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.
Ben,
Seems we have to wait until someone publishes a paper to find out!
Seems the FBI still has some staff at work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24373759
“Yes Fred. Well it’s really free now isn’t it?”
Yes.
The reporters at the Mail are free to tell it how they see it. The reporters at the Socialist Worker are free to tell it how they see it. The people are free to buy whichever one they choose.
The people control the press with their wallets, that’s the way it should be.
“The reporters at the Mail are free to tell it how they see it. The reporters at the Socialist Worker are free to tell it how they see it. The people are free to buy whichever one they choose.”
Fred you live in a make-believe world. People are indoctrinated, subtly, by television stations all fed by the same sewage system. They denigrate papers like Socialist Worker and people like Derek Robinson who they perpetually dubbed ‘Red Robbo’. If Socialist Worker had the circulation of mass-media outlets the Banksters would purchase it and fill it full of shit. You do talk bollocks honestly.
Fred, I’m sorry to say that it’s not true that journalists are free to write what they want to write. This is about the Express, but the Mail is no better:
(2005) “Staff (at the Express) have twice reported their own newspaper to the PCC, for its reporting on asylum seekers and, more recently, on Romany Gypsies.
“In the case of the stories on the Roma people we felt it was a cynical campaign to boost circulation. They saw the effect the headlines had, and exploited it by having as many scare stories about Gypsies “overrunning” the country as possible.”
An Express spokesman said they did not want to comment on the issue.
Journalists there tried, but failed, to get the PCC to devise a new ‘conscience clause’ to allow reporters to refuse to produce work they viewed as unethical.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4337281.stm
Meanwhile, the far right, most openly in the form of Griffin, declared their own intention to ‘control the media’ over a decade ago. Looking at the sub headlines which are quite often even worse than the articles underneath, you might think they are succeeding.
“Once we’re in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, ‘yes, every last one must go’. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re not going to get anywhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/18/nick-griffin-question-time-bbc
(original reporting from BBC BNP documentary)
I’d argue for reporting which isn’t coloured by corporate or political interests, rather than ‘right’ or ‘left’ myself. And leave the public to make its mind up. I’m aware that’s probably going to be seen as disgracefully naive.
“Fred you live in a make-believe world. People are indoctrinated…”
Just as you have been.
@Technicolour
Yes all newspapers have editorial policy and editors to enforce it.
But there are a lot of papers to choose from with different editorial policies.
People with one political viewpoint controlling all the papers does not make them free.
“People with one political viewpoint controlling all the papers does not make them free.”
That’s is precisely what we’ve got. News agencies like Reuters, established by the Rothschilds, feed the filth through all mainstream outlets. The news on BBC is the same as the news on Channel 4, all aimed at maintaining the status quo where 1% dominates the other 99%. Anybody who thinks differently needs a reality check.
When they’ve micro-chipped you it will be too late Fred.
I’ve just heard on Channel 5 news that hundreds (or tens) of thousands of air pilots never came home as they were presenting one pilot with a belated medal for bravery. Well I guess a bit of hyperbole helps.
“That’s is precisely what we’ve got. News agencies like Reuters, established by the Rothschilds, feed the filth through all mainstream outlets. The news on BBC is the same as the news on Channel 4, all aimed at maintaining the status quo where 1% dominates the other 99%. Anybody who thinks differently needs a reality check.
When they’ve micro-chipped you it will be too late Fred.”
I ain’t even got photo ID. How about you?
I just took a quick look at Wikipedia and it says Reuters was founded by the Reuters and has recently been bought by the Thomsons. It is far from the only news feed company in the world and has a reputation for objectivity.
Did you ever consider the possibility that when someone doesn’t agree with you it’s not because they are biassed, it’s not because they have an ulterior motive, it’s because you don’t have a monopoly on truth and long may it stay that way.
I’m rendered speechless by the latest Bullingden bullying of the young. We can’t have them lying around sez Dave, so we’ll take what little money we give them away. Where’s the “march of the makers” that that other fucker promised? Maybe concentrate on creating decent well-paid employment rather than pleading to the EU to allow your banker chums to keep raking it in.
We’ve had a huge squeeze on the poor – and 0.7 per cent growth to show for it. That shows you what a wreck British capitalism has become.
Reuters is shit. It was bought with Rothschild money. It never presents the Palestinian side of Israeli occupation, in fact, it is not a news story. There is no balance. Cecil Rhodes gave his name to Rhodesia for going out there and exploiting mineral resources funded by the Rothschilds. I have not got a monopoly on the truth but the media you are applauding is the media that will not allow the names of the women who set up Julian Assange, Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin, to appear in any outlet. Craig Murray is the only person yet to have mentioned one of the names on mainstream media and he got jumped upon. Free press. Don’t make me laugh Fred.
@ Fred (5:48pm) and Kempe (4:46pm)
Well done for nailing that old Stalinist John Goss (he of the Rothschild obsession)for his views on the presss and press freedom!
And all he can come up with in responses is :
“People need to ignore troublemakers and known trolls like Kempe and read the alternative news.” and
“You do talk bollocks honestly.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just in case anyone should think that old John only talks like this on Craig Murray, here is a reply from John Goss to someone who commented critically on his article on the Ruhleben internment camp on “Newsjunkiepost” (of which old John is an “editor”):
“You did not read the article or you would have known they {ie, some of the Guantanamo prisoners} were sold to bounty hunters to the most despicable state in the world that created a ‘war against Islam’ which they call a ‘ware against terror’ so they, the US, could steal middle eastern mineral rights because they have mismanaged their own economy. ANYONE WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY IS BEYOND HELP. (emphasis added).
Source : John Goss on Newsjunkiepost, 19th Sept, 11:18am.
And, by the way, I – ie, “Red Robbo” – was a self-declared Communist and a party member to boot. So the moniker the press gave me was correct.
Red Robbo (Habbabkuk) you’re fooling nobody but yourself.
Also HabbaRobbo people will think I’m illiterate if I actually spelled like that. Why did you not cut and paste?
Fred: that wasn’t quite the point. Journalists at the Express tried to get a clause into their contract in which they could refuse to be made to write *against their consciences* and lost. The situation is not better at the Mail, or the Sun. The fact is that, although relatively few people read the papers, the headlines are on eye-catching display everywhere. And against the rage and hate against the poor and powerless stand very few balanced, reasonable, humane headlines – because, as the tabloids know, fear sells.
So how would you balance that out?
“Reuters is shit.”
Then don’t read their stuff. Plenty of alternatives. Find one more to your liking. Tass maybe.
I’ll decide for myself what is shit and what isn’t, that is everyone’s right and it’s everyone’s right to have the choice.
If someone tells you they don’t see the reflection of the moon on the water where you see it they aren’t telling lies, they’re just standing in a different place. Everyone has the right to stand where they choose.
Technicolour, you make some very good points which nobody seems to want to take on board. Wonder why? Perhaps there is an agenda!
Hmmm… the problem I have with eating meat and other animal products is that it is merely a coincidence of evolution that humans are in a position to dominate other species and eat them etc. So to avoid hypocrisy as a meat eater, I’d need to accept that if some other species turned up capable of exploiting, farming and eating humans, I’d have no moral argument to oppose such practises. I just can’t make such a leap – I can’t imagine any way that I could condone, for instance, farming humans to breed children for slaughter.
An exact quote, John Goss (except that I mistakenly wrote “ware ” instead of “war”.
People can read what you wrote for themselves, John (provided you don’t airbrush it out quickly in good old Stalinist style, of course):
http://www.newsjunkiepost.com ; article on Ruhleben : John Goss comment at 11:18am on 19th September.
It may be an International Space Station but the live public feed from external and internal cameras is now dead thanks to the US shutdown. Hopefully the CME and proton storm hasn’t caused them too many problems.
Already people are starting rumours on conspiracy sites that they are all dead. I’m sure they are fine as the storm wasn’t that bad but NASA isn’t talking any more.
I stand by every word HabbRobbokuk. Why would I want to change anything? Anybody who thinks differently that the US bought Moazzam Begg and Shaker Aamer from bounty-hunters for $5000 dollars each is beyond help. Unless you know something I don’t. Also the link you put in should have been:
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/09/18/a-tale-of-two-concentration-camps-guantanamo-and-ruhleben/
Like many extreme left-wingers you’re a bit thick aren’t you.
The important part of the quotation was the attitude you have to anyone who disagrees with you. To repeat :
“Anyone who thinks differently is beyond help”.
I take you you stand by that as well?
So there’s been a coronal mass ejection, has there? I’m in Fort William; maybe I should head to the north coast of Scotland and try to see the aurora.
Is Habbabkuk the Goldstein of this blog?
If so, any nominations for Big Brother?
“I stand by every word HabbRobbokuk.”
And will stand by your right to say them whatever they were.
“So there’s been a coronal mass ejection, has there? I’m in Fort William; maybe I should head to the north coast of Scotland and try to see the aurora.”
Don’t bother, going to piss it down. Been overcast and dreary drizzle all day.
Hacks writing for a newspaper are required to follow that paper’s editorial policy. An positive article about gypsy culture would be as welcome in the Daily Mail as one praising the benefits of free market econimcs would be in Socialist Worker.
The point is that control of the media by any political faction is dangerous and ought not be encouraged.
Hmmm intensity of the magnetic storm last night was much more severe than NASA/NOAA data indicates according to the Germans
http://www.theusner.eu/terra/aurora/kp.php
That explains the Aurora photographs from Kansas.
Storm levels have subsided now but may pick up again later.