O/T:- Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

I think you're right about it being a very American perspective. Their constitution was written in the late 1700s and is a snapshot of English political thought at the time, which was a reaction against the absolutism of the century before (the 1600s was the century of absolute rulers in France, the UK and elsewhere) so avoiding tyrannical government was very important at the time.

While it has been a constant in American politics, I think it has gone more into the mainstream in recent years, arguably with good reason on some levels. But I agree with you that people don't always take into account what small government means in practice.

Philosphers divide freedom into positive and negative freedom, which can be loosely translated as freedom from something (or everything) and freedom to (do something, or everything).

Small government (or almost no government, in the libertarian tradition) means freedom FROM pretty much everything, but it drastically reduces your freedom TO do things, because without a government giving you an education, health care, police protection, transport, you are unlikely to have the positive freedom to realise your potential in life.

---

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today. ;)

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

This discussion seems to have turned into a "Look how kind and caring I am" circle jerk.

How about a hypothetical choice of scenario's with a crystal ball to show the result 200 years from now....

Plan A (most countries signing up to an agreement) - Population is 3 billion in 2223, but everybody related to you are amongst the 5 billion plus that don't make it.
Plan B (Individual countries take matters into their own hands) - Only half a billion survive to 2223 but these include all of your offspring and relations' offspring.

Anybody who would pick Plan A is either a liar, has no kids or hates themselves.

On the Nuclear War v Climate Change question.
Nuclear war means we take everything out with us, the Earth may never recover and it's also going to be a horrific way to go out for most who won't die instantly. Climate change isn't going to happen overnight and other species will adapt. Can't believe I'm having to explain the difference with that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newish Pie

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today. ;)

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

---

Good post, agree with all of it.

100 years ago or more we all had way more freedom from, but a lot less freedom to.

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I do neither and that's my personal choice, none of my business to tell anybody else what to do, but I'm seeing a lot of people talking themselves up on here as morally superior and I'm wondering if that's all it is. Talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

This discussion seems to have turned into a "Look how kind and caring I am" circle jerk.

How about a hypothetical choice of scenario's with a crystal ball to show the result 200 years from now....

Plan A (most countries signing up to an agreement) - Population is 3 billion in 2223, but everybody related to you are amongst the 5 billion plus that don't make it.
Plan B (Individual countries take matters into their own hands) - Only half a billion survive to 2223 but these include all of your offspring and relations' offspring.

Anybody who would pick Plan A is either a liar, has no kids or hates themselves.

On the Nuclear War v Climate Change question.
Nuclear war means we take everything out with us, the Earth may never recover and it's also going to be a horrific way to go out for most who won't die instantly. Climate change isn't going to happen overnight and other species will adapt. Can't believe I'm having to explain the difference with that one.

---

Is there a nice, humane way to arrive at human extinction? I imagine all ways by definition involve a dystopian fight for dwindling resources in inhospitable conditions.

Any evidence to say the earth may never recover, whatever that means? Or are you just freestyling there?

Are you zen about human extinction but not zen about plant extinction? Or animal extinction?

Sorry but for me your position is at best contradictory, at worst a case of: one version of the same event possibly happening to you therefore bad, the other version probably not happening to you but to someone else, therefore zen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

Is there a nice, humane way to arrive at human extinction? I imagine all ways by definition involve a dystopian fight for dwindling resources in inhospitable conditions.

Any evidence to say the earth may never recover, whatever that means? Or are you just freestyling there?

Are you zen about human extinction but not zen about plant extinction? Or animal extinction?

Sorry but for me your position is at best contradictory, at worst a case of: one version of the same event possibly happening to you therefore bad, the other version probably not happening to you but to someone else, therefore zen.

---

We've never had a global nuclear war before so it's anybody guess. I'd bet on it turning out worse than climate change though.

I'm not a massive fan of humans, no. I do prefer plants and animals, mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

---

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

We've never had a global nuclear war before so it's anybody guess. I'd bet on it turning out worse than climate change though.

I'm not a massive fan of humans, no. I do prefer plants and animals, mostly.

---

Ok so it was just a guess.

As I said before, I don't think there's a nice way and a nasty way for billions of people to go extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

In the 70s and 80s there were big debates on smoking and we can probably guess who would have been which side on that one as well.

The parallels between that issue and climate change are quite striking, in both the science was settled for years but the waters were deliberately muddied by industry shills going round saying it wasn’t actually as bad as those uptight scientists said it was and also promoting smoking as a ‘freedom’ issue, with those wanting restrictions as being part of the ‘nanny state’.

Nowadays of course climate denialists, both paid and unpaid, have many more platforms to spread their nonsense, and their unscientific claims are proving harder to discredit. Sunak’s disgraceful announcements yesterday are of course a massive backward step.

---

Good point BFP.
I think the parallels between the old smoking debate (science finally / tragically victorious) & the ongoing anthropogenic climate change debate are striking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusCole

I sort of see where you are coming from but I see there are being three camps on this

1st extremist view - There is a Climate Emergency and extreme measures must be taken and d@mn and consequences.

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

3rd Extremist view - Its all a lie

---

RE: 1st extremist view
At what point does a crisis become an emergency?
Are people extremist to believe that we cannot simply set aside the issue any longer - something has got to be done... now.