Re: Margaret Beckett "Wars will start due to climate change"
OlOlOl01
"MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QZOdnUUzj7u...@giganews.com...
> "John Rowland" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f03r6t$c1o$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Ed wrote:
>>> She is either remarkably prescient, or a lunatic. Make up your own
>>> mind, but she spends her summers in a caravan
>>>
>>>
>>> Climate change 'threatens world stability'
>>> By Laura Clout and agencies
>>> Last Updated: 10:45am BST 17/04/2007
>>>
>>>
>>> Drought, floods and rising sea levels linked to climate change could
>>> start wars around the world, Margaret Beckett will predict today.
>>
>> But wars will kill lots of people, reducing both demand for food and
>> energy consumption, so shouldn't the headline be "Global wars will
>> provide solution to environmental problems"?
>
> Yes, certainly a sizeable thermonuclear exchange would solve the problem.
> Several billion killed and the ensuing nuclear winter would ensure no-one
> was worried about global warming. Problem solved!
>
>
Actually, you have hit the Darwinian solution right on.
Global warming (and its various consequences on the
general climatic system, pollution, resource shortages,
starvation and much of the present malaise affecting
mankind are man-made by overpopulation (if there
were only a thousand people on this planet, these problems
would hardly exist or could easily be resolved with even our
present technologies.)
The Darwinian solution (=the Malthuisian solution) is that when
a species becomes excessively dominant in an ecology then that
ecology modifies such as to redress the balance.
The fossil record shows half a dozen mass extinctions of species in
the history of planet Earth (the microbiological record is nbeginning
to show some interesting shake ups as well).
The mass of Joe Public is too ignorant, the middle classes and
corporations too self centred and materialistic to act.
That leaves the politicians and 'government' - but they suffer blindness
beyond the dates of their assumed re-elections and pensions.
Fasten your seat belts.
Faustino Núñez Hernández
I don't think wars will start due to climate change .
I think that it will happen just the opposite : wars will end due to
climate change . To create a new global strong , functional and
working economy will be the only chance for human kind to face the new
environmental threats .
neil h
Yeah, right ... can you see the Americans going for something like that?
--
neil h.
Google Brights
John Rowland
Hehehe.... you funny.
OlOlOl01
Fasten your seat belts.
news:f08v12$r8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Yeah, right.
His thinking processes - comprising four unsubstantiated
assertions - seem to be suffering from some distortive
effects.
Faustino Núñez Hernández
I think our self-extinction would be an historical singularity that
would make us learn the meaning of social culture , in opposition to
war culture . As long as we get closer to that singularity we'll
understand this fact , and we'll see clear some things .
In my opinion , in any process of solving the present situation of
international disturbances with a viable world social equilibrium
( and with an environment and work oriented economy , rather than with
a war oriented economy ) , two measures will become important
( factually inevitable ) : 1º ) The institution of the criterion of
objetivity in measuring or quantifying work ( price as an objective
instrument , susceptible of technical measurement -and work based or
dependent- ; rather than price as an individual decision , susceptible
of -free- negotiation ) ; and 2º ) the creation of a true institution
of transmission of human knowledge , specially human science , to all
people .
( N.: I think you're not understanding the whole meaning of
'globalization' ; just think of trying to convince a tribe ten
thousands years ago of the convenience of a tributary system or of an
specialized economy ; do you really think your opinion historically
matters about the convenience , for example , of an unique world
language , huh ? ) .
OlOlOl01
"Faustino Núñez Hernández" <fau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177272811.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
Original thread repaired (again):
Fasten your seat belts.
>
> I think our self-extinction would be an historical singularity that
> would make us learn the meaning of social culture ,
Really?
I would say that our extinction would extinguish us and thus
end all learning, meaning and social culture insofar as human
beings were concerned.
Kermit
wrote:
That's right. After all, we humans are known for getting rational and
cooperative when the pressures increase and the resources diminish...
Faustino, I sincerely hope you're right, but I am not overly
optimistic. I don't expect real improvement until genetic engineering
starts producing smarter people in significant numbers. Of course my
wife thinks that this will simply produce intelligent, war-mongering
lunatics. <shrug>
Kermit
Robert Grumbine
In article <1177439439.5...@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Intelligence is merely a tool. Having more tools doesn't change
character, or how we'd decide to use the tools. To the extent that
we're a species of war-mongering lunatics, more intelligence wouldn't
change that; I agree with your wife.
So, then, what would we wave our magic engineering wand to try to
change, if not intelligence itself.
One thing that seems maladaptive is the degree to which we react to
extremely rare but spectacular events. (Plus the degree to which things
are perceived as spectacular simply because people _say_ they are -- the
Alar scare, for instance.) Having a more reasonable risk analysis
'module' would be a big improvement.
Related, perhaps, but comes to mind from a different direction would
be for humans to be more comfortable thinking at longer time scales
(than days-weeks). We do (planting, for instance) think longer than
that, but not for much, and not often. So when it comes to, say,
business planning, 3 months are considered plenty long, and a year is
a very long time. Likewise our electing officials for a mere 2-6 years.
If we thought as a matter of course on decadal time scales, a number
of current problems wouldn't be such. (Or course, then other things would
become problems ...)
It also would be a good idea to lower that 'love sugar, salt, and fat'
setting in our pleasure centers or wherever.
Others ...?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Dr.GH
> "MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QZOdnUUzj7u...@giganews.com...
>
Yeah, It is going to be very very bad starting in Africa and SE Asia,
but spreading everywhere.
Peter Barber
wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:29 pm, OlOlOl01 wrote:
> > Actually, you have hit the Darwinian solution right on. Global
> > warming (and its various consequences on the general climatic
> > system, pollution, resource shortages, starvation and much of the
> > present malaise affecting mankind are man-made by overpopulation
> > (if there were only a thousand people on this planet, these
> > problems would hardly exist or could easily be resolved with even
> > our present technologies.)
> >
> > The Darwinian solution (=the Malthuisian solution) is that when
> > a species becomes excessively dominant in an ecology then that
> > ecology modifies such as to redress the balance.
> >
> > The fossil record shows half a dozen mass extinctions of species in
> > the history of planet Earth (the microbiological record is nbeginning
> > to show some interesting shake ups as well).
> >
> > The mass of Joe Public is too ignorant, the middle classes and
> > corporations too self centred and materialistic to act. That leaves
> > the politicians and 'government' - but they suffer blindness
> > beyond the dates of their assumed re-elections and pensions.
> >
> > Fasten your seat belts.
>
I'd accept most of that last statement as a necessary, if not
sufficient, condition for the survival of human civilisation, though I
think you would need to define what a "working" economy is first. I'm
guessing you mean something like "internalising currently externalised
costs such as environmental degradation or exacerbation of social
problems". I'm also not sure whether it needs to be one global system.
But since climate change is widely predicted to severely alter or
disrupt water supplies, cause desertification in current marginal
agricultural land and flood many highly populous areas, many tens of
millions of new environmental refugees will be created. Nearly all of
these will be from currently poor countries, which is a surefire way
of stirring up the deep-seated prejudices which enable us to define
and demonise the "other", and engage in war with them.
My forlorn hope is that by that stage, petroleum will be such an
expensive commodity that the states intending to wage war will have
already allocated their fuels to more basic needs such as heating or
delivering basic supplies, but 20th century history indicates strongly
that in most countries, armed forces are be given higher priority than
humanitarian needs.
Faustino Núñez Hernández
Kermit , you've said something that interestingly approaches to an
excellent example of what I maintain : you speak about genetic
engineering . Is there a better example of coincidence between natural
evolution and conscious human act of PROGRESS ? Natural evolution
consists of mutating ( changing ) in an adaptive manner for inhabiting
a new environmental circumstance . Considering this fact , it's hard
to me not to believe that one day genetic engineering will allow us to
populate Mars ( by letting us mutate in a convenient manner ) ,
perhaps when conditions in our original planet get adverse enough -due
to climate change- ...
Peter , what's a " working economy " ? Well , through this concept I
don't try to focus internalizations ; my particular definition is ,
mainly : " a work based or oriented economy " . And this means to me ,
as I said , << ... the institution of the criterion of
objetivity in measuring or quantifying work ( price as an objective
instrument , susceptible of technical measurement -and work based or
dependent- ; rather than price as an individual decision ,
susceptible
of -free- negotiation ) ... >>
Let me remark that money has been a (real) institution for many
hundreds of years , and its function is exactly to homogenize the
measurement of economical goods ( to make interchanges or trades
possible ) ; so to objectify the measurement of work ( that is , to
establish an objective relationship between monetary price and work )
would not institute anything insane in that sense .
There can't be social order if there isn't economical order . I think
economical order is necessary and sufficient for social order ( so ,
in certain way , they're the same ) .
ecoman
> "Faustino Núñez Hernández" <faus...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177272811.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Original thread repaired (again):
>
> "MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QZOdnUUzj7u...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
> news:f08v12$r8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...> Faustino Núñez Hernández wrote:
> >> I don't think wars will start due to climate change .
>
> >> I think that it will happen just the opposite : wars will end due to
> >> climate change . To create a new global strong , functional and
> >> working economy will be the only chance for human kind to face the new
> >> environmental threats .
>
> > Hehehe.... you funny.
>
> Yeah, right.
> His thinking processes - comprising four unsubstantiated
> assertions - seem to be suffering from some distortive
> effects.
>
>
>
> > I think our self-extinction would be an historical singularity that
> > would make us learn the meaning of social culture ,
>
> Really?
> I would say that our extinction would extinguish us and thus
> end all learning, meaning and social culture insofar as human
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that a promise...go for it I'll support you.Nothing like a good
ending!
ecoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats it in a nut shell...the gods of mankind (business people well
loaded and into dark enterprise) are just wetting their pants to get
the perfect cyborg ready to take over from the destruction of the poor
masses and anyone else who gets in the way...then like star wars there
will be robotic concentrations for the relatively few humans that are
left over...the plan is perfect, they all saw it in the film plot and
Darth Vader was just the stoolie to provoke it all...only one problem
is that this time around Darthie baby must'nt loose...theres hope for
the neocons and zionists yet!
ecoman
wrote:
You been reading too much Taylor and if these are your words
sunshine...find some better ones...guess you must be itchin to get to
Mars...they say its mighty bootiful up there...meanwhile what we need
down here in this more than 'bootiful' world of earth is the kind of
realism that comes from voting out the neocons and establishing some
better justice so that we can move out of these modern dark ages.
tgde...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> Kermit , you've said something that interestingly approaches to an
> excellent example of what I maintain : you speak about genetic
> engineering . Is there a better example of coincidence between natural
> evolution and conscious human act of PROGRESS ? Natural evolution
> consists of mutating ( changing ) in an adaptive manner for inhabiting
> a new environmental circumstance . Considering this fact , it's hard
> to me not to believe that one day genetic engineering will allow us to
> populate Mars
It could also allow us to limit human population so that all these
problems go away. Except as insurance against some kind of otherwise
uncontrollable natural effect like solar changes or asteroid impact,
there's no particular reason to go live on Mars.
-tg
Kermit
> Other groups deleted and shift of topic per subject line change:
>
>
>
>
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 19, 12:14 pm, Faustino Núñez Hernández <faus...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> I don't think wars will start due to climate change .
>
> >> I think that it will happen just the opposite : wars will end due to
> >> climate change . To create a new global strong , functional and
> >> working economy will be the only chance for human kind to face the new
> >> environmental threats .
>
> >That's right. After all, we humans are known for getting rational and
> >cooperative when the pressures increase and the resources diminish...
>
> >Faustino, I sincerely hope you're right, but I am not overly
> >optimistic. I don't expect real improvement until genetic engineering
> >starts producing smarter people in significant numbers. Of course my
> >wife thinks that this will simply produce intelligent, war-mongering
> >lunatics. <shrug>
>
> Intelligence is merely a tool. Having more tools doesn't change
> character, or how we'd decide to use the tools. To the extent that
> we're a species of war-mongering lunatics, more intelligence wouldn't
> change that; I agree with your wife.
Yes, that's her thinking. It will be possible to enhance intelligence
fairly soon, but wisdom and self-control are trickier - more
complicated or subtle, I expect, and perhaps not linked to a few
simple combinations of genes. Also, the ones with power will be
interested in enhancing the intelligence of their children and a few
minions, but not their compassion or restraint.
I'm hoping that being smarter will predispose one to restraint.
<shrug> But then, I'm an optimist by nature.
>
> So, then, what would we wave our magic engineering wand to try to
> change, if not intelligence itself.
My wife has brought up the possibility of a virus that attacks
carriers of self-righteousness and concrete thinking...
>
> One thing that seems maladaptive is the degree to which we react to
> extremely rare but spectacular events. (Plus the degree to which things
> are perceived as spectacular simply because people _say_ they are -- the
> Alar scare, for instance.) Having a more reasonable risk analysis
> 'module' would be a big improvement.
Yes, but we are one generation (plus the time it takes to develop this
choice) away from seeing this in large numbers. It will get worse
before it gets better.
>
> Related, perhaps, but comes to mind from a different direction would
> be for humans to be more comfortable thinking at longer time scales
> (than days-weeks). We do (planting, for instance) think longer than
> that, but not for much, and not often. So when it comes to, say,
> business planning, 3 months are considered plenty long, and a year is
> a very long time. Likewise our electing officials for a mere 2-6 years.
> If we thought as a matter of course on decadal time scales, a number
> of current problems wouldn't be such. (Or course, then other things would
> become problems ...)
It has occurred to that we are only decades away from extending our
lifespan indefinitely. When folks are hoping to live for 150 or 1500
years, they may start taking the long view. Especially if they can
*see the changes wrought in 100 years. But again, the immediate effect
of a longer life will be increased population pressure.
>
> It also would be a good idea to lower that 'love sugar, salt, and fat'
> setting in our pleasure centers or wherever.
Should be tweakable.
>
> Others ...?
As someone who is very myopic - as is my wife and our daughter - I
wouldn't mind seeing numerous little problems fixed. My mother-in-law
would enjoy her old age more without the arthritis.
> --
> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Kermit
Robert Grumbine
Maybe that's what we need to re-engineer, spread optimism around.
>> So, then, what would we wave our magic engineering wand to try to
>> change, if not intelligence itself.
>
>My wife has brought up the possibility of a virus that attacks
>carriers of self-righteousness and concrete thinking...
Interesting. There might even be something doable. Paper in a
recent Nature which discussed certain kinds of over-rigid/judgmental
thinking being traceable to brain damage in a certain area. This
is yet another in the vein of brain damage/chemistry manifesting
itself in social choices/behavior. On one hand, I suppose it's no
surprise. On the other hand, maybe we could loosen up some of
these major impediments to plural society.
>> One thing that seems maladaptive is the degree to which we react to
>> extremely rare but spectacular events. (Plus the degree to which things
>> are perceived as spectacular simply because people _say_ they are -- the
>> Alar scare, for instance.) Having a more reasonable risk analysis
>> 'module' would be a big improvement.
>
>Yes, but we are one generation (plus the time it takes to develop this
>choice) away from seeing this in large numbers. It will get worse
>before it gets better.
Not sure what you mean. Our risk analysis 'module' isn't ready for
modification that I know of. Nor do people seem ready en masse to
change how they think about risk.
>> Related, perhaps, but comes to mind from a different direction would
>> be for humans to be more comfortable thinking at longer time scales
>> (than days-weeks). We do (planting, for instance) think longer than
>> that, but not for much, and not often. So when it comes to, say,
>> business planning, 3 months are considered plenty long, and a year is
>> a very long time. Likewise our electing officials for a mere 2-6 years.
>> If we thought as a matter of course on decadal time scales, a number
>> of current problems wouldn't be such. (Or course, then other things would
>> become problems ...)
>
>It has occurred to that we are only decades away from extending our
>lifespan indefinitely. When folks are hoping to live for 150 or 1500
>years, they may start taking the long view. Especially if they can
>*see the changes wrought in 100 years. But again, the immediate effect
>of a longer life will be increased population pressure.
We've already gone up by a factor of 2-3 in the 'industrial' world
(30ish to 80ish). Can't say that I notice any big changes in
forethoughtfulness. But this may also be related to the fact that
'elders' who reached 60s and 70s weren't unheard of 1000 years ago
either; what's changed is mostly just the fraction who reach those levels.
Maybe something novel would happen when significant numbers started
reaching their 120s and 140s.
Except ... for all that the mean has risen significantly, and the
activity levels possible has risen greatly ... the maxima don't seem
to have moved. And today's teens, with 70 years ahead of them, don't
seem any more inclined to think 30 years ahead than their ancestors
50 years ago (or 5000).
>> It also would be a good idea to lower that 'love sugar, salt, and fat'
>> setting in our pleasure centers or wherever.
>
>Should be tweakable.
>
>> Others ...?
>
>As someone who is very myopic - as is my wife and our daughter - I
>wouldn't mind seeing numerous little problems fixed. My mother-in-law
>would enjoy her old age more without the arthritis.
Oh, the modifications for the engineering side are legion. Knees,
shoulders, backs, eyes, arthritis, autoimmune diseases, degenerative
discs/cartiledge, ...
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.