Westerners' Rights and Globalization...

[Zorro]

Gadfly said

In the end, this ?impending environmental catastrophe? nonsense really is a form of evangelicalism. It is certainly not supported by history or science.

 

It certainly does seem to be supported by science and scientists. There is no end to the amount of scientific evidence available that points to an impending environmental catastrophe. I suggest you do some reading on the topic because their is abundant evidence out there. You might like to start with David Suzuki the Canadian geneticist.

I am not sure where you come up with your pie in the sky assertions linking evangelicalism with environmental degradation. One is based on fact (hard core scientific evidence) and the other is based on faith. In fact I would suggest your argument is more based on faith and therefore more akin to evangelicalism than mine. If we want to use history as our guidepost to the future it is indeed a frightenening prospect because what seems to run pretty consistently throughout history is that greed and power are the greatest motivators of human behaviour.

 

 

Gadfly said

In the end, this ?impending environmental catastrophe? nonsense really is a form of evangelicalism. It is certainly not supported by history or science. Rather it stems from a religious certainty that man is inherently evil and cannot be trusted to make the right decisions; the moral certainty that higher authorities ? in past ages and still in the US, religious authorities, but in other ?more sophisticated? circles, all knowing and benevolent bureaucrats ? are required to restrain our evil natures and show us the path. Can?t let people make decisions for themselves ? that is just too plain dangerous!

 

I am not quite sure what your point here is or why you have decided yet again to go off in a tangent and start a discussion about the 'concept of original sin'. I think we should leave that one to the theologians. Although i would say there is a powerful amount of evidence out there to suggest there is some validity in that proposition.

You seem to think that I am suggesting or there is only one alternative to free markets or free choice(even thou there is no such thing as free markets anyway or for that matter free choice but i will put that aside for the moment ). That is we have a dictatorship or oligarchy. I have never suggested this.( lthough in certain cases a benevolent dictatorship may actually be a very effective and beneficial form of government.)

What i am suggesting is a sort of representative world government that is truly reflective of the needs of most of the worlds population and not what we have currently which is an oligarchy of multi nationals and an oligarchy of rich countries plundering the worlds natural resources for the benefit of a very small proportion of the worlds population.

[gummigut]

"Glad you actually are getting the gist what I have been saying all along. I guess this is sort of an admission from you that "free markets" are not a cure all for every economy."

 

You don't get it. It's not an admission. What I said is the point of whether protectionism is good or bad for one specific country is arguable on BOTH sides. When you look at the whole system that's another story.

 

"Glad to see your shifting your platform and tone in regards to "free trade"."

 

Huh, wherever have I ever shifted my platform? You must be confusing me with someone else (though hard that is to believe).

 

Regarding oil... Yes methodologies and estimates differ and shift all the time. But it gets back to the point that the pie is always growing. You keep saying that the supply of oil is finite (which it has to be). My point is that technology extends those resources. When oil is depleted technology will again increase the supply by harnessing other types of energy.

 

Back to the point, the pie is growing. Though at some point, we're going to reach human population saturation of the earth. Hopefully we'll have conquered space, but that's a question we probably won't have to deal with in our lifetime.

 

<<burp>>

[Steve]

Zorro said:

What i am suggesting is a sort of representative world government that is truly reflective of the needs of most of the worlds population and not what we have currently which is an oligarchy of multi nationals and an oligarchy of rich countries plundering the worlds natural resources for the benefit of a very small proportion of the worlds population.

 

I'm late in this debate and won't add anything new I'm afraid. Don't see this representative world government happening. Human nature suggests we'll all have to fight over something whether it be color, religion or dick size.

Nice thought, but it will never happen I'm afraid.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Redd Foxx...sheeeet. I remember listening to his records at a friend's house back in the 50's (while his parents were at work). He was a funny SOB !!! Never thought he'd make it to TV

 

Hugh (mak)

[jxxxl]

Zorro,

 

Throughout this very interesting thread, you have been blathering on about "overwhelming" evidence or support for your arguments and yet you fail to cite this evidence and don't offer up any argument other than your own opinion. You also write as though the science on the economy and environment is completely one-sided. I can assure you there are as many scientists on the opposing side of the greenie lobby as on it.

 

If you anti-globalization tree huggers could ever make an intelligent argument, you may be able to change something. For now, this group are just background noise to the leaders that are trying to keep a balance while moving this world forward.

[Zorro]

As usual you have offered nothing on the topic except a few fatuous comments.

"If you anti-globalization tree huggers could ever make an intelligent argument, you may be able to change something. For now, this group are just background noise to the leaders that are trying to keep a balance while moving this world forward."

 

Great contribution

Go back and read the thread.

I did post some links in support of my argument but then was accused of just posting links.

 

" I can assure you there are as many scientists on the opposing side of the greenie lobby as on it"

 

That is news to me. Most scientists have accepted that global warming is happening and there are very few dissenting voices out there. Scientists cannot dispute that rainforests are disappearing or that there are salinity problems with the soil.

So what you are saying is that global warming, deforestation , desalination, algae blooms, resource management etc are not happening and are insignificant problems. You would be in a very small minority. Your average 10 year old at school knows full well the environmental problems the world is facing.

 

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec10/b65lec10.htm

 

 

You probably wont even read these links as you have your head buried in the sand over this issue.

The second link is provided by the EPA. The US environmental protection agency.

If you bother to do a google search you will see an overwhelming amount of evidence on the environmental problems that we are facing.

[jxxxl]

As usual you have offered nothing on the topic except a few fatuous comments.

 

jxxxl> You're right, just like you.

 

Great contribution

Go back and read the thread.I did post some links in support of my argument but then was accused of just posting links.

 

jxxxl> Yep. Posting links and alarmist rhetoric aren't much of a contribution. Gadfly's been doing a pretty good job with his end and I don't have much to add to it other than calling you out on some nonsense.

 

Most scientists have accepted that global warming is happening and there are very few dissenting voices out there. Scientists cannot dispute that rainforests are disappearing or that there are salinity problems with the soil.

So what you are saying is that global warming, deforestation , desalination, algae blooms, resource management etc are not happening and are insignificant problems.

 

jxxxl> The question is not whether it's happening or not, it's a matter of degree and whether or not, as you say, it is "sustainable" or not. While I think most scientist would agree that the worlds resources are being consumed (pretty obvious eh) there are many scientists and economists that would argue that it is sustainable.

 

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec10/b65lec10.htm

 

jxxxl> :sleeping: Well, I guess that's a concensus then.

 

You probably wont even read these links

 

jxxxl> You're right, I won't.

 

as you have your head buried in the sand over this issue.

 

jxxxl> Same can be said for you mate. The world must move forward and the innovations that's going to make it sustainable are coming from the evil corporations.

 

The second link is provided by the EPA. The US environmental protection agency.

If you bother to do a google search you will see an overwhelming amount of evidence on the environmental problems that we are facing.

 

jxxxl> So I take it the concensus on this issue should be measured by search results. Lets see, google~google~google , what's the worlds position on prostitution, or capitalism for that matter?

[JJsushi]

gummigut said:

"Glad you actually are getting the gist what I have been saying all along. I guess this is sort of an admission from you that "free markets" are not a cure all for every economy."

 

You don't get it. It's not an admission. What I said is the point of whether protectionism is good or bad for one specific country is arguable on BOTH sides. When you look at the whole system that's another story.

 

What you seem to conveniently overlook is that I maintain that protectionism exists in every market and is used by every nation. There is no "free trade" that exists between nations. What you and others have been talking is 'free trade or market' theory, yet you speak about the theory as if it is a fact. I have always been in agreement that unrestricteed trade is a great ideal, yet very impractical. You guys start talking about N. Korea, the former Soviet Union , etc as if you have some sort of evidence that lack of free trade is the basis for the woes of their systems vs the US and Western Europe.

 

 

"Glad to see your shifting your platform and tone in regards to "free trade"."

 

Huh, wherever have I ever shifted my platform? You must be confusing me with someone else (though hard that is to believe).

 

I was referring to your shift from free trade being a panacea to the use of the term "freer trade" and possibly "fair trade". then again I could have confsed you with another poster.

 

 

Regarding oil... Yes methodologies and estimates differ and shift all the time. But it gets back to the point that the pie is always growing. You keep saying that the supply of oil is finite (which it has to be). My point is that technology extends those resources. When oil is depleted technology will again increase the supply by harnessing other types of energy.

 

You rely way too much on the 'technology' argument. As f today there is no viable energy alternative to replace our dependence on oil. Even if you combine all of the energy alternatives you wouldn't even crack 20%. What is also missing in your argument is the fact that many of these energy alternatives are still dependent on an oil based industry to create the paltform For instance you need oil to build and maintain a nuclear power plant, you need oil to mine and extract certain materials to produce components used in alternative energy infrastructure. Solar, nuclear, geothermal, wind, etc are not viable options to replace oil, they are great sources to complement oil use. The majority of people really don't realize how dependent the global economy is on cheap oil.

 

The other element of your argument that is missing is that you don't adress human consumption. Regardless of what alternative energy source you utilize and no matter how many technological innovations are made, the one constant has been that human consumption has increased.

 

Back to the point, the pie is growing. Though at some point, we're going to reach human population saturation of the earth. Hopefully we'll have conquered space, but that's a question we probably won't have to deal with in our lifetime.

 

<<burp>>

 

Dude, the size of the pie may grow but there is definitely less filling for the pie.

 

You are giving the old "pie in the sky" wishful thinking with the old 'conquer space" and technology will save us from our own consumption.

 

Actually your arguments remind me of those economists that follow the "New Growth Theory", basically efficiency through the use of technology will create continuous and potentially limitless economic growth. Unfortunately that theory does not hold up too well when applied to the laws of physics and particularly thermodynamics. Also it still does not address the issue that improved technology tends to create MORE CONSUMPTION, thereby nullifying any savings in the resources utilized. it also does not adress the growth of consumption by basic population growth.

 

Then again one could argue that technology will allow us to find another planet to consume or maybe we will find a social mechanism that will force us to decrease the human population and thus consumption.

[gummigut]

Sigh. REITERATE again.

 

jjsushi: "I guess this is sort of an admission from you that "free markets" are not a cure all for every economy."

 

Me: I never said free markets is a cure all for every economy. I believe everyone would be better off when the dust settles.

 

It's not an admission that you're "right". What I said is "the point of whether PROTECTIONISM is good or bad for one specific country is arguable on BOTH sides."

 

jjsushi: "There is no "free trade" that exists between nations. What you and others have been talking is 'free trade or market' theory, yet you speak about the theory as if it is a fact."

 

Just because there is no "pure" (however % you want to define that as) free trade example doesn't mean the principles are not at work, as I SAID before, it's being demonstrated 24x7 as trade barriers on the whole have been declining as the world moves towards free (or freer as you would like it) trade.

 

"Glad to see your shifting your platform and tone in regards to "free trade"."

 

You don't get it again. I've never shifted my position. PLEASE illustrate where I have.

 

"Even if you combine all of the energy alternatives you wouldn't even crack 20%"

 

This is a tiresome argument. We STILL have oil. Humans are lazy assed human beings, and until forced to kicking and screaming, we won't change. The spurious argument that all the other energy alternatives don't add up to 20% is spurious. It doesn't negate their current ability to be much more than the existing 20% (your number).

 

"Unfortunately that theory does not hold up too well when applied to the laws of physics and particularly thermodynamics."

 

Yes, but what we actually SEE is exactly that, continuous economic growth and extending/expanding resources. But as I said in my previous post, like the US deficit, there's got to be a limit somewhere, doesn't there? But we just haven't seen it nor are we likely too anytime soon (well, the sharp US deficit expansion may be reigned in a bit soon).

 

<<burp>>