24 Aug '11 15:50>
Originally posted by whodeyOn Star Trek, they get their energy from matter-antimatter reaction chambers. It doesn't generate any greenhouse gasses at all.
Yes, but would it be carbon free?
Originally posted by rwingettSlaves without slavery, how does that work?
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.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think most would agree with this point.
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.
Originally posted by CalJustI 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.
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!
Originally posted by quackquackWhat do you regard as the maximum size of a country in terms of area and/or population?
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.
Originally posted by CalJustAnd since it is the large corporations (and the rich) that set the taxes, that isn't going to happen.
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
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI 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.
What do you regard as the maximum size of a country in terms of area and/or population?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou've hit the nail on the head - my point exactly!
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.
Originally posted by quackquackWhy 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.
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe 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.
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.
Originally posted by quackquackMistakes 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).
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI 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.
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).