I have been trying for the last few days to discover a coherent logic towards my feelings on man’s relationship with his environment. This is proving not to be simple.
The process started when I heard on World Service radio a gentleman from the International Panel on Climate Change discussing their latest report. As you know, I tend to accept the established opinion on climate change, and rather take the view that if all our industrial activity were not affecting the atmosphere, that would be strange.
But what struck me was that the gentleman said that a pause in warming for the last fifteen years was not significant, as fifteen years was a blip in processes that last over millennia.
Well, that would certainly be very true if you are considering natural climate change. But we are not – we are considering man-made climate change. In terms of the period in which the scale of man’s industrial activity has been having a significant impact on the environment, surely fifteen years is a pretty important percentage of that period? Especially as you might naturally imagine the process to be cumulative – fifteen years at the start when nothing much happened would be more explicable.
Having tucked away that doubt, I started to try to think deeper. Man is, of course, himself a part of nature. Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet. I do not take the view man should not change his environment – otherwise I should not be sitting in a house. The question is rather, are we inadvertently making changes to the environment to our own long term detriment?
That rejection of what you might call the Gaia principle – that the environmental status quo is an end in itself – has ramifications. It is hard to conceptualise our relationship with gases or soil, but easier in terms of animals. I am not a vegetarian – I am quite happy that we farm and eat cattle, for example – and you might argue that the cattle are pretty successful themselves, symbiotic survivors of a kind. Do I think other species have a value in themselves? Is there any harm in killing off a species of insect, other than the fact that biodiversity may be reduced in ways that remove potential future advantages to man, or there may be knock on consequences we know not of that damage man somehow? I am not quite sure, but in general I seem in practice to take the view that exploitation of other species and substantial distortion of prior ecological balance to suit men’s needs is fine, so presumably the odd extinction is fine too, unless it damages man long term.
I strongly disapprove of hurting animals for sport, and want to see them have the best quality of life possible, preferably wild. But I like to eat and wear them. I am not quite sure why it is OK to wear animal skin on our feet or carry it as a bag, but not to wear “fur”. What is the difference, other than that leather has had the hair systematically rubbed off as part of the process of making it? A trivial issue, but one that obviously relates to the deeper questions.
Yes I draw a distinction between animals which are intelligent and those which are not. I would not eat whale or dolphin. But this does not seem entirely logical – animal intelligence and sensibility is evidently a continuum. Many animals mourn, for example. The BBC World Service radio (my main contact with the outside world at present – I have just today found my very, very weak internet connection just about works if I try it at 5am) informed me a couple of days ago that orang-utans have the ability to think forward and tell others where they will be the next day. Why cattle and fish are daft enough to eat is hard to justify.
I quite appreciate the disbenefits to man of radically changing his environment, even if it could be done without long term risk to his existence – the loss of beauty, of connection to seasons and forms of behaviour with which we evolved. But I regard those as important only as losses to man, not because nature is important intrinsically. In short, if I thought higher seas, no polar bears and no glaciers would not hurt man particularly, I don’t suppose I would have much to say against it. I fear the potential repercussions are too dangerous to man. At base, I don’t actually care about a polar bear.
Your welcome Scouse Billy.
The doctrine that our world is made up of matter or mass whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics.
The strength or power of human attention and intention was observed by many in the recent threat against Syria where umpteen human minds were fixed on launching bombs on that country.
The quantum wave of that whole system involved life or death.
Directing human attention and intention resolved the militant, destructive wave function; it collapsed and we celebrated life.
In a much less complex way this interaction and exchange occurs when we stare or look with intention. A wave travels in both directions as the exchange takes place. That is why some of us can ‘feel’ the gaze of a partner or intimate friend even when not directed.
This quantum entanglement is an essential aspect of conscious perception. In other words “I” am spread out over the universe by virtue of my connectivity with other beings. Our mind fields
are entangled with the rest of the universe. In this scenario, the sense of being stared at would seem relatively straightforward.
Rupert Sheldrake: The Sense of Being Stared At.
Mark Twain
George Orwell.
(thanks to whoever, who pointed out; State of fear by Michael Crichton)
Thanks Node for the link, I enjoyed it, thought provoking. I am already thinking of Maanie light theorem a very important work which is going obscure and redundant. Sheldrake hit the nail on the head, the dogmatic belief system is in fact hindering the very basis of the science itself.
“Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.”
~George Orwell.
Indeed. Such as this, posted by Komodo earlier
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
A genius writes – “Sheldrake hit the nail on the head, the dogmatic belief system is in fact hindering the very basis of the science itself.”
What dogmatic belief system would that be, Fedup? Isn’t science the pursuit of knowledge, and knowledge a justified true belief?
What is belief without a stubborn conviction? A vague notion? A wistful hope? Doubt?
So how do people commit themselves to designing and flying in jet aeroplanes founded on a “system” of notions, hopes or doubts?
Maybe that’s why ‘free energy’ generators and miracle cures for cancer are raging successes – ie no pesky science getting in the way.
Time to go back on your meds, Fedup.
I know Craig Murray is very strong on the abuses of the Qatari regime. So he won’t mind me posting off topic to let everyone know that the Nepalese ambassador has been recalled home after she called the 2022 Olympic host nation an open jail.
http://new-power.org/2013/09/27/nepal-envoy-recalled-after-qatar-open-jail-remarks/
Wheeeheeey, My! The waves of attack, sure as hell soon internet police will be upon us. First off, the not so colourful techni, who is too busy setting little markers down; here and there, picking up from the villageC and moaning about the bad language! That did not work out, then she hits on the “bully”, and now the den mothers are in unison, savaging me as bad as a dead sheep would.
The suplex comes; “you are – er – Palestinian? Someone who knows someone Palestinian?” life is so binary for the tag team isn’t it? This is the kind of moaner that is disturbing the millions of electrons to sputter brain farts and keep on doing it.
We are all Palestinians, there is no need to know a one or to be from the Palestine, whence the injustice is universal and apartheid condoned, it is all of the world population that is in servitude and slavery.
However, as I am already on record, the tag team is way too busy fighting, this is the fucking OK Corral and the guns blazing out come the tag team duo to fight and bite my ankles.
All the while turning on Anon who is as pissed off as I am about the current power struggle between those whom believe it to be their fucking property, and blog, that means others ought to defer to the tag team and put up with their fucking unconscious drivel ad nauseam.
dreo then pipes in;
Of course you don’t! Fact that forever you are sniping from the side lines only proves this case too. The simplicity of the discounting the ziofuckwits for what they are; a bunch of supremacists fuckwits, with no relevance, and in search of a platform to restate their relevance.
Why don’t you take your own advise, and get on with some knitting or darning, instead of driving by and sniping; at me, Mary, at Craig, or whoever that the mood takes you? Better still go find some fucking hormone replacement therapy course somewhere. Poor your neighbours and Mr, dreo.
Tag team, you are not the owners of this blog, further, you have no fucking right to go about sniping and heaping sarcasm and kicking up a shit storm when you are taken to task and when your pissing on he hard wall splashes back onto you. Upon any fights with the fucking ziofuckwits, you join the fight to protect the said little tossers, and then keep on bitching about the bad language.
There is always the scroll button, why don’t you use it?
===
Ingo you keep out of it! I am saddened to see you get involved, I used to enjoy reading you.
===
Anon, you got you share too, you now know genuflect you must, and it is verboten to state your mind, and get in the way of these amateur predators attempting to “devour”
The little old tosser comes up with; Time to go back on your meds, Fedup.
How fucking original, boy! Did you write that, or someone wrote it for you?
Obviously you have not bothered to watch the link, have you? Although that does not stop you from pontificating does it?
Jets fly, wow do they? No shit?
Go back to your colouring book and cartoons will you?
“There is always the scroll button, why don’t you use it?”
Use it yourself. You take up far more space here than you’re worth.
The government’s intention to require the unemployed to put in some work in return for the unemployment benefit they receive is splendid news, albeit long overdue. The reasons are the following:
1. Employed persons receive a wage or salary, in return for which they put in a certain number of hours of work every week. It seems only fair that unemployed people should be treated no differently, in that they should put in some work in exchange for the ‘wage’ they receive from the public purse.
2. The sort of work which is envisaged is socially useful work, most of which local authorities carry out infrequently or, perhaps as a result of recent budget cuts, less and less (I’m thinking, for instance, of litter collection). Those who will be engaged on it should feel a sense of pride, for they will be working for the community in the wide sense in a valuable way.
3. This work will not take jobs away from others (eg, Council workers) because, as stated above, the jobs in question are simply not being done (or only infrequently). And even if such jobs were advertised as vacant by local councils, it is likely that prospective applicants would be deterred by the relatively low rewards.
4. The scheme will be good for the unemployed themselves; in particular the long-term unemployed, or those who have never worked at all, will be re-introduced or indeed introduced for the first time to the work ethic and the various forms of self-discipline that are required of the employee.
5. Last but not least, the scheme will contribute to putting a spoke in the wheel of those who dream of a radical unwinding of the social security network and who use the argument of the ‘work shy’ and ‘sponging’ unemployed as an easy way of attracting support for their ideas.
I should add that I’m well aware that the time and effort needed to find a job these days should never be underestimated; this is presumably why the proposed scheme envisages not a full working week but (I believe) 20 hours or so a week, ie, work every morning or every afternoon. I imagine that the system will be applied in a flexible manner so as to allow participants to attend job interviews, training sessions and so so.
All in all, therefore, the proposed scheme seems to tick all the right political, economic, social, moral and ethical boxes, and implying comparisons with the Victorian workhouse (Mary) and slave labour in US private prisons (John Goss; BTW, why not in Chinese state prisons?)is very far off the mark, not to say just plain daft.
Yet more drive by sniping!
Seeing as your worth is a lot more isn’t it?
This is the kind of human hater, who will join in any cause to reiterate the hatred of human beings. A clear case of species dysmorphism with the added complexity of being locked in phase resonance with the supremacists fuckwits. As displayed in yet more sniping by assessing “far more space here than you’re worth”, based on what criteria no one can discern, and all the while of course with the expectations; to be immune from any return of the favour in kind.
@james 1/10 very poor trolling there mate
Do you work in HR by any chance? 🙂
Waxing lyrical about the “scheme” all good and well, but is the pay going to be the same paltry fifty five pounds per week, which makes it £ 1.72 per hour or will it be based on the minimum wage of £ 6.31 per hour?
Further, will the tax credits still be applicable, as well as the full national insurance contribution paid by the government?
These of course matter not one jot, do they?
Further, fact that there are no fucking jobs is not of any concerns either, is it?
The whole mendacious notion is, to beat up on the most vulnerable, and keep the rest of the serfs at bay, robbing the poor to pay the rich. Otherwise the fucking billionaires, and millionaires would take flight, and what would the City do?
@James
Surely if there is work needing doing for the community it would be better if the government just created jobs for people to do it. Pay them above minimum wage, they would be paying tax and National Insurance maybe. They would no longer be unemployed so wouldn’t need time off to go for interviews.
If the government created jobs for everyone there would hardly be any unemployed. In the days before Thatcher when Britain had industries, ship building, steel, textiles, a merchant navy, we had near to full employment.
Doesn’t make sense to have unemployed people working, if they are working they are by definition not unemployed. Why not have people working, pay them a decent wage and call them what they are, employed?
Exexpat : no, absolutely not. Why do you call my post trolling? If you don’t agree, either ignore or say why you don’t agree; just insulting me isn’t much of an argument, is it?
Fedup : I think the ‘pay’ is meant to be the unemployment benefit received, isn’t it? As for NICs and so on, I don’t think those details have been made known yet. The last bit of your post adds nothing of substance.
Fred : you’re right, of course, but there’s the question of affordability, isn’t there. Local councils are cash-strapped. And re the minimum wage, wouldn’t the so-called ‘poverty trap’ (or is it ‘benefits trap?) kick in?
James
Perhaps if the government is so well intentioned to the unemployed and wishes to see them working and contributing to society it could have done rather more to reduce their numbers through providing meaningful work and stop changing laws,and not observing those that already exist, so that it easier for employees to sack people. You are probably right that these schemes will not take work away from people as the government is likely to do that first. You are right that the scheme is not the same as the Victorian workhouse but the thinking underlying it is pretty much the same – I recently visited the National Trust workhouse in Southwell and the sentiments expressed by the Trustees would not be at all out of place at this weeks Tory Party conference.
Chris Jones
You know very well that the definition of anti-semite I was using was the much more commonly accepted one of “anti-Jewish” which you will find in most dictionaries rather than the ethnographic one. You just demonstrate utmost ignorance and deceit by hiding your prejudice behind the latter definition when I have made it crystal clear that I accused Makon of the former. Since no one had raised the issue of Zionism on the thread until yourself – I can only take your references to Zionism as some form of pathetic smokescreen. It is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic – many here manage to do so, some struggle and a few like yourself just fail hopelessly.
“Fred : you’re right, of course, but there’s the question of affordability, isn’t there. Local councils are cash-strapped. And re the minimum wage, wouldn’t the so-called ‘poverty trap’ (or is it ‘benefits trap?) kick in?”
If it’s a question of affordability then it is slave labour they are proposing. There is work needing doing, they could increase taxation on the rich to pay for it but instead they get the unemployed to do it at no extra cost while at the same time ensuring there are not enough jobs to go round.
Yeehaww!! you sure told me that time!
Goodnight. You bore me to tears. All fools do.
Resident Dissident: Although I get the distinct impression that the other three responders don’t think much of the proposal, I’m not quite clear as to where you stand exactly.
But anyway, here’s an afterthought. At least some of the unemployment problem (and especially the problem of the long-term unemployed) seems to derive from the fact that there are lots of jobs unfilled, but they either pay very little – thus making it, given the benefits trap, thus making it not worthwhile for many to work – and from the fact that there is a skills mismatch, including some basic employment skills such as basic verbal and numerical skills.
So what would people think about compulsory skills training for unemployed people – with a particular focus on basic verbal, writing and numerical skills – and making the receipt of unemployment benefits depend on attending (and succeeding in) such training?
@James
“Fred : you’re right, of course, but there’s the question of affordability, isn’t there. Local councils are cash-strapped. And re the minimum wage, wouldn’t the so-called ‘poverty trap’ (or is it ‘benefits trap?) kick in?”
But somehow it is more efficient to have people picking up litter and other dreamt up schemes and just being paid the dole rather than sitting at home doing nothing. Why not go all the way and employ people in proper jobs that produce even more How does producing more from the same population make things less affordable for the country as a whole – I can see how it may make things less affordable for certain parts of the population (which may be why you are not so keen) but I would welcome your explanation as to why it does so for the country as a whole?
Fred : I hardly think that asking for 20 hours of work a week in return for unemployment benefits can be called slave labour. And I don’t think most reasonably minded people would subscribe to the view that one of the objectives of government policy is ‘to ensure that there are not enough jobs to go round’. Those are, if I may say so, rather unbalanced comments.
Resident Dissident : but can central and/or local government simply create employment (’employ people in proper jobs’ as you say) as opposed to creating the conditions in which employment can pick up?
As to your question, I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re asking me to answer; perhaps you would rephrase?
James
I am against the proposal – I believe in the dignity of proper labour and in Keyenesian economics. If we were to reach the happy situation where there was sufficient employment on offer – then I would have no problem with some degree of compulsion with regard to making the very few who are genuinely workshy take up jobs and training – but since we are no where near that situation at present such compulsion and seeking to kick people while thay are down just isn’t warranted.
I have no problem with the state or even better the corporate sector (remember they have the surplus that largley matches the state deficit) providing voluntary skills training – but one key factor for training/schooling to be sucessful is motivation rather than threats. Ask any good teacher.
James
re my question – should have read “but I would welcome your explanation as to why it does not do so for the country as a whole?” I was making the simple point that having people in full employment rather than on schemes or unemployed actually makes the country as a whole more efficient – although it does slice up the cake rather differently.
James
You are clearly quite keen on a higher degree of compulsion in making people work – would you also like to see a higher degree of compulsion on employers to take on new employees or do only carrots rather than sticks work with employers? How about higher taxes for employers who make people redundant even though their businesses were highly profitable even before the redundancies?
Resident Dissident (your last post) : yes, I think that no reasonable person could disagree with that.
On other points you make : why do you think that skills training should be volontary? I don’t understand, either, why you assimilate compulsory skills training with threats. Re ‘kicking people when they’re down’ and ‘the dignity of proper labour’ : asking people to do something in return for their social wage isn’t kicking people, surely. And personally, I believe in the dignity of labour full stop; why would it be less dignified to pick up litter for 20 hours a week under this scheme in return for unemployment benefit than to work full-time as a waged local council roadsweeper?
Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.
George Orwell.
And banning Habba makes it even easier
RD
Resident Dissident : when I referred to your last post, I meant the one at 10.34pm.
Re your very last post (10.46pm), I don’t think that I’ve any special general position on compulsory work. I wouldn’t actually like to see a higher degree of compulsion on employers to take on new workers, unless to do so would make economic sense for the employer (and only he or she can judge that, at least in a non-Soviet kind of economy). I don’t think I would go along with your suggestion about higher taxes on employers who shed labour although highly profitable either (for the same reasons).
Anyway, let’s let it rest there, shall we?
Skills training should be voluntary because it isn’t likely to work if it isn’t and I suspect some people would be forced to train in skills which they have moral and personal objections to. Since many of the longer term unemployed are aged 55 and over – and some of them have previously held managerial positions and have university degrees – what would you suggest they be given compulsory skills training in – and what do you think they feel about being on the dole let alone being forced to pick up litter for 20 hours a week in order to receive unemployment benefit that may be as little as £70 per week and for which they have paid NI throughout their working lives. And all because the government doesn’t enforce the laws on redundancy and age discrimination?
Unemployment benefit is not a social wage.
Interesting! kicking the fuck out of the weak and disenfranchised comes so easy that, even the details need not to be worked out, and thought out. The privateers in the Jobcenter Plus will ensure that they only give their first name! and then proceed to humiliate and denigrate their captive charge without so much as concern they would show for a lump of shit on the pavement.
The payment details worked out are the same fifty five pounds unemployment benefit for a weeks work, no promotion prospects, no NIC payments, no sick pay and no holidays. But sure as fuck it is a good idea to bear down on the jobless, and blame them for being lazy and work shy. What kind of fucking sick society could accept this kind of mistreatment and the rights abuse of the jobless who have no jobs because there are no fucking jobs.
Of course the last bit does not add any substance, because the small government means, less services, less responsibility and more tax cuts and concessions for the rich and the corporates. The rich never need any unemployment benefit, or sick pay or use the roads, and public transport, or use the same hospitals, and facilities, so why should they pay for it all? In fact the rich might as well be in fucking Australia, their presence in this country only hikes up the prices of the real estate, and apportions more taxes on the poor!
====
Hark! “Queen of the owned blog” hath spoketh!
It is clear you have no fucking idea what I was on about? As ever only drive by sniping is all that you can “contribute” with.