the States pass a 30% tarif on steel imports but boicots Mexico for having a national monopoly on comunications? Ask yourself why has capitalism been so efective in the West but failed so miserably elsewhere, except Japan that has used that same imperialistic model in Asia, I highly doubt it is because those people can't implement it correctly... at the very least it is because those systems of production aren't adecuate to those people, at the most it is because outside influence hasn't let it happen.
So you see, our societies cannot believe in those priciples because they emanate from nations that we've learned not to trust. Anything that comes from the States is viewed with suspition and with a lesser degree the things that come from Europe (except for argentinians... most can't stand England).
And I'n not saying socialism is the way to go, on a very broad view of them, capitalism and socialism tend to the same end; it is the way they get to it that differs. The "third world" needs to implement systems created by them specifically for their societies and stop importing social proyects and ways of production created for societies that have little to do with them. And the West needs to stop exporting these plans as if they where the only way to achieve progress, some values are universal, but the way you implement them is how they differ. Liberty is understood very diferently around the world, from a classroom in Frankfurt to the jungles of Brazil, and people need to be able to implement them how they see fit, not how others think, or think they think [crazyeye], suits them best.
smalltalk
17-11-2003, 22:02
quote:Ehecatl Atzin
On one hand there is the West that has given these values of freedom and democracy to the world, but on the other hand it has made it clear it will not support them outside it's borders.
Yes, listening to some politicians, one might get the impression that they talk about our freedom to sell McDonalds burgers, Coca-cola and DaimlerChrysler cars to the rest of the world.
Also, it has become fashionable to defend one's own country abroad, and not on one's own turf.
quote:Why can The States and Europe pass legislation protecting their agriculture and industry but when the same legislation is passed by other countries they are imediatly slaped with detering trade and unfair practices? Why can the States pass a 30% tarif on steel imports but boicots Mexico for having a national monopoly on comunications?
The answer is of course hipocrasy or selfishness, probably both.
Bert Brecht once said:
Food comes before morals.
Sometimes I wonder, if not also cars and color TV would come before morals.
quote:Ask yourself why has capitalism been so efective in the West...
Effective? For more than 100 years, we have been trying to minimize the ill effects of capitalism. Karl Marx and other communists get a lot of bashing. But in fact, their ideas helped to bring a basic welfare system into existence, only nobody wants to credit them. Environmentalists also get a lot of bashing, but their ideas helped that our nature is recovering from dead rivers and acid rain forrests.
Could I name positive effects of capitalism? Maybe having personal super computers available, that allow you to play CivIII on huge maps with reasonable response time. [satan]
quote:...but failed so miserably elsewhere,
I am quite sure, the western capitalists had their local collaborators. I assume people to be basically the same everywhere. A capitalist system might have emergered everywhere without interference from outside.
Otoh, my friends, those who have seen more of the world than I have, always tell me I should travel more, to get some other perspectives...
quote: So you see, our societies cannot believe in those priciples because they emanate from nations that we've learned not to trust.
I'm not going to trust my own nation, too.
About democracy: it's not a magic wand, it is fallible. Hitler came to power by democratic means. There is a saying: To trust is good, but to check is better.
quote:except for argentinians... most can't stand England
How come? [rolleyes]
quote:Darwin, Voyage of the Beatle
After the pessession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain and England, they were left unihabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them as the old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishmen who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when he arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers.
The theater is worthy of the scenes acted on it. An undulating land, with a desolate and wretched aspect, is everywhere covered by a peaty soil and wiry grass, of one monotonous brown colour. ...
What Darwin didn't know back then: there is oil!
quote:Ehecatl Atzin
Liberty is understood very diferently around the world, from a classroom in Frankfurt to the jungles of Brazil...
I don't know about the jungles of Brazil. (Though I know a girl that has been there, irritating the local christian missionary by running topless.)
But I do know about my classrooms and how liberty was understood there. We had a female teacher in elementary school that still used to use a stick to punish children. None of the other teachers would speak up, nor one of our parents. She was also a teacher of religion. About that time I started to feel, or rather realize, that grown-ups could be damned liars.
Ehecatl Atzin
18-11-2003, 21:34
quote:Originally posted by smalltalk
...also, it has become fashionable to defend one's own country abroad, and not on one's own turf.
Well, internal affairs of each country rarely make the front page of the international community, unless of course it affects them in some way. So most of the native-politician-bashing ocurs in other arenas ;)
quote:
Effective? ...could I name positive effects of capitalism? Maybe having personal super computers available, that allow you to play CivIII on huge maps with reasonable response time. [satan]
Well, that's efective. That's what capitalism is about, it isn't a religious or a social structure system, it's a system about the means of production and economic structures emanated from a society that was ready and able for that type of system. Capitalism can't give you happiness or love or even a good night's sleep; it can give you cars and burgers and supercomputers, it gives you financial wealth and nothing more. So on that stance, capitalism has worked for the west, and those societies have learned to mold it and take answers to tehir questions from it, but after all, it's because they created it.
quote: ...a capitalist system might have emergered everywhere without interference from outside.
Could be, but look at the production systems if native americans (from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego) it's more of a socialist system where the means of production are owned by the community not by a few and the wealth of that production is divided among the community, not, again, by a few. What course that would have taken withouth the interferance of the european invasion of 1492 we'll never know.
quote:About democracy: it's not a magic wand, it is fallible. Hitler came to power by democratic means. There is a saying: To trust is good, but to check is better.
That's the problem, it was sold as a magic wand and sadly most if not all nations (or leaders) believed that and tried to apply western democracy to non-western societies. The Americas aren't given to "check" their politians, it's very complex in that way. We like to feel the goverment is doing it's job without us pushing it and checking it; historically, there has been a vote of confidence given to leaders in hopes of him/her doing a good job regardless wether there is an eye on him/her or not. This checking to see if the goverment is doing what is supposed to be doing is a new concept in these societies, as a whole, and it's cumbersome to follow it up. How do I explain this... southamerican societies think it's not their job to put their noses into the goverments business, it isn't considered their business, it's the goverment's. It's an odd mix of respect/confidence and tradition. Of course many many leaders have taken advantage of this and done with entire nations what they see fit... thankfully southamerican societies are learning to get involved in the course their nations are taking, they are taking a more active role in the process, slowly and painfully, but it's starting.
quote:
What Darwin didn't know back then: there is oil!
We're talking about the Malvinas Islands right?
quote:
I don't know about the jungles of Brazil. (Though I know a girl that has been there, irritating the local christian missionary by running topless.)...I started to feel, or rather realize, that grown-ups could be damned liars.
I'm sure the local christian missionary was also irritated by the topless women that live in the jungle and tried to change that too... but don't get me started on missionaries...[aargh] Yep, grown-ups can be damned good liars, especially those with power.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.