McTag wrote:Mortkat wrote:I'm sure he is a nice guy. I really am not interested in his character but rather in his ideas. I have studied the problems involved in the allegations concerning "global warming and its alleged effects on the world's climate" very carefully and I do not believe that the proponents of the "catasthrope" thesis have enough conclusive evidence.
I remember that as a high schooler in the late sixties and early seventies, I read about evidence concerning the coming ICE AGE. I also read how we were doomed because there was not enough food to take care of mankind's nutritive needs--courtesy Paul Ehrlich.
And your point is....?
Fewer than 30% of the world population now have enough food and water for their needs.
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
The issue of global warming is a concern as it affects certain regions, however, and for this reason I am all for research and dealing with issues as they arise. I still think there is no evidence yet presented that this is not a routine climatic shift that occurs from time to time, however, so learning to deal with it is at least as necessary as learning what is causing it.
Foxfyre wrote: World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
Just give them some McDonalds, KFC's and Coke, and they are quiet.
Well, perhaps you should also include the strains of hybrid rice that eliminated so much starvatiion in Asia a generation ago; the modern agricultural innovatiuons that have increased food crop yields around the world; and finally the bioengineered seeds which promise further increases, but whose applicatiuon in poor countries is being blocked by European superstitions, greed, and political action.
Foxfyre wrote:
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
Airily dealing with the world's problems in a couple of sentences. One sentence to sum up the problem; one sentence to formulate a solution. Impressive.
McTag wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
Airily dealing with the world's problems in a couple of sentences. One sentence to sum up the problem; one sentence to formulate a solution. Impressive.
My two sentences are conclusions based on much larger bodies of opinion and research, but I'll stand by my opinion that these conclusions are both correct.
We have all been through all the fear-mongering, merely skeptical, and even contrarian arguments on the subject of global warming ad nauseum. I doubt that there are any new elements to the arguments that are likely to change the outlooks of any of us here.
Despite this, I believe we all agree that (1) atmospheric CO2 levels have risen over the past century and are still rising; (2) the major cause is human activity in food and energy production & use; and (3) this is a phenomenon that will contribute to the warming of the atmosphere.
We disagree over (1) whether this will soon lead to an uncontrolled and accelerating warming of the planet; (2) whether in human or economic terms the "problem" is worth fixing - in the ways that advocates have proposed "fixing" it.
Let me suggest a slightly different frame of reference for our discussions - one that just might allow us to better comprehend each other's views and motives, and may even let us find slightly larger areas of agreement.
I am inclined to see much of the history of the 20th century as a struggle between various Platonist ideas about the proper organization of human life and activity, and the principle of individual freedom -- both expressed in the policies of contending nations. The several struggles between various totalitarian political systems and others, based on greater individual freedom, and the continuing (though diminished) struggles between advocates of socialist or social democratic economic systems and relatively freer capitalism & free markets, are illustrative of this point. I don't mean this to be an argument between polar opposites - neither absolute freedom nor absolute control is either possible or desirable (Utopia is, after all "no place")., However many of the contentious issues before us do involve arguments on either side of this divide -- some advocating the creation of authoritarian structures to better "manage" our way out of difficulties; and others, fearing that these structures will eventually become a greater problem that that which they purport to solve, and trusting more in the creativity and adaptability of free societies, who oppose them. Both often find themselves talking past each other..
I believe this is a useful context in which to reconsider the debate over global warming.
I readily acknowledge my own bias in this area. I believe the lasting political gift we got from the British was the preference for pragmatic solutions to political problems, the art of 'muddling through' as opposed to theoretical flights about the optimal organizatiuon of human affairs. In short, I am an admirer of the Scottish/English version of the 18th century Enlightenment far more tham I am of its continental opposite. I view the curerent debates over issues ranging from Global Warming, to the ill-starred International Criminal Court, the proper role and powers of the United Nations, and many others through this lens.
On the global warming matter at hand, I have far more faith in the likely benefits of continued free market human development in energy & food production than I have in either the wisdom and ability of our scientists and politicians to organize and apply a closed form "solution" for and on us. Others here likely see this aspect of the matter differently.
Morticat's reminder above of Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" theories of just two decades ago got me thinking about this. This theory at the time stirred nearly as much world-wide interest among the cognoscenti as does the warming issue today. Now the 'bomb' theory is irrelevant to contemporary reality and Europe and even China face serious demographic decline. Could this be the fate of the global warming problem in the face of human adaptability?
I suggest that the protagonists on both sides of the warming issue reconsider their position in the light of just what strategy is most likely to evade a global problem in this area -- an authoritarian or Platonist one or one based on human adaptability and creativity in a relatively freer situation?
georgeob1 wrote:...
Despite this, I believe we all agree that (1) atmospheric CO2 levels have risen over the past century and are still rising; (2) the major cause is human activity in food and energy production & use; and (3) this is a phenomenon that will contribute to the warming of the atmosphere.
We disagree over (1) whether this will soon lead to an uncontrolled and accelerating warming of the planet; (2) whether in human or economic terms the "problem" is worth fixing - in the ways that advocates have proposed "fixing" it...
thats a fair summation George and the rest of your post was interesting too, and I will make comment, but not now. Now is champagne time. (Briefly I agree where we agree but disagree where we disagree.
)
Thomas wrote:McTag wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
Airily dealing with the world's problems in a couple of sentences. One sentence to sum up the problem; one sentence to formulate a solution. Impressive.
Who cares? She's right.
No, she's wrong, and extremely arrogant.
McTag wrote:
No, she's wrong, and extremely arrogant.
Not bad for a one sentence, airy summation yourself. Evidently arrogance and hypocricy don't bother you at all.
Foxfyre wrote:
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
The problem with fox's solution is in the implementation. It's too simplistic, and really doesn't address the issues that must be resolved.
quite impressed with all these people who can spell hiypocrasy
(post champagne time now)
McTag wrote:Hypocrisy. What?
Doing that for which you criticize others
georgeob1 wrote:McTag wrote:Hypocrisy. What?
Doing that for which you criticize others
You are saying that if I disagree with a statement, and say so, I am guilty of hypocrisy?
George, you are not an unintelligent fellow, but in your haste to attack me I feel you are losing your grip.
Mctag,
Perhaps you should read it again.
georgeob1 wrote:McTag wrote:
No, she's wrong, and extremely arrogant.
Not bad for a one sentence, airy summation yourself. Evidently arrogance and hypocricy don't bother you at all.
No haste, no attack either. Just a rather obvious observation. In a marvelously compact way you exhibited all of what you accused her.
Well I didn't call anybody arrogant. McTag did. I'm sure he's sorry. He's usually not as obnoxious as some. But it's arrogant to state the obvious? Would it be more satisfactory if I had posted a few pages from people who would say this in much more elaborate or detailed terms?
The United States probably throws away enough foodstuffs every day to feed another few countries. The problem is and has always been getting the food to those who need it. Having been very closely associated both with Church World Service and World Vision in the past, both have had better luck getting into some areas than others. But even they are stymied by the warlords who won't allow them to meet directly with the people. And if you turn the stuff over to the warlords, the people never see it.
Just look at the situation in Iraq--billions from the Oil for Food program left to Saddam to distribute. Did the people get the food and medicine it was supposed to buy? Many thousands did not and suffered from malnutrition and/or starvation.
The world always responds to calls for extreme famine due to floods, drought, etc. Unfortunately it is always that not enough resources are contributed, but the problem of getting those resources to the people that is always the complaint.
McTag may think it arrogant to note note that the food supply is plentiful and why people are starving anyway. But at this time this is a fact and global warming is not the reason it is happening.
I wrote about this before (and was pooh-poohed by the "hypocrisy" chorus, who are sadly deluded)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1672446,00.html
Seen in the Guardian today, reporting American research, pollutants in the atmosphere mask and ameliorate effects of greenhouse gases on global warming.
Foxfyre wrote:McTag wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
This, however, is not due to lack of food or the capability of producing it. It is mostly due to despotic governments that have no interest in the welfare of the people they govern. World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
Airily dealing with the world's problems in a couple of sentences. One sentence to sum up the problem; one sentence to formulate a solution. Impressive.
My two sentences are conclusions based on much larger bodies of opinion and research, but I'll stand by my opinion that these conclusions are both correct.
Ah, despotic governments and "warlords", is it?
Nothing to do with the World Bank, cash crops for unrealistic loans, the arms trade from the West to unstable regions, dictators being propped up by the West to keep the flow of raw materials coming, logging in Central America and Indonesia for illegal timber trade (free trade? Capitalism a solution?) Forest clearing for beef and soya in Brazil (let's blame the warlords for that) factory fishing for fishmeal and fertilizer (plenty f's there) and drought and flood due to unstable weather/ industrial activity....
It's good at this Christmastide that we can blame that on despotic foreigners. Enjoy, it's nothing to do with us after all.
McT, You know it as well as I that fox's simplistic solution for world hunger is missing in the details of how. The overwhelming number of corrupt governments and the problem of limited resources will not disappear any time soon in the war to feed all.
Fox wrote: World hunger will be essentially eliminated at such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade catches on around the world.
"...such time as democracy, capitalism, and free trade..." yadda yadda yadda...says absolutely nothing. It only identifies the real problems without provding any of the solutions.
