Yuyutsu,

I hadn't heard that myth before. Is there an explanation of why they couldn't go round the river instead of crossing it? And how wide was this river supposed to be? (IIRC the prohibition on travelling excludes journeys of less than a mile).

The claim that t"he Simpler Way is wonderful beyond belief" seems just as illogical. It wouldn't enable us to do anything that couldn't otherwise be done.

MrSimplicity
"First, please actually quote from my article where exactly I referred to 'coercion' - you made that up. The transition we are talking about must be democratic - indeed a far more authentic form of participatory democracy must emerge if the transition is to go well. That said, 'coercion' may well be necessary..."

Well perhaps you can tell me. Will it be based on threatening to physically attack people who don't obey, and submit to having their personal or property rights violated; or will it be voluntary? Threats to attack people don't magically cease to be threats to attack people just because a) you want what they've got, or b) the State is your chosen instrument.

Is that what you were thinking? If so, you're wrong. If not, then you're contradicting yourself.

"And where did you get the idea that we presume to know better what other people want/feel?"

I got it from you saying that you feel justified in FORCING AND THREATENING people to obey your opinions about how natural resources should be used to satisfy human wants.

" We have has much right as anybody else to seek to PERSUADE others to our view and demonstrate and inspire others that there are alternatives ways we could move to which would enable a sustainable/just world order."

So threatening to throw people in prison is "persuading" them and "just", is it?

Yes?

Or no?

Which is it? At present you're equivocating, saying it will be *both* voluntary and coerced.

So which is it?

Voluntary?

Or not voluntary?

MrSimplicity

Do you understand that, if you pursue economic ends - such as economising on the use of resources - but using uneconomic or anti-economic means, you will get results that are
a) more wasteful, not less; and
b) self-defeating?

You take umbrage at me asking such basic questions, but your self-contradictions show that you need your confusion at such a basic level to be dispelled before you have any hope of understanding what you are talking about.

What's your answer to my questions? Spare me the mind-reading, thanks. After all, you've got a planet to save, so obviously you don't have time for diversions such as mere personality. It would be a kind of successful outcome if you merely stuck to the issues and stopped expressing disagreement with your own thoughts, wouldn't it?

Dear Aidan,

Regarding the Sambation, it is just a legend of course and its point is to claim that the ten tribes did not convert (historically most did), but remain extremely observant Jews. Different versions locate the river in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, as the Ganges, in Nepal, Thailand, China and Chile. One version claims that it becomes very wide on the Sabbath, another claims that it's only 30 feet wide, but because it completely surrounds the tribes they may not cross it. There is even a story about one Rabbi who did cross it because he went on a life-saving mission and it is OK to break the Sabbath in order to save life.

Regarding the Simpler Way, I was always inspired to live that way, but it didn't work out. Had there been no society, or had it at least been more sparse and not consuming practically all the resources, then circumstances would have forced me to go through this inevitable crisis and if I were lucky enough to survive, then I could live the way I always wanted with no interference from society.

Rhostry, Daffy

All you need to know about Naomi Klein is that she refers to a statutory monopoly explicitly charged with, and functioning to manipulate the supply and price of money and credit by official fiat, as "unregulated capitalism", "unrestrained capitalism" and such like.

Considering her topic and theme, she is operating at a level of profound ignorance that is inexcusable.

She, and anyone who agrees with her, are not intellectually qualified to participate in any discussion about the best way to economise resources, simple as that.

Jardine

WUWT virtually agrees with NASA's temperature recordings:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T

Where economics has let us down is that many hidden costs are hidden.
...The amount of subsidisation mines receive in a open economy
...The PAYE tax payer and small business tax payers provide all sorts of infra structure such as roads, schools, hospitals and more; yet, there are major companies, including mining companies who do not pay tax.
...Climate change is already causing some communities to move; Fiji and Alaskan Inuit communities being examples. The use of fossil fuels has created that situation; but, major fossil fuel companies take no responsibility. Isn't the free market meant to adjust for major companies to take responsibility for their actions in a free market?
ExxonMobil management have supported their scientists who hold the consensus view on climate change. ExxonMobil have repudiated the views of the Republican Party on climate change; commentary that can be extended to right wing political parties elsewhere.

The Climate Council have indicated that the Arctic is not in good condition, there are an abundance of references in relation to this:

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/arctic-temperatures-reach-record-breaking-highs

Kevin Anderson makes some interesting comments about the need for a carbon budget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpbfGaKp4K4

Kevin Anderson states that it will be near impossible to hold the average global temperatures to 2C above what was experienced in pre industrial times; he asserts that is a death sentence for innocent poor people.