[Dragon'sDream]

Pangaea said:

Is that similar to the world we live in now? Where kings can slaughter peasants at will if they so desire?

Yes, it is, it's simply more subtle. If the powerful elite decided that something needs to be done, it would be done. They don't need any evidence, the approval of the people or other countries.

If the US wanted to slaughter every single Mexican, they would simply do it. Even if every single non-US man, women, and child banded together and demanded the opposite, it would happen nonetheless. That was the case with the Iraq war.

The US can detain any citizen and hold them for an indefinite amount of time without evidence or trial thanks to their "war on terror", and then torture them for information. This has included children. I am sure I don't need to go into details about Guantanamo Bay.

If a multibillion company decided it wanted to dig for oil, it would dig for the oil. They would bribe every politician in their way, bend every law that opposes them, buy out the media to block the spread of information.

Quote

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.

Slavery in the US ended not because of activism, but because the north replaced the need for slaves with factories. Had the north been dependent on slavery as well, people would still be slaves. Heck, some companies still depend on slavery to this day, it's simply outsourced. Ask those children in China/India how many wonders anti-slave activism has achieved.

It's the same thing with fossil fuels. Do you honestly believe that people are searching for alternative energy sources because of activism? Or is it because the oil reserves are drying up and the price of fossil fuels continues to rise?

Activism has only ever been a small contributor in a big game. It helps, but rarely does it decide the outcome of the game. There are exceptions of course, like Ghandi.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Too many comments for me to reply to, but excellent discussion guys!

I'll respond to this.

Dragon said:

If the US wanted to slaughter every single Mexican, they would simply do it. Even if every single non-US man, women, and child banded together and demanded the opposite, it would happen nonetheless. That was the case with the Iraq war.

Actually most Americans were for the Iraq war or indifferent (and why do you think there's a pullout now? In no small part because politicians see that the American public is now mostly opposed to it. The Same with vietnam, the withdrawal was in most part due to domestic opposition). Had there been mass mobilization that is truly effective and organized (and not just random protests that have no specific goal and fail at the media aspect), things would not have transpired as they did. Would they perhaps have gone ahead and done it anyways? Maybe, but they would have paid far larger political consequences.

Quote

If a multibillion company decided it wanted to dig for oil, it would dig for the oil. They would bribe every politician in their way, bend every law that opposes them, buy out the media to block the spread of information.

Most politicians want power, money being used to get that power. But they can't keep that power, even in dictatorships, if most people are opposed to them. It just doesn't happen, even the most ruthless of dictators can't hold power without at the very least implicit approval on the part of the populace.

Quote

Slavery in the US ended not because of activism, but because the north replaced the need for slaves with factories.

That is somewhat true (let's not forget the acts of activists who did make a difference - underground railroad), but what about the right to vote for black people and women? Surely activism played a major part. Not the only part for sure, there's never anything of note that happened because of one factor.

Quote

It's the same thing with fossil fuels. Do you honestly believe that people are searching for alternative energy sources because of activism? Or is it because the oil reserves are drying up and the price of fossil fuels continues to rise?

Since most serious activists call for renewable energy for this reason, I don't see your point. Of course activism has brought the issue to the forefront and have brought up problems that people didn't think about or notice.
Many of these activists end up as politicians who do end up making a difference.

Quote

Activism has only ever been a small contributor in a big game. It helps, but rarely does it decide the outcome of the game. There are exceptions of course, like Ghandi. />/>

I don't think it's as small as you think. At least, its potential is far from small. The truth of the matter is that activists constitute a tiny share of the populace. If a bigger part becomes active in an organized and efficient way, in whatever capacity, I think its potential is vast.

I'm not really an idealist, I believe that institutions and leaders will also keep playing an important role. But without a citizenry that can keep them in check and motivate them to get their shit together, we are missing out on a big impetus.

[grregg]

Dragon said:

(...)

Slavery in the US ended not because of activism, but because the north replaced the need for slaves with factories. Had the north been dependent on slavery as well, people would still be slaves. Heck, some companies still depend on slavery to this day, it's simply outsourced. Ask those children in China/India how many wonders anti-slave activism has achieved.

(...)
›››

I'll repeat after KoP that you underestimate the power of citizenry/activism. Yes, very often it is technology that enables social change, absolutely. And yes, new technologies are oftentimes developed in search of profit rather than to enable a social agenda.

But what people think matters, a lot. Just consider slavery. For pretty much the entirely of human existence slavery was obvious, natural and pretty much uncontroversial. And then within perhaps 100 years it became a crime and an abomination. Why? Just because industry has developed? No, the industrial revolution enabled that change, but the change happened because people were persuaded that slavery is not acceptable. Your example of children in India or China actually shows this. Are they lacking factories? No, what they're lacking is a civil society that would oppose children/slave labor.

[Veleda]

grregg said:

But what people think matters, a lot. Just consider slavery. For pretty much the entirely of human existence slavery was obvious, natural and pretty much uncontroversial. And then within perhaps 100 years it became a crime and an abomination. Why? Just because industry has developed? No, the industrial revolution enabled that change, but the change happened because people were persuaded that slavery is not acceptable. Your example of children in India or China actually shows this. Are they lacking factories? No, what they're lacking is a civil society that would oppose children/slave labor. ›››

Er, slavery was outlawed in medieval Europe due to the influence of Christianity. Then some activists decided that re-instituting decrepit Roman laws was a good idea. Then some activists came along and opposed those, starting the abolition movement. You get my drift...

[grregg]

Veleda said:

Er, slavery was outlawed in medieval Europe due to the influence of Christianity. Then some activists decided that re-instituting decrepit Roman laws was a good idea. Then some activists came along and opposed those, starting the abolition movement. You get my drift... ›››

Not sure if I do. Throughout history most groups were of the opinion that things are bad only if done to their own member. Along the lines that nothing is wrong with a little genocide as long as the right people get wiped out. Same goes for slavery. Various groups got around to the idea that enslaving their own members is bad, but nothing wrong with slavery itself really. So Europe was abolishing slavery of Christians while happily trading slaves of other religious persuasions. Same goes for the US where one's race determined whether one can get enslaved.

And yet since then things changed. We will probably always treat better people that look/behave/pray/whatever like ourselves, but you don't hear to many opinions saying that such and such should be slaves, do you? Sure there any many places where working conditions are horrible, but first it's better than slavery and second it is something that people protest against. No, the protests will not fix the situation by tomorrow, but I disagree with the idea that either we get a 100% solution immediately or it's not worth trying.

[Dragon'sDream]

KnightofPhoenix said:

The truth of the matter is that activists constitute a tiny share of the populace. If a bigger part becomes active in an organized and efficient way, in whatever capacity, I think its potential is vast.

But that is exactly the problem I am pointing out! It takes millions if not hundreds of millions to influence the decisions of a handful of elites. Sometimes not even that is enough. It is simply not feasible to expect a large, organized section of the population to confront every wrong political and business decision. It is this inequality in the power of activism versus governments/businesses that I aimed to highlight.

Activism wont prevent/end conflicts, it wont bring down multibillion dollar companies, it wont change the world. It could in theory, but in practice it wont.

Quote

without a citizenry that can keep them in check and motivate them to get their shit together, we are missing out on a big impetus.

That is why I still sign petitions and donate money to organizations. Every little bit helps, but Israel isn't leaving the Gaza Strip anytime soon, and BP is going to cause another spill in the next few years.

Quote

I don't think it's as small as you think.

Maybe not. I am a scientist, we aren't exactly known to be knowledgeable on this stuff. I am talking more or less out of personal experience.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dragon said:

But that is exactly the problem I am pointing out! It takes millions if not hundreds of millions to influence the decisions of a handful of elites. Sometimes not even that is enough. It is simply not feasible to expect a large, organized section of the population to confront every wrong political and business decision. It is this inequality in the power of activism versus governments/businesses that I aimed to highlight.

Numbers are not the only thing. It's their reach.
I'll provide an example I experienced in Canada. Far more people protested against raising university tuition. However their lack of organization, lack of clarity, lack of offering tangible solutions, and then violence, caused them to fail utterly as no one was with them. In contrast, the Greenpeace protest was much smaller (it was 8 am on a Monday), but we were organized (we protested outside a hotel right when there was a meeting amongst those who thought shale gas is a good idea), had a clear message, had several NGOs with us, with positive media attention who did their job very responsibly, and it was civil with us dancing and singing. And it helped contribute to suspending shale gas exploration.

More can be done with less. Now ideally, yes number and quality would be good, but number is not, imo, the most important factor. It's the image one gives. Power is ultimately an image.

Quote

Activism wont prevent/end conflicts, it wont bring down multibillion dollar companies, it wont change the world. It could in theory, but in practice it wont.

Nothing on its own can change the world, no one said that.
It can however play a very important and necessary part, imo, in changing the world.

Quote

That is why I still sign petitions and donate money to organizations. Every little bit helps, but Israel isn't leaving the Gaza Strip anytime soon, and BP is going to cause another spill in the next few years.

I won't go into the Israel / Gaza example in detail. But the major reason why it's being done is local Israeli elections. IF the Israeli public would be more active towards promoting equitable peace than they already are, this would be less of a problem and politicians wouldn't feel the need to show off their dick size to win elections. But the region is a complicated mess that is regressing as a whole via religious idiocy and fanaticism, Arabs and Israelis, without exception.

[KnightofPhoenix]

double post

[Wichat]

Dragon said:

Activism has only ever been a small contributor in a big game. It helps, but rarely does it decide the outcome of the game. There are exceptions of course, like Ghandi. /> ›››

No. Activism has a big contributor in a big game when big gamers who officaly represent people don't make their work. The most recently example for me is a Civic Platform against evictions that their actions have ensured that an association of judges to join their fight. Right now, Spain is standing up thanks civical Associations. Polititians have absolutly lost the trut of citizens, not only in Spain but in Europe too.

[Veleda]

grregg said:

Not sure if I do. Throughout history most groups were of the opinion that things are bad only if done to their own member. Along the lines that nothing is wrong with a little genocide as long as the right people get wiped out. Same goes for slavery. Various groups got around to the idea that enslaving their own members is bad, but nothing wrong with slavery itself really. So Europe was abolishing slavery of Christians while happily trading slaves of other religious persuasions. Same goes for the US where one's race determined whether one can get enslaved.

There was no such distinction made in medieval Europe. Spain being an exception, under the influence of the Moors. Where Christianity spread, slavery declined if not outright disappeared. So I disagree with your contention that it was recent activism which introduced the idea that slavery was bad. It wasn't modernity that discovered this idea.

This goes to my pet peeve that moderns think we invented the wheel, when modern advances are often simply to address the very problems that modernity got us into. And I tend to see activism in the same light. I'm speaking of broad, ideologically oriented activist groups, not the local gathering to push the town council to make a stop sign at such and such intersection.

I do support more moderate efforts. The old time conservationists, like Audubon, for instance, and organizations like the Humane Society rather than PETA. Even these rely not on a bunch of kids in a drum circle but on rich people who are willing to use their wealth for philanthropy.

[grregg]

Veleda said:

There was no such distinction made in medieval Europe. Spain being an exception, under the influence of the Moors. Where Christianity spread, slavery declined if not outright disappeared. So I disagree with your contention that it was recent activism which introduced the idea that slavery was bad. It wasn't modernity that discovered this idea.

(...)
›››

Hmmm... we might want to compare notes here, because that's news to me. England was happily trading slaves until Slave Trade Act of 1807. And even this did not abolish slavery in the Empire. That's a bit past Middle Ages. There are reports of 10000 slaves being sold in Venice between 1414 and 1423. In the same period Genoese merchants were trading slaves between the Crimea and Egypt. (All that from a quick Wikipedia scan, please point out if I'm wrong)

In Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth slavery existed until 15th century. If memory serves Poland accepted Christianity in 966. And so on.

Not to mention that in the United States slavery and Christianity coexisted for a long while.

So again, it seems that medieval Europe was not exactly repulsed by slavery. Even where abolished locally, somehow Europeans did not exactly recoil when it came to enslaving and/or trading other folks.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veledea is probably talking about "Germanic" Europe and thinking that applies to all of it.

France had slavery. Spain has slavery before the Arabs came in. Italian city-states did. Eastern Europe did...etc
Christianity didn't change it.

[Wichat]

Veleda said:

This goes to my pet peeve that moderns think we invented the wheel, when modern advances are often simply to address the very problems that modernity got us into. And I tend to see activism in the same light. I'm speaking of broad, ideologically oriented activist groups, not the local gathering to push the town council to make a stop sign at such and such intersection.
›››

activism/ˈaktɪvɪzəm/
▶noun the use of vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.

No matter if it local or worldwide, after all, any activist start his action in a local issue that should concern to the rest of of society in general.

[Wichat]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Veledea is probably talking about "Germanic" Europe and thinking that applies to all of it.

France had slavery. Spain has slavery before the Arabs came in. Italian city-states did. Eastern Europe did...etc
Christianity didn't change it. ›››

And after too, the first american slaves from Africa were brought there by Spanish and Portuguese traffickers />

[Demut]

Veleda said:

Those things are not viable now, [...]

That claim is bullshit. We already have countries whose energy comes primarily from renewable sources. This is not a matter of feasibility but one of dedication. Even highly industrialized countries like Germany already cover 20% of their needs with renewable energy. Heck, Norway (which is one of the countries with the most people in the industrial sector percentage-wise) is already at 96%!
If you actually tried to meet this goal seriously then this would be rather easily achieved. Alas, most governments are corrupt and whipped by Big Business (which includes Big Oil) so they say “Fuck reason” and opt for dat sweet, sweet green instead. Poor humanity.

In short: Countries like the U.S. will probably reach these numbers only when the oil reserves have dwindled to a point where its price is too high for them to be realistically able to rely on it anymore.

Veleda said:

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.

That’s not an intrinsic problem and could simply be rectified by lowering certain other taxes if contestability is something you are that worried about.

[Veleda]

Well I hate to resort to Wikipedia, but here I go:

Slavery in early medieval Europe was relatively uncommon and in Western Europe slavery largely disappeared by the later Middle Ages.

The slave trade in England was abolished in 1102.

The Catholic Church prohibited the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands, for example, the Council of Koblenz in 922, the Council of London in 1102, and the Council of Armagh in 1171. William the Conqueror, too, banned export of English slaves.

There was trade of slaves in some places- fed by the foreign market in Spain and North Africa- but as I said, slavery declined in Christian Europe and nearly disappeared. It was the revival of Roman law which brought it back into fashion.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

There was trade of slaves in some places- fed by the foreign market in Spain and North Africa- but as I said, slavery declined in Christian Europe and nearly disappeared. It was the revival of Roman law which brought it back into fashion. ›››

That's a function of power and economics, not some revelation on morality. Slavery was never forbidden in Christianity proper outright. Slavery as a policy needed a powerful state to carry it out and a stronger economy to have the demand.

And what you just quoted shows they practiced selective slavery, like everyone else. In Islamic polities, it was forbidden to sell Muslim slaves to non-Muslims too. Roman citizens could never be slaves (a citizenship that was extended to most people within the empire).

[Veleda]

Demut said:

That claim is bullshit. We already have countries whose energy comes primarily from renewable sources. This is not a matter of feasibility but one of dedication. Even highly industrialized countries like Germany already cover 20% of their needs with renewable energy. Heck, Norway (which is one of the countries with the most people in the industrial sector percentage-wise) is already at 96%!

And is the Norwegian economy greatly subsidized by export of oil and gas? Yep.

Hydroelectric is already used a lot in the US as well, but there's not nearly enough to meet demand. And I wonder what environmentalists would say about more rivers being dammed.

I'm not against whatever works, but that should be decided by the market and not merely by ideology, especially when the trendy "green" things have a net worse effect on both the environment and the economy, such as America's ethanol regulations. From what I see, it is largely a shell game at the moment. When the technology is there that makes waste recycling, for example, economically viable, then that's what people will use.

You mention the money involved in big oil- there is money, and lobbying, involved in the promotion of "green" as well. It's no different. When government mandates are involved, everyone starts seeing dollar signs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

I'm not against whatever works, but that should be decided by the market

I stopped reading.

THAT is ideology (a defunct one) talking.

[Veleda]

KnightofPhoenix said:

That's a function of power and economics, not some revelation on morality. Slavery was never forbidden in Christianity proper outright. Slavery as a policy needed a powerful state to carry it out and a stronger economy to have the demand.

And what you just quoted shows they practiced selective slavery, like everyone else. In Islamic polities, it was forbidden to sell Muslim slaves to non-Muslims too. Roman citizens could never be slaves (a citizenship that was extended to most people within the empire). ›››

Slave traders had their own morality, as unethical people will always find some justification for their greed. But it is not true, as was stated up above, that slavery of non-Christians was practiced in medieval Europe (important edit- on the whole). You didn't see import of Muslims or pagans to western Europe during the medieval period. It went the other way. There were many denouncements of slavery as an institution and an economic activity, not just when it applied to Christians, though it's true that this condemnation was not universal.

We can discuss whether or not serfdom constitutes slavery, but then we'd have to talk about whether the modern wage economy does.