[Veleda]

KnightofPhoenix said:

And here's the biggest myth and the most mentioned of false dichotomies perpetuated by corporations to continue their short sighted illogical and irrational policies. Economy vs environment.

As if the renewable energy sector can't create jobs. It does, and a lot of studies show that job creation out of fossil fuels is in fact pretty minimal. I know in Canada, official reports show that job creation is in fact pretty paltry compared to the billions of dollars thrown on these projects, the favoritism they are getting and the destruction they are inflicting.

You have your studies, I have my experience. Both of my grandfathers were oil men. That was before cheap imports made it too expensive to drill in Pennsylvania. Now there is technology to make it viable again, and the environmentalists will stop it if they can. "Not many jobs" in an area like ours is a lot of jobs- enough so that people can actually live without state assistance.

I agree that it is not a complete economy vs. environmentalism dichotomy. I support responsible stewardship of environmental resources. The problem is that I see very little of that among environmental activist groups. I see more of it in companies, in fact- not every company, but there are some responsible ones. Same with environmentalists vs. farmers. Farmers know about the stewardship of land, but environmentalists saddling them with regulations only means there are fewer small farms, except for the trendy organic farms near big cities that have a rich clientele that can afford boutique green living.

The problem is that activists are motivated most often by ideology first and practicality second. That is always a recipe for disaster.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

You have your studies, I have my experience. Both of my grandfathers were oil men. That was before cheap imports made it too expensive to drill in Pennsylvania. Now there is technology to make it viable again, and the environmentalists will stop it if they can. "Not many jobs" in an area like ours is a lot of jobs- enough so that people can actually live without state assistance.

Renewable energy can be as efficient in creating jobs.

Quote

The problem is that activists are motivated most often by ideology first and practicality second. That is always a recipe for disaster.

Well I don't know about the US.
My experience in Canada is vastly different otherwise I would not have been able to stand them. They are very practical and pragmatic and actually offer very viable ideas and solutions. Their argument is primarily from an economic and cost-efficiency stand point.

Sure, there are ideologues everywhere, including economists and policy makers who are stuck in old paradigms that need to die. But I would not generalize or even say that most of activists are like this.

[Demut]

It definitely needs both. An active citizenry and equally “active” institutions. By that I mean that it isn’t enough to vote with your wallet and other behavior-related activism if you are not doing this on a strictly political level as well. You can’t have one working effectively without the other. It certainly is necessary to pass (or abolish) laws to address certain issue and no amount of civil activism can replace that in these cases.

Veleda said:

You have your studies, I have my experience.

And I have my common sense. We really ought to conserve what little remains of our oil reserves and push for renewable energies as our main source of energy instead of wasting the last of this oh-so-tragically-important resource of ours. The longer you delay this change, the harder it will bite you and your children in the arse. I mean how much do we have until peak oil? A decade? Less? Has it already occurred? In any case, if we don’t speed things up we’re fucked either way.

[Vinterberg]

Why so focused on sound economies and job creation?
Why not common focus on creating a society without the rule of "you must become a voluntary slave for others, in order to survive - money is gooooood - now go buy stuff and be content!"? That way of running an entire world only leads to what we have today: people dying of hunger, poor people, people struggling just to keep their feet out of the mud - and a small handful of pigs with golden teeth, chewing away at our personal freedom.
Why is that okay on a level that makes us accept it as "that's just how it works"?
We haven't even tried on a serious scale to think (as mankind) about how it could be different.. Even though there's plenty of reasons for doing so.

These micro-solutions are no good in the long run. It's like putting duct-tape on a leaking dam on a regular basis, instead of looking at why it's constantly leaking!!!!

The first man who traded goods for clam shells many years ago should be beaten.
If he knew it would lead to bankers driving people from their homes and making the majority end up in debt so they can be controlled easily - he would probably just have departed with his goods without charge.
There's money to be had by doing wrong things - we all like money, but nobody as a whole likes what they do to our planet.
Why do we continue to place such importance in them? Because that's how it is? Yeah it is, until we make it different.

Oh man, I would love to see the world's population drop the entirety of their valuables in the streets and never look back, freeing themselves from the materialism that has consumed their minds to an unhealthy degree - that would shift some power.
We would live on, food is not scarce by any means - it's only because of money that some people go to bed feeling hungry.
Maybe (just maybe) we would even learn to respect each other more and feel a larger degree of compassion and love in ourselves?

[Veleda]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Renewable energy can be as efficient in creating jobs.

There are some proposals to bring in wind farms. I can think of nothing that would destroy the pristine beauty of our forests faster. There would be few jobs from it, except for the people who come in from outside to install them and then leave while the residents have to put up with the noise and visual pollution.

Quote

Sure, there are ideologues everywhere, including economists and policy makers who are stuck in old paradigms that need to die. But I would not generalize or even say that most of activists are like this.

Then our experience is entirely different.

[Veleda]

Vinterberg said:

Oh man, I would love to see the world's population drop the entirety of their valuables in the streets and never look back, freeing themselves from the materialism that has consumed their minds to an unhealthy degree - that would shift some power.
We would live on, food is not scarce by any means - it's only because of money that some people go to bed feeling hungry. ›››

If dropping your valuables means giving up the means for commercialized agriculture, transportation and storage systems, then food would certainly not be plentiful, because those are the only things which have allowed us to sustain this population density.

[Veleda]

Demut said:

And I have my common sense. We really ought to conserve what little remains of our oil reserves and push for renewable energies as our main source of energy instead of wasting the last of this oh-so-tragically-important resource of ours. The longer you delay this change, the harder it will bite you and your children in the arse. I mean how much do we have until peak oil? A decade? Less? Has it already occurred? In any case, if we don’t speed things up we’re fucked either way. ›››

Those things are not viable now, and now is when people need what those natural resources provide. The environmentalists are simply ensuring that the people who are unfortunate enough to live in their political orbit will have to pay others a premium to do what they could be doing for themselves, while the environmental impact is shifted, not reduced.

One-third of the pollution I'm breathing right now in the San Francisco Bay Area originated in China. I pay smog taxes so that China can make the cheap goods that are no longer viable to make here, in part because of California's exorbitant tax and regulation scheme, built upon a vision of a utopia put into place by people who no doubt didn't foresee this- or just didn't care.

[Vinterberg]

Veleda said:

If dropping your valuables means giving up the means for commercialized agriculture, transportation and storage systems, then food would certainly not be plentiful, because those are the only things which have allowed us to sustain this population density. ›››

..The world doesn't end if money is worthless - you're thinking "inside"...
There would still be just as many people who could operate equipment for mass-producing food?
You're more or less stating that if people aren't paid in valuables in return for their work, they won't lift a finger.
It's not like everything in this world looses it's potential if the monetary system falls, quite the opposite...!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

One-third of the pollution I'm breathing right now in the San Francisco Bay Area originated in China. I pay smog taxes so that China can make the cheap goods that are no longer viable to make here, in part because of California's exorbitant tax and regulation scheme, built upon a vision of a utopia put into place by people who no doubt didn't foresee this- or just didn't care. ›››

Yes, because companies don't go to China and other such places to exploit under-payed workers with little to no human rights, and child workers. Outsourcing is now to blame on environmentalists.

When China decided to open up to FDI with these kinds of conditions in addition to manipulating their currency, no one could out-compete them. Environmental regulation (which is sound and logical IF put in place by people who know what they are doing, it boggles my mind that people would oppose them) is a marginal cause if even that.

As for wind farms. There exists other alternatives, I am not an expert on your particular area. But I will not be convinced that there is no alternative to fossil fuels.
And alternative renewable energy is viable now, Scotland will transition to a fully green energy economy by 2020, that's only 7 years. If they can do it, there is no reason why other developed countries can't at least start doing it seriously.

[Vinterberg]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Scotland will transition to a fully green energy economy by 2020, that's only 7 years. ›››

Saying something and doing something is rarely the same in governmental issues

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

Environmental regulation (which is sound and logical IF put in place by people who know what they are doing, it boggles my mind that people would oppose them) is a marginal cause if even that.

No, we have to wait for temperature levels to rise to unbearable level before people will realize that we can't continue down the path we are already on and then it might be too late unless we take drastic measures, which will have negative effects in the long run.

Do people not recognize the increase in temperature over the last 20 years? I've noticed it and not because some scientist says so, but because I personally have felt it.

[Dragon'sDream]

Hundreds of millions marched on the streets protesting the war on Iraq, hundreds of countries requested that it not happen, the united nations demanded the US back off. What did any of it accomplish?

For decades, hundreds of millions have been protesting for an end to the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, as well as an end to the discrimination of Arabic Jews. What have they accomplished?

Millions are still protesting against Wall Street and their idiotic business practices. What have they accomplished?

Millions are protesting Japan's whaling industry. What have they accomplished?

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

Hundreds of millions marched on the streets protesting the war on Iraq, hundreds of countries requested that it not happen, the united nations demanded the US back off. What did any of it accomplish?

You mean dozens of countries. What did it accomplish? That NATO did not go in there full force and only the US and Britain did.

Quote

For decades, hundreds of millions have been protesting for an end to the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, as well as an end to the discrimination of Arabic Jews. What have they accomplished?

Slowing and even in some cases stopping and/or reversing Israeli settlers from expanding in Gaza or the West Bank. Ensuring the PLO and Hamas are not wiped out.

Quote

Millions are still protesting against Wall Street and their idiotic business practices. What have they accomplished?

Forced companies to recognize these people exist and deal with them.

Quote

Millions are protesting Japan's whaling industry. What have they accomplished?

Stopped Japan from outright legalizing it besides for "scientific" studies.

Is the impact as good as it could have been? No. But there IS an impact.

[dragonbird]

KnightofPhoenix said:

As for wind farms. There exists other alternatives, I am not an expert on your particular area. But I will not be convinced that there is no alternative to fossil fuels.
And alternative renewable energy is viable now, Scotland will transition to a fully green energy economy by 2020, that's only 7 years. If they can do it, there is no reason why other developed countries can't at least start doing it seriously. ›››

You're aware that if Scotland votes for independence in 2014, it is also intending to use oil revenues from the North Sea to fund its economy? I'm not sure that it's a good example to use.

[Dragon'sDream]

Quote

Is the impact as good as it could have been? No. But there IS an impact.

Exactly my point. Activism may help clean up the local environment, overturn a law, or stop a minor operation of a country/company, but it's not powerful enough to change the world. We can't even stop one country from killing whales, and it's not even a superpower.

The problem is that the vast majority of power is held by a very small minority. The average person is so insignificant, that once the powerful minority decide on something, it becomes impossible to tip the scale, regardless of how many people you put on the other side. Activism is severely limited in what it can do, and believing that it could stand toe-to-toe with governments/businesses is foolish.

I have participated in protests while at university, and intend to continue to do so now that I am out of it. I just don't anticipate it to work miracles. I have been disappointed too many times before for believing otherwise.

[Pangaea]

Dragon said:

Exactly my point. Activism may help clean up the local environment, overturn a law, or stop a minor operation of a country/company, but it's not powerful enough to change the world. We can't even stop one country from killing whales, and it's not even a superpower.

The problem is that the vast majority of power is held by a very small minority. The average person is so insignificant, that once the powerful minority decide on something, it becomes impossible to tip the scale, regardless of how many people you put on the other side. Activism is severely limited in what it can do, and believing that it could stand toe-to-toe with governments/businesses is foolish.

I have participated in protests while at university, and intend to continue to do so now that I am out of it. I just don't anticipate it to work miracles. I have been disappointed too many times before for believing otherwise. /> ›››

Tempting to comment a lot of things in here, but I'll at least start with this, and look at a bigger picture.

We are gathered here because of a game: The Witcher. In that game we basically live in the world as it was in the Middle Ages or thereabouts (bar magic of course). Is that similar to the world we live in now? Where kings can slaughter peasants at will if they so desire?

Earlier I mentioned the "No Taxation without Representation", which was the rallying cry for the democratic system really. It's not that long ago either. Only rich people used to have a vote, and before that basically just the king and his council. Now it's vastly different. Okay, that system is kind of slipping away, but it IS different and it IS better than it was "back in the day". How did that come about? Did the kings simply decide that "Hey, maybe we should give away a huge portion of our power to outside people, just to give them a break? Swell idea ain't it?" Or did that happen because of rebellions based on discontent among the peasantry and others?

These are long lines, but it's worth to think about, to lift our heads a little. A reasonably informed citizenry can achieve a lot by standing together and fighting for the same cause, or at least similar causes in the general direction of civilising society. Human history are riddles with such examples. We can go to newer examples too. Slavery existed and was taken for granted. Now it doesn't. It still exists, but it's not on quite the same grand scale (unless we include "wage slavery" but that's a totally different discussion). Before people couldn't vote, now (almost) everybody can. Women couldn't vote, now they can. An anti-war movement didn't exist, now it does. An environmental movement didn't exist, now it does. Apartheid existed for ages, then people finally stood up fairly united against it, and now it's gone (at least in South Africa).

All of this is down to, broadly speaking, citizen activism. It can have a huge impact, and often does. Is it as quick as we often should wish? Clearly not. All of the problems listed above persisted for a very long time. It's not an easy struggle to fight overwhelming power and influence, but it can be done if enough people are persistent enough over long time. That's where the challenge lies.

[Bloth]

What really sticks in my craw lately is how the politicians are using peoples prejudice for big business to draw attention from their own greed and profiteering. Take gas bills for examples, every winter quite a few old folk die because they can't afford the massive gas bills, so the MP's bitch and moan (but never actually do owt) about the companies profiteering. Seems reasonable until you break down the average gas bill and realise that the companies are making minimal profits (a few pennies,) while the governments taxes make up the majority (over 75%) of the bill.

Killing the people they're supposed to protect as their first priority, so that they can retire to cushy positions on the board of directors in these firms, and top up their massive state funded pensions. All the parties are at it, and will never seek to change it, because they don't represent the people just the continuation of their institution.

Need another fucking Cromwell, put the bastards to the sword.

[Vinterberg]

Pangaea said:

All of this is down to, broadly speaking, citizen activism. It can have a huge impact, and often does. Is it as quick as we often should wish? Clearly not. All of the problems listed above persisted for a very long time. It's not an easy struggle to fight overwhelming power and influence, but it can be done if enough people are persistent enough over long time. That's where the challenge lies. ›››

The problem is just that this modern world has us by our balls: we think of ourselves as free people, and we've got enough modern stuff around us to make us feel that it's "good enough"..
I agree with you though, but as you say: it will be a challenge.
Much more so than before in human history, because of the false sense of security and freedom - no obvious need for fighting. People laugh at the news of people attending Occupy Wallstreet, while sitting comfortably in their couch, eating candy and thinking "what's their problem, Jesus Christ!!"..
But it can be done, it's slowly beginning and more and more people are starting to realize stuff about how the world works - it will just take a loooong time if we continue to try to create huge changes by using the tools given by the system (why would it give us any real possibility of breaking it down, and thus loosing all of it's power?).

Edit: And I'm pretty sure that in many countries it's outright illegal to go actively against the government and democracy and so on, which turns people who wants any real change criminals that can be put into cages without anybody protesting - they would most likely stamp those people with the "terrorist"-tag, using the fear they placed into us via medias to make us understand why it's a good thing to lock them up. And the people I'm talking about here are people like myself, people who just wants genuine freedom and less evil in this world.

Look at this link, is it okay that high-ranking people from Facebook, Google and so on meets up with the people we elected to take care of us and not the big corporations? Do we get any insight in these meetings? None whatsoever.
Also, I'm not entirely happy with the biggest sites on the internet for sharing personal information is participating in these meetings - makes me dizzy to think about the possibilities for information-gathering on the largest scale to date.
Bilderberg participants

[Veleda]

Pangaea said:

Earlier I mentioned the "No Taxation without Representation", which was the rallying cry for the democratic system really. It's not that long ago either. Only rich people used to have a vote, and before that basically just the king and his council. Now it's vastly different.

It's not vastly different. The rich still control the political system. Democracy is an illusion, propped up by the relative wealth that technology has allowed a few countries to accumulate. If the wealth goes, by natural means or simply by collapsing in on itself, the system will crumble like a house of cards.

Not to be too cheerful or anything.

[grregg]

Veleda said:

It's not vastly different. The rich still control the political system. Democracy is an illusion, propped up by the relative wealth that technology has allowed a few countries to accumulate. If the wealth goes, by natural means or simply by collapsing in on itself, the system will crumble like a house of cards.

Not to be too cheerful or anything. /> ›››

Well, it might come as a shock, but nothing is forever. Even if the current political system will eventually collapse, doesn't mean it's an illusion. As someone once said "it the long run, we're all dead."