Hans Christian Andersen’s Little Mermaid in Copenhagen harbour looks a little shocked. A bit too far south for a maurauding hungry polar bear. His point I guess.
Mind you, the Little Mermaid came out of the water seeking love. The polar bear is getting more and more into the water seeking food.
I’m sure the anti-Anthropogenic Climate Change crowd will make it into a fairytale.
What is clear is that you two are mixing your morality here. Yes you are correct in thinking that being hardoworking and inventive are good things, however just like EVERYTHING else there is a consequence. The US is NOT effecient in its use of things. That is undisputed fact. The US wastes more of everything than the rest of the world. For a country with less that 5% of the world population you create a third of the planets waste and take in half of its resources. That is not an effecient model. That is not one that can be recreated. The world cannot sustain it. Period.
Secondly, free market economics is not altruistic. Floating from one bubble to the next without any safety measures or controls have proven to be reckless and dangerous. Regardless of what you have to say in regards to profits, it is irrelevant. Profits have no meaning if there isnt a planet to speak of.
Thirdly, climate change has been proven to be caused my human activity. This is a combination of deforestation, desertification (increases in deserts), excessive resource extraction, excessive waste and excessive pollutants. I would like to remind you there are dozens of countries working independently from each other and all have conclusive proof that there is a human effect on climate. And it would be irresponsible and detrimental to the entire human population if people kept doing nothing because they refuse to properly educate themselves in the science and instead buy into anecdotal pseudo science and partisan rhetoric just because they are too greedy, uncaring and lazy to change their way of life.
Life has consequnces, and excessive consumption has consequences, like obesity and CLIMATE CHANGE!
Don’t underestimate technology’s capacity to evolve and adapt.
Up until the Hindenburg fire, dirigeables were more popular than airplanes. Back then, airplanes were noisy and too small for comercian transatlantic travel (Lindberg’s plane couldn’t carry the 90 people the Hindenburg did).
After the accident, people could have thought that the days of airborne transatlantic travel were over. Seventy years later we know they were not. Heck, we can even carry more people over longer distances in shorter time. WHY? Because technology evolved. Why did it evolved? Because people saw a problem to solve and were ready to give the underdogs their chance.
^ It is the above Ugly American arrogance that gets America its enemies.
Fortunately, I do know better than to wrap all Americans in your patriotic flag. On this forum I do read reasoned and reasonable responses from your countrymen so I shall not allow my contempt for your words get the better of me and replying with an equally bigoted retort.
av8tor; you don’t think the industry can handle a little challenge? It’s not made of porcelain, you know. The world has changed since the cavemen’s days and it was not because someday, someone decided to invent the weel. Whoever invented the wheel did it because there was a problem to solve.
Ok Av8tor, I see you have been watching Fox News Sean Hannity when he held a protest against this. Well I would like to remind you that the reason they arent irrigating is because the minnow is a needed fish to replenish fish stocks, where the farm land was choking off the fishermen. So look, it is proven here that there is consequence for action, and over production in one sector chokes off the other. That is the interconnected message that the environmentalists are trying to show. The effects of climate change are felt in more vulnerable areas on earth.
And secondly, in regards to the economy, it is not true that the economy can just fix it on ingenuity, and this is because of the already existing infrastructure. You see it would be more expensive to change things around, and THAT is why it is not. Industry is based on incentive, and unless there is water suddenly up to your nose, humans are not good at changing their ways. People will put up with anything, as long as they perceive it to be fine, even if it is not. That is why changes have to be mandated and incentives need to be built into the system. It is naive to believe in the economy as this altruistic being that will solve all problems. The system is based on incentives, and so we need to build in incentives to achieve a basic goal of becoming more effecient in general. It is clear that we dont have the resources to constantly keep buildling at the rate that we do and then discarding everything to the trash heap. Climate change isnt just about CO2, that is but one aspect of the issue, it is a grand combination of total disrespect for nature. From deforestation, to desertification, pollutants, trash, and general waste. And I am not saying that we should cast off our goods and live as animals. I am just saying that even if it costs more, we should recycle as much as we can, reuse as much as we can and so on and so forth, so that we can ensure that there will be enough. It is basic common sense.
Church: While I’m getting screwed by you, (didya bring protection or should I supply it?) read this (I know you value facts). Everyone reckons they’re the most generous and give the most. Truth is, all countries pledge but rarely meet their promises (except perhaps Norway). Per capita, I still think the US falls short most industrialised countries. That means more of my personal taxes go to foreign aid (real foreign aid) than yours.
The other truth is that, as DrC points out, Foreign Aid is often military aid which is the self-interest of…right, you get it.
(are we done screwing yet? I have other appointments)
I’m a little surprised by your anger though, I thought you’d be a bit more pragmatic and understood realpolitik.
av8tor: I ride a cycle, not a horse. You want a ménage à trois? Best ask Church first though.
You could make the case for private aid rather than government aid (the taxes you were complaining about) but mind remittances by migrants and private investment (that isn’t charity).
av8tor pointed out about an 1 hour ago:
Looks like a horse in your picture and a donkey..???
Pffft, looks like av8tor has me on that one. I’ve used Picasso’s painting as my avator for so many years that I’ve forgotten the Q in my moniker is the horserider in the painting.
But av8tor, did you go read the link I provided earlier?
A note on farming and water use in the Central Valley- most of the farms for decades, grew low quality cotton, and did horrible damage to the soils. The IMPERIAL Valley has been the real “breadbasket”, and it’s in trouble on water, just because there isn’t any left.
Northern end of the valley is in nut orchards, and is potentially facing serious problems with bee losses, and no other way to fertilize the blossoms.
More orchards have also been torn out for condos, and development, than will EVER be lost due to any fish species.
Blaming the ESA or Wilderness Act for land use loss is absurd. The proportion of land we’ve destroyed with urban sprawl dwarfs acreage lost to habitat protection in the U.S. Just the land required to PARK our ANNUAL new car production is larger than many National Parks, and/or wilderness areas.
Church: You might recall my position on US military “commitments” worldwide. I wouldn’t mind if the US did just as you suggest. I most certainly would not call you Ugly at all.
My criticism of European defence was even hotly criticised instead.
There is very little altruism in those US foreign military bases and providing security for others has your self-interest as its priority. Realpolitik, that’s what it is all about. BS that it is foreign aid.
By the way, a lot of foreign aid is tied foreign aid but it isn’t just the US. You will note I pointed out ALL countries bullsh** us. The Scandanavian countries are the most honest on this planet in that respect.
Try this website instead:
”Commitment to Development Index 2009”
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/
Holy bleeep, even Portugal fares better than the US :-|
Foreign aid is the first policy that comes to mind when people in rich countries think of helping poorer countries. The aid component of the CDI moves beyond standard but narrow comparisons of the quantity of aid governments give, factoring in quality too. It penalizes donors for giving aid to rich or corrupt governments, for overburdening recipients with lots of small aid projects, or for “tying” aid, which forces recipients to spend it on the donor country’s own goods rather than shop around for the lowest price. The component also rewards tax deductions and credits that support private charity.
Most comparisons between donors are based on how much aid each gives, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP. For the CDI, quantity is merely a starting point in a review that also assesses aid quality. The Index penalizes “tied” aid, which recipients are required to spend on products from the donor nation; this prevents them from shopping around and raises project costs by 15–30 percent. The Index also subtracts debt payments the rich countries receive from developing countries on aid loans. And it looks at where aid goes, favoring poor, uncorrupt nations. Aid to Iraq, for instance, is counted at 13¢ on the dollar, since in Iraq corruption is rampant and rule of law weak. Aid to Malawi, on the other hand, with its high poverty and relatively good governance, is counted at 94¢ on the dollar. Finally, donors are penalized for overloading recipient governments with too many small aid projects. When projects are many and recipient officials few, the obligation to host visits from donor officials and file regular reports becomes a serious burden.
I got the above link from the same site I provided earlier
^ And you’re saying it isn’t relevant?
Adding “quality” to aid means actually evaluating aid, especially “tied aid” which is rather less charitable or noble.
That further removes the altruistic label given to a lot of aid.
Again, I do not attach any particular country to what I just said.
av8tor, I see that since you mentioned the fish again, you didnt bother to read my post. The reason the government isnt turning on the water is because it would negatively affect the fishing industry further up the line. It is not just about environmentalism and saving fish, it is also about saving an industry that is heavily under pressure from the large amounts of water being wasted and pollutants being introduced changing the habitats of fish. The fact is that business too needs environemntalism, as much of business has its roots in the environment. It isnt just about being green, it is about sound business practices and common sense!
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
Hans Christian Andersen’s Little Mermaid in Copenhagen harbour looks a little shocked. A bit too far south for a maurauding hungry polar bear. His point I guess. Mind you, the Little Mermaid came out of the water seeking love. The polar bear is getting more and more into the water seeking food. I’m sure the anti-Anthropogenic Climate Change crowd will make it into a fairytale.
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
Ah scooter sees all ;oD
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
The deniers remind me of how often that poor little mermaid has been vandalized.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Flurries Powerpaws says; Hello, fish with b00bs, can I crash at your place?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Av8tor, it is sad that the rest of the world wants to opt out of the American success paradigm. I guess they got too much baggage.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
What is clear is that you two are mixing your morality here. Yes you are correct in thinking that being hardoworking and inventive are good things, however just like EVERYTHING else there is a consequence. The US is NOT effecient in its use of things. That is undisputed fact. The US wastes more of everything than the rest of the world. For a country with less that 5% of the world population you create a third of the planets waste and take in half of its resources. That is not an effecient model. That is not one that can be recreated. The world cannot sustain it. Period. Secondly, free market economics is not altruistic. Floating from one bubble to the next without any safety measures or controls have proven to be reckless and dangerous. Regardless of what you have to say in regards to profits, it is irrelevant. Profits have no meaning if there isnt a planet to speak of. Thirdly, climate change has been proven to be caused my human activity. This is a combination of deforestation, desertification (increases in deserts), excessive resource extraction, excessive waste and excessive pollutants. I would like to remind you there are dozens of countries working independently from each other and all have conclusive proof that there is a human effect on climate. And it would be irresponsible and detrimental to the entire human population if people kept doing nothing because they refuse to properly educate themselves in the science and instead buy into anecdotal pseudo science and partisan rhetoric just because they are too greedy, uncaring and lazy to change their way of life. Life has consequnces, and excessive consumption has consequences, like obesity and CLIMATE CHANGE!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Don’t underestimate technology’s capacity to evolve and adapt.
Up until the Hindenburg fire, dirigeables were more popular than airplanes. Back then, airplanes were noisy and too small for comercian transatlantic travel (Lindberg’s plane couldn’t carry the 90 people the Hindenburg did). After the accident, people could have thought that the days of airborne transatlantic travel were over. Seventy years later we know they were not. Heck, we can even carry more people over longer distances in shorter time. WHY? Because technology evolved. Why did it evolved? Because people saw a problem to solve and were ready to give the underdogs their chance.
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
^ It is the above Ugly American arrogance that gets America its enemies. Fortunately, I do know better than to wrap all Americans in your patriotic flag. On this forum I do read reasoned and reasonable responses from your countrymen so I shall not allow my contempt for your words get the better of me and replying with an equally bigoted retort.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
av8tor; you don’t think the industry can handle a little challenge? It’s not made of porcelain, you know. The world has changed since the cavemen’s days and it was not because someday, someone decided to invent the weel. Whoever invented the wheel did it because there was a problem to solve.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Ok Av8tor, I see you have been watching Fox News Sean Hannity when he held a protest against this. Well I would like to remind you that the reason they arent irrigating is because the minnow is a needed fish to replenish fish stocks, where the farm land was choking off the fishermen. So look, it is proven here that there is consequence for action, and over production in one sector chokes off the other. That is the interconnected message that the environmentalists are trying to show. The effects of climate change are felt in more vulnerable areas on earth.
And secondly, in regards to the economy, it is not true that the economy can just fix it on ingenuity, and this is because of the already existing infrastructure. You see it would be more expensive to change things around, and THAT is why it is not. Industry is based on incentive, and unless there is water suddenly up to your nose, humans are not good at changing their ways. People will put up with anything, as long as they perceive it to be fine, even if it is not. That is why changes have to be mandated and incentives need to be built into the system. It is naive to believe in the economy as this altruistic being that will solve all problems. The system is based on incentives, and so we need to build in incentives to achieve a basic goal of becoming more effecient in general. It is clear that we dont have the resources to constantly keep buildling at the rate that we do and then discarding everything to the trash heap. Climate change isnt just about CO2, that is but one aspect of the issue, it is a grand combination of total disrespect for nature. From deforestation, to desertification, pollutants, trash, and general waste. And I am not saying that we should cast off our goods and live as animals. I am just saying that even if it costs more, we should recycle as much as we can, reuse as much as we can and so on and so forth, so that we can ensure that there will be enough. It is basic common sense.
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
Church: While I’m getting screwed by you, (didya bring protection or should I supply it?) read this (I know you value facts). Everyone reckons they’re the most generous and give the most. Truth is, all countries pledge but rarely meet their promises (except perhaps Norway). Per capita, I still think the US falls short most industrialised countries. That means more of my personal taxes go to foreign aid (real foreign aid) than yours.
The other truth is that, as DrC points out, Foreign Aid is often military aid which is the self-interest of…right, you get it. (are we done screwing yet? I have other appointments)
I’m a little surprised by your anger though, I thought you’d be a bit more pragmatic and understood realpolitik.
av8tor: I ride a cycle, not a horse. You want a ménage à trois? Best ask Church first though.
You could make the case for private aid rather than government aid (the taxes you were complaining about) but mind remittances by migrants and private investment (that isn’t charity).
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
av8tor pointed out about an 1 hour ago: Looks like a horse in your picture and a donkey..???
Pffft, looks like av8tor has me on that one. I’ve used Picasso’s painting as my avator for so many years that I’ve forgotten the Q in my moniker is the horserider in the painting.
But av8tor, did you go read the link I provided earlier?
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
A note on farming and water use in the Central Valley- most of the farms for decades, grew low quality cotton, and did horrible damage to the soils. The IMPERIAL Valley has been the real “breadbasket”, and it’s in trouble on water, just because there isn’t any left.
Northern end of the valley is in nut orchards, and is potentially facing serious problems with bee losses, and no other way to fertilize the blossoms.
More orchards have also been torn out for condos, and development, than will EVER be lost due to any fish species.
Blaming the ESA or Wilderness Act for land use loss is absurd. The proportion of land we’ve destroyed with urban sprawl dwarfs acreage lost to habitat protection in the U.S. Just the land required to PARK our ANNUAL new car production is larger than many National Parks, and/or wilderness areas.
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
Church: You might recall my position on US military “commitments” worldwide. I wouldn’t mind if the US did just as you suggest. I most certainly would not call you Ugly at all. My criticism of European defence was even hotly criticised instead. There is very little altruism in those US foreign military bases and providing security for others has your self-interest as its priority. Realpolitik, that’s what it is all about. BS that it is foreign aid.
By the way, a lot of foreign aid is tied foreign aid but it isn’t just the US. You will note I pointed out ALL countries bullsh** us. The Scandanavian countries are the most honest on this planet in that respect.
Try this website instead: ”Commitment to Development Index 2009” http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/ Holy bleeep, even Portugal fares better than the US :-|
Foreign aid is the first policy that comes to mind when people in rich countries think of helping poorer countries. The aid component of the CDI moves beyond standard but narrow comparisons of the quantity of aid governments give, factoring in quality too. It penalizes donors for giving aid to rich or corrupt governments, for overburdening recipients with lots of small aid projects, or for “tying” aid, which forces recipients to spend it on the donor country’s own goods rather than shop around for the lowest price. The component also rewards tax deductions and credits that support private charity.
Most comparisons between donors are based on how much aid each gives, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP. For the CDI, quantity is merely a starting point in a review that also assesses aid quality. The Index penalizes “tied” aid, which recipients are required to spend on products from the donor nation; this prevents them from shopping around and raises project costs by 15–30 percent. The Index also subtracts debt payments the rich countries receive from developing countries on aid loans. And it looks at where aid goes, favoring poor, uncorrupt nations. Aid to Iraq, for instance, is counted at 13¢ on the dollar, since in Iraq corruption is rampant and rule of law weak. Aid to Malawi, on the other hand, with its high poverty and relatively good governance, is counted at 94¢ on the dollar. Finally, donors are penalized for overloading recipient governments with too many small aid projects. When projects are many and recipient officials few, the obligation to host visits from donor officials and file regular reports becomes a serious burden.
I got the above link from the same site I provided earlier
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
^ And you’re saying it isn’t relevant? Adding “quality” to aid means actually evaluating aid, especially “tied aid” which is rather less charitable or noble. That further removes the altruistic label given to a lot of aid. Again, I do not attach any particular country to what I just said.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
av8tor, I see that since you mentioned the fish again, you didnt bother to read my post. The reason the government isnt turning on the water is because it would negatively affect the fishing industry further up the line. It is not just about environmentalism and saving fish, it is also about saving an industry that is heavily under pressure from the large amounts of water being wasted and pollutants being introduced changing the habitats of fish. The fact is that business too needs environemntalism, as much of business has its roots in the environment. It isnt just about being green, it is about sound business practices and common sense!