landrights4all

I happen to agree with you on a number of points, but not on the issue of technology, it is our skill and knowledge which
has allowed us to feed so many people and provide a very basic level of health care, and yes the poor and 3rd world do benefit.
In all parts of the world children survival rates have dramatically improved.

A sustainable future will require high tech to provide power, food, heath care and birth control to as many people as possible.
In the long term if humans are going to be anything more than just an interesting species, which inhabited the earth for geologically brief period,
we will have to recognize that we have the potential to mess the earth up big time, and only by accepting this fact can we have any hope of avoiding disaster.

Climate change is the simplest example of this problem but it is by no means the only one. It also from a technical point of view one of the easier ones to solve, if we choose to ignore it, and place short term gain ahead of the welfare of future generations, it will not bode well for the far more difficult questions such as how to avoid nuclear war over the coming centuries.

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/84401-report-global-temperatures-to-rise-at-least-4-c-by-2100
My link is for those who tried to use the thread to snear at climate change and those who insist the science is right.
I saw a thread asking many questions and having many possible answers.
But refused to stand idly by while science was rubbished.
Yet those posters may have given evidence that we are indeed doomed.
To challenge science in the name of protecting wealth may stall future science out comes and pay the ultimate price for it.
Planets survival should not have a price tag on it.

*Warmair, you forgot to mention the greatest possible catastrophe of them all that could beset mankind.
TONY ABORT GETS RE-ELECTED FOR A SECOND TERM.*

Yes that would be the biggest catastrophe.
All the other scenarios can be fixed by following the Japanese example and reducing our fertility rate causing the population to decline.

Hi Warmair
I wouldn't deny for a moment that we have enjoyed many benefits from technological advancements, and neither would I want to go back to being without those benefits. However, I used to be a salesman where pointing to all the benefits is a tactic to avoid an objective evaluation.

The other side of the story is that our technological advancements and benefits have come at considerable cost, including war, the denial of social justice and considerable environmental damage. They have also put us on the brink. We need a new way to progress.

For me it's not a matter of going back to the cave now, but a matter of having a more honest look at the situation we are in and the future we are creating.

Our advanced technology was developed by the rich for the rich - benefits to the poor were trickle-down benefits - after thoughts, or a way of creating and capitalizing on new markets. The competition involved creates winners and losers and the poorest are always the biggest losers, whatevertrickle-down benefits may eventually get to them, if we last that long.

Science, marketisation and competition are not the only ways to proceed. If the poor (4/5ths of the world) follow this model which we have established the downside will be devastating for all of us. A cooperative option would serve the poor better and faster- cooperation is after all the recommendation of every wise person and spiritually enlightened leader throughout history.

Our one hope is for the poor to see a quicker way to housing & food security than capitalism. If they could see that they'd take it, & we'd all avoid Armageddon https://t.co/JWgUczLq6w
.... and we need to understand that our own inventiveness is only part of the solution. Only justice will save us.

Bazz, you ought to cut Spindoc a little slack for his typo. In the post immediately above yours he got it right, UNFCCC, or the United Nations Framework Committee on Climate Change. Have you read the UNFCCC September 2009 Resolution chaired by Ivo De Boer that was the document that was to be ratified at the November 2009 meeting in Copenhagen? It is worth reading, especially the part about forming a World Government as described under Paragraph 38 at the bottom of Page 18. If you read the document it might enlighten you so instead of offering up your suspicions you may get some real insight into why Copenhagen failed and why KRudd came home with his 120 delegates and never mentioned Global Warming again.

Geoffrey Kelley

Belly, Good program on The History Channel at the moment about Biblical BS. Tonight's show is on Noah's Ark, and it debunks the whole Noah nonsense. I hope Runner is watching, but is most likely leading a bunch of creationist up Mt Ararat in search of the non existent ark.