Unsustainable Consumption
 

Hi guys

I recently had a interesting discussion with my bro about the unsustainable consumption of the earth's resources. Main culprits to us was the US, followed closely by the european union. Unless a radical move towards enviro friendly fuel production was achieved in the short term, then the consequences will be a major fall out between the EU and US some point in the future over oil distribution and if that doesnt lead to war then we will all be drowned by the melting ice caps a wee bit down the line.

It seems to me that possibly the worst thing that could have happened to upset the equilibrium of the globe has been the demise of the USSR. At least we had some sort of balance back then.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Re: Unsustainable Consumption
 

It's just chicken-little stuff. They've been crying about the oil running out pretty much since it's been discovered. Sure, it'll eventually happen... but not soon.

Point is though, the dangerousness belongs not to the black stuff running out, but to who will try and secure the resevoir long before it.

Ever wondered why Scotland has never really had a real shout at governing itself?(Pseudo puppet Blairites not included)

Seems we have about 100 to 150 years to figure it out. By then, most of the oil will be long gone, the middle east can go back to being irrelevant, and someone will have figured out a completely new energy source.

If we don't come up with a new fuel, war won't begin to describe what comes next. But, 150 years from now is so far off - its impossible to say. I mean look at 150 years ago and double the rate of progress b/w then and now.

Kind of ironic, it seems to me, that as technologically advanced as humankind is, we are still at the mercy of dinosaur squeezins to power everything. :confused:

Newsflash: 150 years is an extremely short amount of time. Just because we personally won't reach it doesn't mean it's infinitely far away.

A lot of folks wring their hands over sustainability, but they usually make the mistake of not considering improved productivity and new innovation over that time period.

There is no way that the agricultural practices of the year 1900 could feed the populations of 2000, for example. Absolutely unsustainable. But on the way to disaster mankind worked out how to apply new technology and practices to farming. In 1900 it took 50% of the population to grow the food for everyone. Now it takes about 1%.

Re: Unsustainable Consumption
 

Yes...while you're looking for a new source of energy, make sure find one that doesn't result in creation of waste heat. This should only require an amendment to the laws of thermodynamics. :-)
Not sure I follow you here. You're saying the Soviets were holding the US back from using more energy? Which "equilibrium of the globe" are you talking about?

Hopefully this will be the case, but you can't depend on this happening. I say the responsibility for fixing this starts with us, right now.

What I am saying is that I could not see the US in Afghanistan and Iraq(sorry for being premature) if the soviet Empire still existed. I see the demise of the soviet union as the most unsettling single event of the 20th century. Firstly, a new ungovernable area has been created ruled by drug barons and mafia, which is unleashing itself upon a region so corrupt politically that should there be a sniff of uranium up for grabs then it has already been sold.
Next the collapse of the USSR has encouraged a dangerous boldness by the US to adopt itself as the champion of the free world, the crusader of righteousness, and saviour of civilisation. In my opinion, it has pounced on a chance to assert itself in strategic positions to meet it's own ends.

I dont see the US challenging the Chinese with military threats when a US 'spy' plane came down in Chinese territory. However if that same plane had come down in Iraq and S.Hussain was holding the aircrew and plane for 'evaluation' then I wonder if the US administration would have reacted difeently. I use this example because the Chinese have been for years punishing their own people who expressed anti-establishment discourse and at the same time have been terrorising the inhabitants of Taiwan at arms length. This is the very regime that Mr.Bush is gunning after. Smacks of double standards to me.

We dont need a 'Star Wars' type Federation governing the world. What we need is a strong UN which can be left to decide on concencus what should be done about real global threats.

Closer to home, we have the English across the Irish Sea who are dumping millions of barrels of toxic discharge into our seas because it suits them. Who gives a damn about a tiny island of paddy spud pickers. Really I could'nt see it happening if Sellafield was located in Tijuana. For one the English goverment are so far up the US administrations backside that there brains co-exist in complete harmony.
Secondly the US would shut it down. Find some excuse and take them out.

My argument is far from eloquent and I have no doubt could be better voiced by a more learned debater, but the fact remains that their is an imbalance of power in the world and the US are exploiting it. It will reach a point some point in the future, where the next most powerful alliance or state will adopt alternative policy on the basis of economic or resourceful needs, which will in turn precede misery.

The problem with most 'sustainable' resources is that they do not produce enough energy to justify their production, ie a solar panel factory coudl not produce enough power from solar panels before they would have to be replaced from solar panels. I think fusion will be the next big one.

Course it does. On the other hand China has perfered economic partner status. Giovernemnts are always hypercritical, perfectly normal.

There's also the dramatic difference between war with Iraq and war with China. We can bully Iraq around much easier than China because we are that much larger.

Strikes me as a non sequitur; you started out talking about sustainable energy and consumption and ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess if you're part of the "big nasty US is the source of all evil" school, it makes enough sense to pass muster, otherwise I think you need to make some connections there first.

When the Soviet Empire existed, Afghanistan was clearly within their hegemony and Iraq was a client state. To this day the Russians are closet (yes, I do mean "closet" and not "closest") allies of the Baath Iraquis because Iraq still owes them several billion dollars which they're unlikely to collect unless Saddam remains in control. (A large part of that debt was spent on buying weapons from the Soviets....which didn't really perform all that well during the Gulf War.)

By the way, Jag: "Hypocritical" is the word you're reaching for. "Hypercritical" is a word too, but not the one you mean; in fact it is nearly opposite in meaning. Spelling does matter sometimes, and spell check won't always save you.

I wouldn't say the Russians are very secretive of their association with the Iraqis. Its fairly commonly reported; in fact, the US released a statement promising Russia all contracts would be honored if Russia backed the UN resolution. The Soviet Union very much did not back Iraq during its existance - rather, they supported Khomeini's vengeance war against Iraq. Obviously, though, the rules of IR mean that alliances shift.

Also, Afghanistan was the Soviet Union's Vietnam. To say it was part of their sphere of influence is, well, really just wrong. It's not like they took control quickly, like in Eastern Europe. They withdrew unvictorious.

Finally, to characterize valid criticisms of US policy (even if those criticisms are unrelated), as anti-Americanism is little more than an illogical argument.

I donrt understand how it can. What you are saying is that I am branching off at best or rambling at worst.


I do not see where the confusion lies. Afghanistan and Iraq will always be on the agenda at the Moscow symposia. There influence there is obvious.

Yeah, I'll get right on it...maybe tomorrow. :)

Well, if my neighbor has tanks in my front yard, I'd have to conceed he has influence until I kick them out. South Vietnam was in the US sphere until we got kicked out of there, and we weren't even neighbors.
No, what *I* am saying is that until you establish a connection, it's not branching or rambling, it's a non sequitur; it literally "doesn't follow". I can't "ramble" from 1 to 3 unless I pass though 2 on the way there. Going directly from A to C isn't "branching", it's teleportation. :-)

Of course, if the topic is actually "random Yankee bashing", then, as I said, you don't really need a connection.

Nations always act in their own self-interests. But the rules have changed. In the old days, you'd use your military to conquest and then suck the trounced nation into your own. (In the really olden days, you'd put them to use as slaves, taking their land as a colony and taking their resources as your own.)

Lest we forget, the US/USSR "balance of power" was wrought partly on the backs of the estimated 20 million people murdered by Stalin so that he could maintain control.

Frankly I prefer the new rules, which say that if you are a dangerous tyrannical asshole, harboring other dangerous assholes and/or basically making trouble, you will be removed [if possible] to make way for your population's freedom and self-determination, and so that the resulting wealth generated by that freedom enriches both that nation and all who will trade with it.

The notion that it's done with all-volunteer armed forces and checked off via democratic means whilst a free media whines about the dangers and possible deaths is a huge bonus.

Of all the dangers in the world, the idea that a nation with huge power is running rampant freeing the peoples of the world is not high on the list.

All I can do at that one is shake my head. It's such a simplified, skewed version of reality. I mean, you don't even go into the Chileans who were killed by our puppet Pinochet because we thought Chile could become a Communist nation. But that's all in the past. What you're dealing with is the now, bringing up an argument for "regime change" that would appeal to the liberals, but that is not being used as a reason for this war; ignoring the specter of Bush's sudden sense of foresight-free empire-building.

Even though there is little talk of the argument you used, if a government imposes democracy on another people against their wishes, are they not as bad as what they're trying to stop?

And that "checked off by a democratic process" crap? Hardly. There are not the troops in the region or the proper conditions to attack Iraq at the present time. It was only pushed through now so that Democrats would have to approve it or miss losing votes to the misplaced patriotism that the Republicans thrive on these days. He knows that if this went through in December it would fail miserably. You wouldn't see any spectacles like the half-assed Gephardt buying votes with his yes vote.

And to MaggieL:
The only reason the SU was sending tanks into Afghanistan was to extend their influence into the country - which did not want them there. Saying they were inside the Soviet sphere would be like saying West Germany was.

Yes, how dare I remark on foreign affairs without checking off Chomsky's checklist of the terrible horrors of American foreign affairs since the French and Indian Wars. Why, the US should simply stop whatever it is doing, and prepare to be repeatedly anally violated by every other nation on the earth for its various and sundry inhumanities.


The [Canadian Iraqi ex-patriate] said his recent voyage to his family home in Basra was an eye-opener: There was no water, industrial buildings were collapsing from decay and Saddam's security services controlled every facet of life. "Everybody they are, believe me, against Saddam," the man said. "My family, I had a big family there, all of them are against Saddam.

"I said, 'Then why are you cheering him on the TV?' They said, 'Every day there is an event or something there, they knock door by door, take the people, the families, from houses to participate in this cheering, or election or whatever, by force.'

"If you are not going you are on the blacklist. If you are on the blacklist, your son or your daughter or your wife will disappear. Or you are going to lose your job. Iraq is the worst country in the Middle East."

If you want to pretend to care about these people, you're only fooling yourself.

Your original post skewed the Cold War to seem like it was all Stalin's fault. That's all I was trying to refer to when I brought up Pinochet; a fact that the rest of the world seems to realize but most Americans don't care to. This country does horrible things in the name of democracy; some can be justified, many cannot. Chomsky is generally a nut blinded by his own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that some of those aren't based on reality.

Fine, you give an example of what one ex-pat says of Iraq. But when has that been a talking point of this invasion? That was my point. This administration, which belittled the Clinton attempts at 'nation-building,' are at the practice here. But they don't even operate under the pretense of humanitarian assistance. A telling sign of their intentions is in the administration's occupation plans, which state that a US military official, installed as a temporary head of state in Iraq, would control the country's oil fields.

So how am I fooling myself?

I'm sure I don't understand.

How telling... that they would think of securing the nation's most precious asset? To think they would drain the first few gallons off the top to pay for the damn war, too? Why, it's almost as if Bush had taken to heart all that concern about the war being a bad idea because it would be expensive. It's almost as if he had shrugged off all that talk from the Democrats about how he should not go to war because he should "pay more attention to the economy instead".

The administration has noted many times that Saddam has brutalized his own people. It was noted again in Monday's speech, to try to make the case that Iraq is unique because of the nature of the regime. But you hear what you want to hear.

Well, Afghanistan wasnn't inside the Soviet blok until they were invaded, that's true. West Germany wasn't inside the SovBlok only because they *weren't* invaded. They weren't invaded because *our* tanks were there. Another one of those "sphere of influence" things.

Interesting article UT, though i've seen plenty of other things that come from more than one person that speak differently. Irrispective i'm not exactly tempted to move. On the other hand, that descritption does sound pretty brutal, which i belevie is why the US put him in power, becase he was very good and silencing communists, kinda like all those South and Central American regimes, quite a few african ones too.

I fail to see how IRaq is iether unique - or calls for action. When the CIA report says attacking Iraq would increase an otherwise minimal threat to a serious one, i'm tending to trust the CIA over someone how cannot pronounce nuclear.

It is useful to remember that the USSR esp Moscow began the process of deStalinization at his death. His burial place is testimony to that fact. The Russians are not proud of the Stalin era, but ironically and quite possibly, 'barbarossa' may have just succeeded if it was not for his ruthless demands on his troops and population. If 'barbarossa' had succeeded we would be in a very different world today.

I think the US should look at their own history and remember that the 'majority' are relative newcomers who brutally wiped out the indigenous population, very much like the highland clearances in Scotland on a much smaller scale.

socrates

Your defensive remarks are symptomatic of a nation which is becoming more and more isolated within the western nations. To critically examine US administration and it's policy is one thing as it affects one and all wherever you may be, but to conclude that it is a sweeping remark aimed at the US and it's population is plainly misinterpreted.

socrates

It's standard human behaviour - rapidly assume a defensive position when any of your beliefs or actions are questioned, and mount a counter-attack through passive-aggressive tactics.

Without actually demonstrating that the individual questioning something has actually committed any of the errors you are accusing him of, mount an argument (or series of) directed either at mocking his core beliefs, supposed generalizations, or unrelated issues he may or may not have. That way, you can distract from the actual focus of his criticism, put him on the defensive, and concentrate the discussion on his supposed shortcomings, rather than his criticism.

Problem solved.

Examples:

Criticism of Israel's policies -> accusations of anti-semitism, organized <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0928-03.htm">campaigns</a> to <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_7_23_02td.html">smear</a>, <a href="http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1039&CategoryId=2">discredit</a>, and <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021006-11854012.htm">ruin</a> those involved

Criticism of African-Americans (individual actions) -> accusations of racism, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1043">branding</a> those involved as racists forever, or if the criticism comes from <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/01/barbershop/">blacks</a>, brand them as traitors.

Criticism of any current US actions and policies -> <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2158&perpage=15&pagenumber=2">accusations</a> of anti-Americanism, career <a href="http://www.collegefreedom.org/report2002.htm">assassination</a>, ruin

Criticism of corporate behaviour -> accusations of anti-capitalism (but oh how this has changed in the face of bankruptcy), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html">Communist</a> ideology, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26554-2002Sep16.html">sabotage</a> of scientific facts/research and <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Borowski082902/borowski082902.html">removal</a> of associated works from school curriculums

<a href="http://censored.firehead.org:1984/scientology/www.entheta.net/entheta/go/philosop.html">Remember</a> L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology: Don't ever defend, always attack. Next time you're suddenly subjected to sweeping ad hominem attacks because you're (rightly or falsely) made any criticism of something people feel strongly about, you'll remember.

X.

PS: I know this is highly tangential, but these are some wonderful quotations:
"In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation of the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far been free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking federal protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of administration supporters on the religious right, according to government sources.

A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich."

Well, absent some sort of logical bridge from point A to point B, it <b>is</b> "a sweeping remark aimed at the US". So far the only connection between the two just seems to be "ain't it awful about the yanks?". If there's some other theme, do please point it out, otherwise you'll have to settle for being misinterpreted.

(Ever seen the character "Nathan Therm" on the old "Saturday Night Live" show? I dunno if that one ever escaped to overseas...<i>"Defensive? *I'm* not being defensive. *You're* the one who's being defensive here..."</i> :-) )

What paranoia again. To be sure, I only used the term "anti-Americanism" after watching Tony Blair do it repeatedly. Tell me, is *he* allowed?

For example, here:

On 1 October, Blair, addressing a conference of his Labour Party, criticized the anti-American sentiment, saying the United States and Europe have a strong alliance that is in the interest of both sides. "It is easy to be anti-American. There's a lot of it about. But remember when and where this alliance was forged: here, in Europe, in World War II, when Britain and America and every decent citizen in Europe joined forces to liberate Europe from the Nazi evil."

I think we will agree to disagree on this one and let it go. For me it is plain to see, for you it is clearly not.

socrates

Well, if you've set it forward plainly somewhere in this thread I've missed it. Are you afraid that the EU and the US will go to war over oil (<i>"...major fall out between the EU and US some point in the future over oil distribution..."</i>) and wistful that having the good old Soviets around would somehow prevent that (<i>"...the worst thing that could have happened to upset the equilibrium of the globe has been the demise of the USSR..."</i>)?

That strikes me as a wildly farfetched scenario on both counts...but I'm not trying to build a straw man here.

I'm sure there's a lot of nostalgia for the good old days when one could play the US and the Soviets off against each other for years on end; the threat of MAD was a small price to pay for *that* kind of fun. But I suppose all good things must come to an end.

And so they must. Time will tell.

Outside of West Germany and Japan at the end of WWII what country have we gone to war in that we allowed to have freedom and self determination? We are more often agents of the opposite in the name of national interest. Iran and Chile come to mind do they not. The US government in general and this administration in particular has not and is not interested in self-determination. After we devastate Iraq there will be no power given to the people, because the people just may decide that the oil belongs to them. And what the hell do you mean "possible deaths"? The Pentagon own estimates are for 30,000 civilian deaths and the Pentagon always underestimates cost by factors of between 2 and 5. Are you volunteering to be a soldier or collateral damage?

Hey, I'll take the under if you want to lay money on it. (No New Hampshire professors doing the count this time, please.) I assume that since the Pentagon is so awful against the spread that you're giving me odds...?

And - this is the sticking point - I absolutely demand the Geneva Convention definitions. Human shields don't count! If soldiers drive red crescent (or whatever) trucks in order to get position on troops, they are not civilians. And if soldiers run into mosques to intentionally create highly-charged political situations for international cameras, NOBODY in that church is a civvie. Hey, that's Geneva. Now are we agreed?

But you know... when it comes to numbers, I'm thinking about the 1 million civilians that have already died because Hussein has played hardball for years. And the millions more that could suffer - possibly including nations near you! - if he continues to play hardball in the future.

I'd have to look back at the Geneva Convention docs to ensure that it specifies non-combatants (ie. priests) as combatants. But we'll assume it does (I don't think so; witness the Noriega operation). Wouldn't attacking that church be a horrible thing to do politically? When we try to devise the rules and methods of national security, we must do so with the popular effect our actions will have in mind. We were so bent on destruction of the Soviet Union that we became myopic in this regard - which is, in large part, why we're seeing the current backlash. If we start attacking any mosque a soldier runs into whether or not they attack from inside its walls, it will appear to be proof of Islamic extremist rhetoric about our inherent evil.

I had look, and Geneva doesn't work the way we need it to work for our purposes.

Geneva prohibts attack of any civilian location. But it also prohibits *any* military use of civilian locations. In fact, in discussing hospitals, it goes so far as to say that handguns and similar arms taken from military personnel prior to treatment are OK. That's because ANY other millitary presence is unacceptable.

The problem is that Geneva seems to assume, in its approach, that both sides agree to use Geneva.

Fat chance, the US, CHina, Russia and pretty much every conflict ahve a long history of breaking it. Still, i think it has helped.

George Will comes to this same conclusion in today's Washington Post, in a piece titled "Why doom has not materialized".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b19_story.html

It turned out that when the commodities were needed, more were always found; or in the case of one of them (mercury), replaced with something else and nobody much noticed.

Impending doom always makes an exciting story, and a story you want to repeat to others. But the real story -- actually more exciting, if you stop to think about it -- is how mankind's innovations overcome almost all obstacles. Stuff just gets better.

We are the greatest! Woooooo!

Yeah!



Matt Lauer can suck it!

We're thinking similarly.

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=825015&postcount=136

Stoking fear is easier when you just make stuff up.

OMG. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction again!!!

And Martians now have Curiousity.

Why do Martians hate America?

Because we have so many Venusians here.

We killed their tourists in the 1930s with germs. Then defeated their allies, the Reds, in the 1980s. And are now dumping electronic trash all over their planet. Why would they not have Curiousity? They already have the Spirite. Once they get Oppurtunity, then expect a reprisal.

After they microwaved Americans! Those fuckers deserved it.

Are you a sympathizer, tw?

No one would have believed, in the first years of the twenty-first century, that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space.

Few men even considered the possibility of life on other planets and yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this Earth with envious eyes, and

slowly

and

surely,

they drew their plans against us.

Who are the victims of Unsustainable Consumption?

Won't someone think of the minerals?:mecry:

I can't ever hear any piece of this phrasing without the epic chords following immediately.

I can see that album cover from where I sit :)

My dad has a Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs half-speed master copy of it. it sounds unbelievably good.

Well, Socrates, I'd say it's time for you to ask more Socratic questions than you've been. Your argument sounds precisely like you've been listening to a crew of glib anti-Americans your whole life and you know no better. Don't be any too damn sure you've got any of it right. Get the hell off your island and travel the world for a time and see with your own eyes what's really out there, and not just what a bunch of invidious leftists try and tell you about the oldest and most powerful capitalist outfit on the globe. Europe had to shed mercantilist economic thinking before it ever got round to capitalism, and the United States, experiencing being on the colonial end of mercantilist thinking, jettisoned the whole model in the eighteenth century by means of the musket and fixed bayonet.

We've ended up with the exact kind of place that people break into to partake of. Even with Eire's stout growth over the last twenty years, can you say that's a problem you have? Not to take anything away from your island's charm, music and poetry, but come on. Are they cutting the wire to get in? Floating up on boats and rafts?

I'd say in many regards it's also pretty far from accurate -- again because you stand only at the beginning of wisdom, and not in its full blossom. The Left isn't going to get you there, believe me -- I've seen it, and I've seen its failure.

I'd add that I've never met a decent, likeable or worthy anti-American; the bunch of them seem disreputable creeps with neither honor nor shame.

Nice reply to a post from 2002 dumbass.

That's an insult to dumbasses the world over, UT.