1. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    24 Aug '11 15:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, but would it be carbon free?
    On Star Trek, they get their energy from matter-antimatter reaction chambers. It doesn't generate any greenhouse gasses at all.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    24 Aug '11 15:55
    Originally posted by sh76
    On Star Trek, they get their energy from matter-antimatter reaction chambers. It doesn't generate any greenhouse gasses at all.
    Star Trek? Why don't you guys start living in the real world for a change. 😠
  3. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    24 Aug '11 16:06
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Star Trek? Why don't you guys start living in the real world for a change. 😠
    You could start living in the real world too where job providers and not plantation owners and money and those with money are not the causes of all evil in our society.
  4. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    24 Aug '11 17:05
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Would you thank the slave owners for providing a nice plantation for the slaves to work on? After all, if it weren't for the institution of slavery, the slaves would surely starve.

    As with the institution of slavery, neither your capitalistic system nor your venerated "producers" are necessary. I suspect that if we were to do away with both that there would still be plenty of jobs to go around.
    Slaves without slavery, how does that work?
  5. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12835
    24 Aug '11 17:37
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Slaves without slavery, how does that work?
    Well, you just don't call it that.
  6. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    25 Aug '11 07:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And lastly, rwingett is correct in that the current model in most countries is not particularly democratic anyway, it is the interests of the rich and corporations that are attended to by governments, not the interest of the populace in general.

    The only time we will start doing something about climate change is when doing so is seen as profitable by large corporations.

    I think most would agree with this point.

    After all, all of us do what we do out of self-interest: either to increase pleasure or reduce pain.

    The question then is how would large corporations be motivated that Climate Change interventions are in their best interest?

    1 By pain, i.e. increased taxes
    2 By pleasure, i.e increased income or rebates

    However, on second thoughts, this is actually NOT the real problem. Whilst international conglomerates DO influence governments, the UNFCCC works on a national level, so governments will vote what is in their own best perceived interests.

    It is therefore (IMHO) at THIS level (and not at a national level) that democracy breaks down, because if by simple vote the largest polluters (e.g. US and China) vote against a proposal, there can be no meaningful deal even if everyone else agrees!
  7. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    25 Aug '11 12:55
    Originally posted by CalJust
    I think most would agree with this point.

    After all, all of us do what we do out of self-interest: either to increase pleasure or reduce pain.

    The question then is how would large corporations be motivated that Climate Change interventions are in their best interest?

    1 By pain, i.e. increased taxes
    2 By pleasure, i.e increased income or rebates
    ...[text shortened]... nd China) vote against a proposal, there can be no meaningful deal even if everyone else agrees!
    I do not believe that the world would be a better place at all if we eliminated countries and decided everything on a world majority vote. Different countries have different values and priorities. It makes no sense for religious fundimentalists countries to the Mid East to vote on civil rights issues in the US or for government controlled economies to vote on what is or isn't a monopoly in capilatistic country. The US or China has a responsibility to its citizen and will not stop producing (and thereby polluting) because some other country wishes to bestow its priorties upon them.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    25 Aug '11 12:58
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I do not believe that the world would be a better place at all if we eliminated countries and decided everything on a world majority vote. Different countries have different values and priorities. It makes no sense for religious fundimentalists countries to the Mid East to vote on civil rights issues in the US or for government controlled economies to ...[text shortened]... ng (and thereby polluting) because some other country wishes to bestow its priorties upon them.
    What do you regard as the maximum size of a country in terms of area and/or population?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Aug '11 12:58
    Originally posted by CalJust
    The question then is how would large corporations be motivated that Climate Change interventions are in their best interest?
    1 By pain, i.e. increased taxes
    2 By pleasure, i.e increased income or rebates
    And since it is the large corporations (and the rich) that set the taxes, that isn't going to happen.

    However, on second thoughts, this is actually NOT the real problem. Whilst international conglomerates DO influence governments, the UNFCCC works on a national level, so governments will vote what is in their own best perceived interests.
    You seem to be of the opinion that the UNFCCC is the only way to tackle climate change. No wonder you see the situation as hopeless.

    It is therefore (IMHO) at THIS level (and not at a national level) that democracy breaks down, because if by simple vote the largest polluters (e.g. US and China) vote against a proposal, there can be no meaningful deal even if everyone else agrees!
    The US and China are some of the largest producers of CO2 from power plants and fuel, but do not ignore other factors such as loss of soil carbon and tropical forests. If other countries work really hard to do something about climate change, they can go a long way without the China and the US's input.
    We can also pressure the US and China into doing something simply by setting an example.
    Certainly as long as people stand around saying 'but the other guy is worse than me', then we we get nowhere.

    It all comes back to game theory. The best strategy for the group, is co-operation. The best strategy for an individual is selfishness. But if everyone is selfish, everyone looses. For co-operation to happen, someone's got to start.
  10. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    25 Aug '11 13:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What do you regard as the maximum size of a country in terms of area and/or population?
    I don't have a maximum size. I just merely believe the world would be a far worse place if it were run by say a vote of the United Nations instead of being run by nations as we have it now.
  11. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    26 Aug '11 12:201 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Certainly as long as people stand around saying 'but the other guy is worse than me', then we we get nowhere.

    It all comes back to game theory. The best strategy for the group, is co-operation. The best strategy for an individual is selfishness. But if everyone is selfish, everyone looses. For co-operation to happen, someone's got to start.
    You've hit the nail on the head - my point exactly!

    Are you familiar with "The Tragedy of the Commons"?

    Google it!

    That explains why more often than not "the best strategy for the group" does not happen when individuals make choices.

    What usually happens in practice, is that the someone that starts and sets an example, loses out. But hey, there is always room for trail-blazers and martyrs!
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    26 Aug '11 12:22
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I don't have a maximum size. I just merely believe the world would be a far worse place if it were run by say a vote of the United Nations instead of being run by nations as we have it now.
    Why would a vote of the UN be the only possible way of running a hypothetical one-country world? Obviously such a process would be slow and gradual if it ever happened at all - see EU.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    26 Aug '11 12:48
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why would a vote of the UN be the only possible way of running a hypothetical one-country world? Obviously such a process would be slow and gradual if it ever happened at all - see EU.
    The EU is an interesting point. If I were German (which I'm not because Hitler wanted to round up my ancestors and put them concentration camps) , I'd be really annoyed that I am bailing out countries like Greece. I certainly wouldn't be looking to expand the EU. However, the EU is still function so perhaps it is a first step as you suggest.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    26 Aug '11 13:05
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The EU is an interesting point. If I were German (which I'm not because Hitler wanted to round up my ancestors and put them concentration camps) , I'd be really annoyed that I am bailing out countries like Greece. I certainly wouldn't be looking to expand the EU. However, the EU is still function so perhaps it is a first step as you suggest.
    Mistakes were made when the euro was introduced and the more responsible eurozone members are now paying the price. Doesn't have that much to do with the EU per se, though - you need to be a member of the EU to use the euro but otherwise the two are seperate institutions. The UK, for instance, does not use the euro and did not need to help to bail out Greece (at least not directly - its banks do hold Greek debt paper).
  15. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    26 Aug '11 13:26
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Mistakes were made when the euro was introduced and the more responsible eurozone members are now paying the price. Doesn't have that much to do with the EU per se, though - you need to be a member of the EU to use the euro but otherwise the two are seperate institutions. The UK, for instance, does not use the euro and did not need to help to bail out Greece (at least not directly - its banks do hold Greek debt paper).
    I think a lot of the bailouts are because our economies are all intertwined. It does not necessarily mean that we want to have one worldwide governing authority and it does not mean that people view this intertwining as a positive change that they wish to extend.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree