The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A timely reminder of the real limits to growth > Comments

A timely reminder of the real limits to growth : Comments

By Bill McKibben, published 19/10/2009

Thirty years ago a ground breaking book predicted if growth continued unchecked Earth’s ecological systems would be overwhelmed within a century.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
"I didn't suggest overturning democracy"

No, Squeers, but you did say that democracy - which you asserted is rule by "feral pigs" - "fails us", and that it should be "constrained". You then suggested the "novel recourse" that in certain instances (generally the ones that are of most concern to Squeers, it appears) it should be "over-ridden" in favour of an "ethical" (whose or what ethics is not stated, although one could safely take it to mean "anyone whose ethics agree with those of Squeers") dictatorship of experts and computers. Ludwig then enthusiastically agreed with you that democracy "is a HUGE stumbling block".

So, it *might* not be a duck, but it certainly waddles and quacks.

All of which is not to say that I disagree with you about the gravity of some circumstances, but I am most adamantly opposed to any notions of over-riding democracy in favour of a dictatorship of an unelected, unaccountable elite.

The ghosts of our fathers, who so valiantly fought fascism the first time around, demand nothing less. How appalled they would be, to hear their children aping the very evil they gave their lives to defeat.

Oxandy, if you think that opposing fascism ipso facto means approving unfettered, neo-liberal capitalism, you're an idiot. If you must know, I would class my political-economic views as democratic/soft-left and Keynesian.

Fractelle, not to belittle your pain, but what would have killed you was Carbon *Mon*oxide, CO, not Carbon *Di*oxide, CO2. CO is poisonous, CO2 is not. CO2 in sufficient amounts *may* suffocate someone by blanketing out Oxygen, but not even the most wild-eyed alarmist is claiming that CO2 levels will rise to even a fraction of that level.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

I do not wish to make light of your dark time, and am glad you have pulled through. However, I believe you are thinking of carbon monoxide. All the best.
Posted by whitmus, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:50:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Article is rubbish.
Posted by whitmus, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a true democracy, representatives should have no opinions whatsoever. Their role is purely to act as mouthpieces to the clearly defined majority of their constituents.
In republican democracy, on the other hand, representatives are very opinionated. Reps are elected to make decisions on behalf of their constituents, according to their personal beliefs. Constituents (supposedly) elect representatives whose opinions most closely parallel their own.
What sort of democracy do we have, and what is the most common complaint about parliamentary representatives?
Yes, I think we could learn a lot from Sweden and Switzerland.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 9:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whitmus

You are correct Carbon Monoxide is the evil twin of Carbon Dioxide, and that is the gas which I attempted to utilise to end my pain way back then. I apologise for lack of precision.

Both Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are belched out of engines every second of every day. We humans breathe out the relatively benign carbon dioxide as a result of breathing in oxygen. However, like many 'good' things too much can cause problems, which is what we are experiencing now that carbon dioxide (CO2) has reached 350 PPM. Perhaps you would care to check on some Skeptical Science, where the effects of excess (for our planet at present) is explained and the contribution we humans have made towards the increase, as follows:

"Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate? After all, our planet is a big place. Isn't it arrogant to claim puny little humans could make a dent in such a huge climate? However, whether human activity might affect climate is not a question of arrogance. It's merely a question of numbers. In particular, there are two numbers to consider.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising by 15 Gigatonnes per year

The first on-site continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 were implemented by Charles Keeling in 1958 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This station provides the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2. Currently, atmospheric CO2 levels are being measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. For periods before 1958, levels of atmospheric CO2 are determined from analyses of air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.

What we observe is that in pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 ppm. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by 15 gigatonnes every year."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html

However, I will reiterate what I say on every climate debate, whether we are impacting the climate or not can we afford to continue to pollute our environment and deplete our natural resources any more than we have?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:32:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would just add, Fractelle, a crucial rider. The skeptics always hide behind the admitted complexity of climate models, clinging to shreds of doubt as to the damage we are doing. So let's forget for a moment that we could be and almost certainly are precipitating our own demise; let's suppose that it all blows over, that thanks to Man's ingenuity we survive more or less in tact. Apart from your rhetorical question, "can we afford to continue to pollute our environment and deplete our natural resources any more than we have?", there is, again, the question of ethics; do we have the right to be indifferent to the Earth's other species and natural wonders? The hard heads out there, the "real men" will of course scorn this kind of talk as effeminate Greeny nonsense, or socialism, fascism etc.
It is possible for us to mend our ways, and perhaps turn things around, but we're all going to have to lead drastically more modest lives than we do now.
Who knows, we might actually be happier with less!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 22 October 2009 5:16:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy