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.
““School caretaker” mode, if you please. My old head would have knocked both your heads together, in fact. But Villager, your cries of “she’s getting at me” kind of overlook the fact that a) you generally start it”
Caretaker/Marm, call it what you like, i think you could benefit yourself in being a more serious student of life.
As for cries, figment of your imagination — what you smoking? And for the rest of it i like to deal with facts/actualities. I pointed something out earlier. You gloss over it, you deal with your own delusions okay? Sorry can’t help you further, but i know you can do it for yourself if you get out of boredom mode. Good luck, TC, i hope you get delivered.
John Goss:
“But there has been such a long period, probably forever, since the left had any reasonable access to mainstream that a period of ‘positive discrimination’ might not go amiss.”
Pray enlighten us – any ideas on how this ‘period of positive discrimination’ might be brought about?
I would just like to draw readers’ attention to an archaic gender-based assumption made earlier in the thread by Technicolour:
“You’d hope that people would have more up their sleeves than schoolboy insults”
My emphasis.
Having recently completed a course in Gender Studies at the University of Brighton and Hove, it saddens me that in this day and age some people persist with the kind of derogatory sexist meme that one would normally expect to find in the pages of a Victorian novel.
I have therefore taken it upon myself to correct the offending comment below:
“You’d hope that people would have more up their sleeves than schoolperson insults”
(NB: I have not opted for “schoolchild” on this occasion as that would entail elitist assumptions about a child’s intellect.)
Now, one would hope Technicolour could offer a more nuanced approach in the future before leaping to out-dated genderist and/or ageist assumptions.
Phil 3 Oct, 2013 – 2:08 pm
Fred 3 Oct, 2013 – 12:09 pm
The history of the Independent demonstrates that both subscriber and advertiser revenues are no more than a bonus to the real reason for owning a newspaper.
Blair replaces Norman Wisdom as the flavour of the month in Albania*.
‘Albania’s new Socialist premier says former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will assist as an adviser in Albania’s efforts to join the 28-nation European Union.
Edi Rama said Thursday that Blair would be “personally, totally and voluntarily” advising the Albanian government and helping with his “extraordinary experience and political geniality.”‘
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/britains-blair-advise-albania-joining-eu-20454488
‘Political geniality.’ Ha! So that’s what it’s called.
*http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/comic-norman-wisdom-mourned-in-albania
Anon, ha ha, very good. If only you would complete a course in Gender Studies at the University of Brighton and Hove! I think such a thing would benefit most people.
Komodo, thanks. Yes, part of the problem is the elite view that the BBC is even-handed, or leftist. Thus anyone who finds themselves to the left of that is a far left extremist! Still, I think Craig was accused of being on the far left on Twitter, so I am in good company.
Ghoul in glasses alert
Anon: true! Sit corrected.
Villager: must have missed what you pointed out, that’s the problem. Will go and look.
Phil/A Node
I read once that British newspapers tend to take 75% of their income from advertisers, and the rest from the cover price. That said, quite a few do “side deals” these days (Telegraph products, Guardian dating and expert events, etc) so I don’t know how true these stats are now.
It could well have come from Herman/Chomsky, thinking about it, and their main work on this is 30 years old. Can’t imagine much has changed, though!
Sorry, had to scroll through a load of insults: was it this:
“Even in string theory, the underlying equations assume there are 10-12 dimensions in the Universe. We live in 3 and ‘know’ of a fourth. The rest of them apparently would operate at sub-atomic levels.”
Yes, it’s interesting. One can experiment with one’s own forcefield, too. Takes practice. And I’m not sure how it affects a keyboard.
But why add this?
“Too subtle for a holistic understanding of present-day so-called ‘modern-man’.”
How would you, or I, or anyone, know? These things are wordless; isn’t that the point?
Oh shut up about Herman/Chomsky for a minute will you? I hate this cocky leftist idea that only you can see through the media and everyone else is an ignorant victim of it. People are generally aware of the slant various media place on events and are quite intelligent enough to realize it.
Now do something useful and reinstate Habbabkuk you barsterd!
“Fred also mentions the diversity of UK newspapers – that’s as much of an illusion as UK democracy. Different papers are targeted at different audiences in order to reach the biggest overall catchment, but the differences are superficial. How many came out against the Iraq war, for example, or question the banking system (as opposed to individual banks).”
The BBC was strongly criticised for having a pro Iraq bias during the Iraq war, they stopped troops listening to it. Many UK papers like the Guardian opposed the war in their editorial pages along with around one third of US papers.
Here s the BBC coverage of the anti war protests, how much more do you want from an organisation with a remit to be objective?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm
Yeah, shut up about facts and research Jon, hey.
Anon, still, your heartfelt comment made me laugh, so I’m giving you this in return. It’s funny!
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/unused-audio-commentary-by-howard-zinn-and-noam-chomsky-recorded-summer-2002-for-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-platinum-series-extended-edition-dvd-part-one
TC, i didn’t see Anon saying “shut up about facts and research Jon”.
I thought he was saying stop being patronising. People are perfectly capable of figuring out the mdeia slant for themselves, that is, if they wanted to.
More on your other comment later.
So, Anon, Villager, Fred, which newspaper or other media outlet do you feel accurately reflects a politically neutral position? I’d like to know where the baseline (for all us maximally informed and highly questioning Sun readers out here) is supposed to be.
Fred,
Stopped by, err, objective organisations like the Department of Defense and the MoD? (I didn’t know any troops had been restricted from listening to the BBC, very interesting if so).
Anon,
I take your point that certain political ideas elevate their proponents, if only accidentally, to be “above others”. Personally I am frustrated with the elite idea that neoliberalism should be forced upon an ungrateful poor, but there you go. The rest of my analysis stands though – in terms of human behaviour in groups, it isn’t as political as you think, especially given that most of it is subconscious. If you want to tackle the broader themes of my post head-on though, that’d be great.
People are perfectly capable of figuring out the mdeia (sic) slant for themselves, that is, if they wanted to.
How, if they have never read anything else?
Anon: “Now do something useful and reinstate Habbabkuk you barsterd!”
Seconded, but that would contradict the Left’s desire to “control” the media. Never mind that he was one of the few sane voices in this Cuckoo’s Nest.
Anon 3 Oct, 2013 – 2:37 pm
“Oh shut up about Herman/Chomsky for a minute will you?”
Brilliantly said Anon. You’re insight is huge. I two dismiss without a thought these academic types and there clever arguments based on insight, knowledge and data. Why must we endlessly endure such leftyist nincompoopery?
I am immense! Free Habby! Jon is a fascist!
Jon 3 Oct, 2013 – 2:29 pm
“I read once that British newspapers tend to take 75% of their income from advertisers, and the rest from the cover price…Can’t imagine much has changed, though!”
Apparently not much has changed: http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Newspaper-Revenue/Newspaper-Media-Industry-Revenue-Profile-2012.aspx
Crikey, Villager/Anon, was Habbakuk the best that ‘the right’ could offer? I mean, where were the blindingly persuasive arguments; the copper-bottomed research; the obvious expertise; the – ? No?
You don’t need to be gchq to finger me now do ya?
@Fred, Phil, Jon
Neither the purchasers nor the advertisers are paying enough to exercise influence over these newspapers. What other business would continue to operate under losses like these. Why do newspapers do so?
and
http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/1190349/guardian-set-report-annual-losses-around-35m
“Stopped by, err, objective organisations like the Department of Defense and the MoD? (I didn’t know any troops had been restricted from listening to the BBC, very interesting if so).”
After looking it up it turns out they weren’t exactly, the story turns out to be down to media bias.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/apr/09/broadcasting.Iraqandthemedia1
So “Technicolour” is that how black and white you are? You are happy that someone who challenged your views and made you think, for the most part gracefully and with dignity was banned?
Btw did you notice that he was *the only* one here who forecast that the Syria attacks weren’t going to happen amongst all the chickens cackling in the barn, what passes for debate here? Include yourself. Where are your “blindingly persuasive arguments; the copper-bottomed research; the obvious expertise;..”
All i remember is you being a pain in his backside going on and on and on about some pet video of yours on Palestine as if the resolution of the whole conflict depends on it! Thats a pretty lightweight approach to debate.
This blogger might have discovered the true nature of saying it as it is and what happens to those who do. The red list for assassinations.
http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2013/08/22/the-red-list-for-assassinations-and-purges-the-red-list-for-assassinations-and-purges-has-been-activated/
This Guardian story has been amended post-publication. The passage — explained by a footnote but not removed — concerns the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media
So what was the “one big lie” to which Hersh referred? I’m sure his book will clarify matters.
Villager, first I was quite sad. Then I felt quite relieved, but still a bit sad. Now, all I hope is that he’s taken his refusal to do basic research on a subject with which he tries to engage (viz the extraordinary Gaza documentary to which I believe you refer) and his unfortunately increasingly one-dimensional comments to another, more fortunate blog, which can give him the appreciation he needs.
“for the most part gracefully and with dignity”
Oh. I thought it was “with a truly elitist sense of superiority and irredeemable smugness”. To say nothing of “stirring the shit” and “classically trolling”. But what need have we of his truly superhuman qualities? We’ve got you.
And Krishnamurty, lol.
TC re your Gaza documentary, you are more than just a bit presumptive that he was inadequately informed of events and the realities on the ground. I certainly saw him as being pro-Palestine in terms of the need to find a resolution, but too subtle for you and some others to see.
Its taken a long time for one to see you express being “sad”. It was a biassed decision to “hang” him and in the end is see that you couldn’t care less. That makes you a bigot that cares naught for free speech. I’m beginning to see where you are coming from and your love for Mary, the “heart and soul” of this blog. Pathetic but i still LOL.