| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2004 07:04:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
As Site Council Member: I appreciate this topic... and also appreciate the level of conversation it holds, but, if you don't mind.. I'm gonna put this in the rant forum. |
Personally - I think it's general discussion. Closed doors don't help anyone.
Originally posted by KarenB:
Knowing what we know, and with scientists and environmentalists urging us to wake up constantly, what is it we can do - globally - to make things better? We aren't going to stop the population. Is there something we can do besides take pictures of it and complain and become afraid? |
Yes. Start with the little things, so that society gets used to the notion of salvage and restraint rather than excesses.
Cut out the gratuitous school run - car share.
Stop driving round the corner for convenience. Walk or cycle more.
Use less plastic - demand will decrease. Plastic shopping bags are now taxed in parts of Ireland.
Turn lights off when you walk out of a room.
Turn off the TV instead of leaving it on standby.
The (rather obvious) list goes on.
At least just doing one or other of these would help, as scientists claim that these changes make the most difference. |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 07:21:04 PM · #27 |
humans have VERY LITTLE EFFECT on the global warming issue. One volcano eruption releases more harmful gasses than man has created to date. And I know there have been many eruptions in my very short 3 years.
Also there is frozen methane gas below the ocean floor(mainly in the Atlantic Ocean, near Bermuda), when the crust cracks and water hits the frozen methane, it turns to gas and it floats to the surface and then it gets into our atmosphere, and we all know methane gas is one of those harmful green house gasses. This has been determined to be the cause of lost ships and airplanes in the "Bermuda Triangle".
Methane Gas
So it really gets me going that people blame people for our earth's problems, our very own home is more damaging to its self than we can ever be to it.
people are just wanting to blame someone other than the real cause of the problem, its human nature to point the finger with out knowing all the facts
James
Message edited by author 2004-01-22 19:25:09. |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 07:38:23 PM · #28 |
| James - it seems that your message is 'sod it and carry on as we are'? At best that's lazy and dismissive and at worst it's ignorant of many other authorities on the subject. I don't claim to be an expert but I certainly don't feel comfortable while the human race pumps its waste and impurities into our air and food chain unchecked. Do you? |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 07:48:15 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
James - it seems that your message is 'sod it and carry on as we are'? At best that's lazy and dismissive and at worst it's ignorant of many other authorities on the subject. I don't claim to be an expert but I certainly don't feel comfortable while the human race pumps its waste and impurities into our air and food chain unchecked. Do you? |
Sorry I didnt cover the human factor of this, but all I was doing was making a point that our own earth is doing more damage to its self than we are.
I am totally for a cleaner earth/envroment and we do need to take better steps in protecting what we have left. But that is going to take the effort of the entire world, not just a few small groups, and most people really dont care what happens in their life time. I do care and I do my part to help where I can.
James
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 08:27:30 PM · #30 |
i agree that environmental issues are important, however i don't think pollution laws should be increased to a point where the overall economy is hurt. i think james points out another thing that most people are usually really shortsided about the subject and don't see their actions as detrimental overall.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 08:29:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Hmmm. Any questions? |
i have one...did you bother looking at the list of sources for those statistics. it's just a laundry list of surveys and polls. who couldn't put a list together with that many sources? three blind monkeys could do that with hands tied behind their backs, so if you want to use that as ammo go ahead but the accuracy isn't that great
Message edited by author 2004-01-22 20:29:58.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 08:35:39 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i agree that environmental issues are important, however i don't think pollution laws should be increased to a point where the overall economy is hurt. i think james points out another thing that most people are usually really shortsided about the subject and don't see their actions as detrimental overall. |
Did you ever think that the anti-pollution laws would create more jobs? More air-scrubber manufacturers? More technicans working to ensure compliance is met? More inspectors? The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Some businesses may be hurt, others may benefit. It's not about the economy. It's about the balance of power... |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 08:58:58 PM · #33 |
the only real resistance to increasing environmental regulations is pure economics..if companies have to start paying more to reduce emissions and other initiatives, there's less money for workers in that industry, therefore less jobs...either that or the money will have to come out of benefits, services, research and development. i see your point but in general many more jobs would be lost as a result of making the kind of changes necessary to start reversing "global warming" as it were.
Message edited by author 2004-01-22 21:00:21.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 10:23:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Hmmm. Any questions? |
... three blind monkeys could do that with hands tied behind their backs, so if you want to use that as ammo go ahead but the accuracy isn't that great |
This is great hyperbole but utterly unsupportable, so please don't quote me about statistics. I know they lie -- and no one is better at manipulating figures and statistics than politicians (of whatever ilk). However, unless YOU have checked on the sources of those stats and can refute them, how does it make any more sense for people to accept your blanket statement that they are false than to assume they are true?
I believe, for example, it is a matter of public record that the press has been banned from photographing the bodies/coffins of returning casualties from Iraq. I'm sure we'd have heard had Mr. Bush attended the funeral of any of the war dead, so I doubt they'd make that claim out of whole cloth. The number of funraisers attended and the money raised by Mr. Bush, of course, changes hourly, so those stats are bound to be off, but on the low side. I suspect the other statistics posted are similarly culled from various public sources, and are probably pretty accurate.
I have a question: why do you hold the right to aggrandizement of personal wealth to be the most sacrosanct of our liberties, and the baseline against which all social policies are measured? It seems to me this is the essence of the argument for lassaiz faire capitalism, and that the argument is clearly about whether or not to allow the investor/ruling class to continue to exploit the servant class and our shared resources for their personal pleasure.
Message edited by author 2004-01-22 22:24:40. |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 10:55:38 PM · #35 |
well said as usually General.
The Sauron White House |
|
|
|
01/22/2004 11:14:44 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Hmmm. Any questions? |
... three blind monkeys could do that with hands tied behind their backs, so if you want to use that as ammo go ahead but the accuracy isn't that great |
This is great hyperbole but utterly unsupportable, so please don't quote me about statistics. I know they lie -- and no one is better at manipulating figures and statistics than politicians (of whatever ilk). However, unless YOU have checked on the sources of those stats and can refute them, how does it make any more sense for people to accept your blanket statement that they are false than to assume they are true?
I believe, for example, it is a matter of public record that the press has been banned from photographing the bodies/coffins of returning casualties from Iraq. I'm sure we'd have heard had Mr. Bush attended the funeral of any of the war dead, so I doubt they'd make that claim out of whole cloth. The number of funraisers attended and the money raised by Mr. Bush, of course, changes hourly, so those stats are bound to be off, but on the low side. I suspect the other statistics posted are similarly culled from various public sources, and are probably pretty accurate.
I have a question: why do you hold the right to aggrandizement of personal wealth to be the most sacrosanct of our liberties, and the baseline against which all social policies are measured? It seems to me this is the essence of the argument for lassaiz faire capitalism, and that the argument is clearly about whether or not to allow the investor/ruling class to continue to exploit the servant class and our shared resources for their personal pleasure. |
my argument was getting more at the idea that the article quoted stats based on his viewpoint, not viewpoint based on stats. anyone can go find stats to support any position these days. i wasn't questioning the credibility of the sources, merely showing that the writer found several stats based on his position, which is easy to do for any position. i would look down on any kind of statistical representation of that sort
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 11:25:05 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I have a question: why do you hold the right to aggrandizement of personal wealth to be the most sacrosanct of our liberties, and the baseline against which all social policies are measured? It seems to me this is the essence of the argument for lassaiz faire capitalism, and that the argument is clearly about whether or not to allow the investor/ruling class to continue to exploit the servant class and our shared resources for their personal pleasure. |
capitalism is not about parity...inherently disparity between rich and poor is great in a capitalistic society. if this were a socialist or communist state i would have to agree with you, but as it is now with capitalism, the good outweighs the bad
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 03:29:48 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i see your point but in general many more jobs would be lost as a result of making the kind of changes necessary to start reversing "global warming" as it were. |
And this is why I (and my others) feel that Bush's policies are short-sited, as they favor short-term economic growth over long-term sustainable development. For example, most of the world's oil consumption comes from the United States and Europe.. what do you think will happen when our supplies run out? Bush has opened up federal land (which incidently, is owned by you and me, yet somehow we are called upon to pay for the resources which we own) to drilling to "ease pressures on our oil supplies" and keep the price of oil down. So rather than giving us an economic incentive to trade our inefficent SUVs for more efficient vehicles (or heaven forbid, mass transport) and put resources into developing new forms of energy, we are free to accelerate the use of such resources. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 08:39:54 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by KarenB:
As Site Council Member: I appreciate this topic... and also appreciate the level of conversation it holds, but, if you don't mind.. I'm gonna put this in the rant forum. |
Personally - I think it's general discussion. Closed doors don't help anyone.
|
I understand.. However, this is not closed doors, it is merely a rant forum. This topic is not photography related on a photography site which is why I moved it to a more appropriate venue.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 09:11:33 AM · #40 |
| Karen - just so I understand, 'General Discussion' has to be photography related? Then why the 'Photography Discussion' option? |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 09:35:25 AM · #41 |
General Discussion should be reserved for conversations surrounding Photography. This is not to say that this site should be kept out of the happenings of the real world, just that a conversation, particularly one that is political in any way, should be kept to the rant forum. The Photography Discussion, I believe, was set up to discuss individual photographs and the like.
Thanks Imagineer. :) |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 09:50:52 AM · #42 |
I'll agree with what Karen said.
This site is about photography. The forums should be about things that are somehow related to photography, so when somebody (potentially a guest, for example), visits the front page, they see and can read about photography-related "stuff" and not political manifestos (for example).
The exception to this is the "Rant" forum, which can have non-photography-related discussions. The Rant forum can also be hidden as a n individual user preference, so it doesn't "clutter" the front page for user's who do not wish to see non-photography-related topics.
As an SC member, I expect to see the "General" forum used for photography-related topics that aren't covered more specifically in another DPC forum. For example, let's say you find a great deal on Photoshop CS. The "General" forum might be an appropriate place to post something like that.
Message edited by author 2004-01-23 09:53:00. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 10:15:12 AM · #43 |
Meanwhile, there's a "Penguin Bashing" thread on the General Discussion forum.
I know this is a photo site, but we're also still a community that interacts on a number of levels. This particular thread probably does belong in "Rant," but I'm just sayin'...... |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 11:03:24 AM · #44 |
They are interesting, but at the same time, please everyone, take a look at the numbers BEFORE the US ever went in there. Suddam himself had murdered MILLIONS of 'his' own people. The Kurds were alienated living in the North constantly being attacked by the Iraqi army using mustard gas and bombs, no food, no water, being attacked in the South by Turkey saying "get off our land" after Northern Iraq was won in war. Suddam boasted of his 'rape rooms' where Iraqi women were kept and tortured for weeks on end by the Iraqi military. Baghdad has above ground sewers and hundreds/thousands of children died every day from malnutrition and poor living conditions. Baghdad, one of the richest cities in the world [in the top 3] has one of the poorest populations of any developed city, because Suddam's armies owned all the castles and controlled all the money. Remember, the average person's worth [in $$] in Iraq was more than $40k where in Canada it's only approx. $17k. Where was all the money going since thousands were homeless and living in poverty? Speaking of persons wanting short term financial gains, Suddam had control, millions died, I'm fully supportive of any action that put an end to the monstrosity. If 10,000 Iraqi's innocently died during the latest war, it's terrible, but 20,000 would have died in one day under Iraqi rule.
Message edited by author 2004-01-23 11:07:40. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 11:58:40 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
They are interesting, but at the same time, please everyone, take a look at the numbers BEFORE the US ever went in there. Suddam himself had murdered MILLIONS of 'his' own people. The Kurds were alienated living in the North constantly being attacked by the Iraqi army using mustard gas and bombs, no food, no water, being attacked in the South by Turkey saying "get off our land" after Northern Iraq was won in war. Suddam boasted of his 'rape rooms' where Iraqi women were kept and tortured for weeks on end by the Iraqi military. Baghdad has above ground sewers and hundreds/thousands of children died every day from malnutrition and poor living conditions. Baghdad, one of the richest cities in the world [in the top 3] has one of the poorest populations of any developed city, because Suddam's armies owned all the castles and controlled all the money. Remember, the average person's worth [in $$] in Iraq was more than $40k where in Canada it's only approx. $17k. Where was all the money going since thousands were homeless and living in poverty? Speaking of persons wanting short term financial gains, Suddam had control, millions died, I'm fully supportive of any action that put an end to the monstrosity. If 10,000 Iraqi's innocently died during the latest war, it's terrible, but 20,000 would have died in one day under Iraqi rule. |
GoldBerry - I don't think anyone is disputing the removal of Saddam. I think people are concerned because we were led into this war under false pretenses. We were told that Iraq had specific ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Queada (sp?) and possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration only put the humanitarian spin on the situation when people began to question his motives. There are indications that President Bush had designs on invading Iraq long before he found an "reason" to do so.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:03:23 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i agree that environmental issues are important, however i don't think pollution laws should be increased to a point where the overall economy is hurt... |
Bush is trying to roll back protections already in place.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:16:23 PM · #47 |
GoldBerry - I don't think anyone is disputing the removal of Saddam. I think people are concerned because we were led into this war under false pretenses. We were told that Iraq had specific ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Queada (sp?) and possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration only put the humanitarian spin on the situation when people began to question his motives. There are indications that President Bush had designs on invading Iraq long before he found an "reason" to do so.[/quote]
Yes of course he did, because North American's weren't seeing or caring about what was happening in Iraqi and the beligerant use of power and violence. Obviously it was beneficial to the US to invade Iraq for oil purposes, but that doesn't make the war any less of a necessity. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:34:12 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Yes of course he did, because North American's weren't seeing or caring about what was happening in Iraqi and the beligerant use of power and violence. Obviously it was beneficial to the US to invade Iraq for oil purposes, but that doesn't make the war any less of a necessity. |
In my eyes it matters a great deal. To rage war on an already devastated country for humanitarian reasons seems a bit backward. There are more appropriate ways to help. And yes, there are many North Americans who have been pushing for humanitarian actions in Iraq since the Gulf War.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:55:08 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Yes of course he did, because North American's weren't seeing or caring about what was happening in Iraqi and the beligerant use of power and violence. Obviously it was beneficial to the US to invade Iraq for oil purposes, but that doesn't make the war any less of a necessity. |
9 Members of the cabinet (including Donald Rumsfield) prior to Bush's election, sent a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Sadamn from power. Nowhere in that document did it say one of the reasons was "to help the people of Iraq." Oil, stability of the region, American interests, and security of american allies were all cited.
PNAC Letter
If the American government was so concerned about the people, why didn't they help during the uprising in southern iraq after the first war? In fact, why didn't they remove Saddam from power then? Many of the incidents of mass killings predate that conflict.
If they are so concerned about the welfare of all the people under this leader, why aren't they concerned about the welfare of the people under the oppresive regime in China? If we were to uphold to the same standard held in Iraq, we should obviously invade China, depose their government, and free their people.
Don't believe for a second that American foreign policy is much influenced by the plight of the common person. It is far more influenced by the plight of the wallet. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 01:27:09 PM · #50 |
| For some words from an inspiring American president Clinton's lecture makes interesting reading. |
|
