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.
“I think this is the basic problem. When infotainment drives the public’s viewing/reading direction, the Media still has the economic reality of ad rates and financial success to reckon with, and they tend to cater to the lack of curiosity and disinterest in matters outside the personal bubble”
I think most people prefer to base their opinions on belief rather than logic. Which is their right, of course, if they want to vote how their father voted that’s up to them. Just so long as they don’t try to force their beliefs onto other people.
Fred,
I’m sure A Node will clarify, but this point is well answered by media critiques such as the one I mentioned earlier. In a capitalist model for the media, you have to have some criticism of established power, and some opinion going against the official line of each paper, in order to demonstrate that the press is “free to think for itself”. But if left/progressive perspectives are given, say, 5% coverage in acres of pro-capitalist print, that of course would not be objective by any reasonable understanding of the term. (I should state that I don’t know what the split is now – it would be a very interesting project).
Also, there are also individual tensions in particular groups that make it much more complex than “the media is in favour of neoliberalism”. For example, if a recession (an inherent feature of capitalism) causes a drop in house prices, you’ll find the Daily Express complaining about it, even though they are championing the entrepreneur or demonising the asylum seeker on other pages. Some of this is down to the poor political education of some journalists, who find a mould that is just about fit to print (from a profit standpoint, I mean, not that it is worth reading) and then they stick to that formula.
The Guardian’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq may have come from the progressive views of some of its journalists, but I should point out that its sister paper the Observer (i.e. within the same business group) came out in favour of the war, to the objections of some of its journalists. Sadly Roger Alton, then editor, was politically naive, had no progressive views of his own, and practically worshipped at Blair’s altar. So, the idea that the Guardian’s business interests can be held up as an opponent of permanent war (etc) does not hold water.
From an article published today, on Vladimir Putin’s nomination for the prize:
‘Despite Russia’s role as the main supplier of weapons to Bashar al-Assad’s regime, an advocacy group has put the president’s name forward . . . made no mention of Putin’s ruthless and violent campaign against the separatists in Chechnya or the war he waged on Georgia’.
THEN THIS –
From an article published today, on Vladimir Putin’s nomination for the prize:
‘Despite Russia’s role as the main supplier of weapons to Bashar al-Assad’s regime, an advocacy group has put the president’s name forward . . . made no mention of Putin’s ruthless and violent campaign against the separatists in Chechnya or the war he waged on Georgia’.
WTF.. Media mind games indeed, Sorry if this is up already.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/leading-article-it-is-enough-that-obama-has-given-us-hope-for-the-future-1800590.html
A Node:
Fred:
Hmmmm, yes, talking of studiously avoiding the point. OK, Fred, whatever ….
A Node
“… occasional criticism of carefully selected minor aspects of what’s really going on while studiously ignoring the real story. e.g. days of outrage on Fred Goodwin’s RBS payoff while neutrally reporting the £37 billion bailout.”
Fred 3 Oct, 2013 – 6:18 pm
“So they did speak out against those things.”
I read it that ANode was unambiguously saying that the guardian did not speak out against those things. That was his point.
The guardian groaned about an individuals corruption to appease it’s left leaning customers but failed, in the sum of their output, to question the wider financial robbery that is the bail outs.
Sorry x-posted with ANode.
Alcanon, Ben.
I see Helioviewer is shutdown as well. Buggers
P.s Some stunnintg fotos of Aurora here
OOOPS…forgot the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9269571/Spectacular-displays-of-the-northern-lights-or-aurora-borealis-in-northern-Norway.html?frame=2220834
“Hmmmm, yes, talking of studiously avoiding the point. OK, Fred, whatever ….”
The anatomy of failure of logic, accompanied by the failure to admit.
@resident dissident – 30 Sep, 2013 – 10:08 pm said:
…Thank you for admitting that the term ‘semitic’ and the resulting ‘anti semitic’ have been hijacked and deliberately mis-sold by the so called liberal agenda and their nincompoopish devout followers. The fact that you admit that ‘Semites/Semitic’ refers to all peoples of this near and middle east region including Arabs/Palestinians and not merely citizens of modern Israel, of Jewish faith or not, unfortunately undermines the premise of your argument when you accuse me of ignorance and deceit.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being ‘anti-semitic’ (although like I mentioned above this doesn’t technically make sense and I would change your ‘anti Semitic’ to ‘anti Israeli’ for this to make sense) I’m afraid this whole ‘let’s infer that people might be anti Jewish’ thing just doesn’t work any more. It’s turned from being a stick to a limp felt pantomime prop. Personally I am not anti any religion or faith but if Henry Makon or anyone else wishes to express his disagreement with the Jewish faith, Catholicism, Islam, Christianity or any other then that is his perogative. Incidentally I’ve noticed that attacking Christians and the Christian faith seems to be generally seen as acceptable, with the defenders of this faith usually dismissed and derided as right wingers, nut jobs, kitten drowners and small minded buffoons.
Just a bit of interesting historical view to give some context too-this is from Benjamin H. Freedman,a Jewish Historian. He too can be disagreed with of course depending on your take on history. : “When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the “homeland” of the ancestors of those who today style themselves “Jews”. Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their “homeland”, and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a “Jew”. The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea (roughly the West bank of today) without regard to race or religion, just as the term “Texan” signifies a person living in Texas”
Whatever the case and the historical background, lets hope that the people of Israel and Palestine can wake up to the Zionist regime ruining their futures..
@BrianF 7:41
Re the Independent and the war Vlad waged on Georgia …
Perhaps they should have read the EU Council report at http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_I.pdf which suggests the Georgians might have started it …
On the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, a sustained Georgian artillery attack struck the
town of Tskhinvali. Other movements of the Georgian armed forces targeting Tskhinvali
and the surrounding areas were under way …
Presumably Vlad could reasonably claim his was a defensive response to protect Russian citizens?
That’s a theory.
This is evidence.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering
I’m sure there is more evidence out there if that isn’t enough.
This episode of the Keiser Report was recommended to me especially the content of the second half. http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-505-max-keiser-642/ 28 mins
Broadcast from London but concerning the US banking system.
‘In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the Lilliputian view on fraud and theft and how this applies to the chief banking knaves at JPMorgan. In the second half, Max interviews Marc Armstrong of PublicBanking.org about turning depositors into shareholders as a fraud recipe shared amongst the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. With public banking, interest is returned to the economy from whence it came.’
Money does not belong to the depositor once it is deposited with a bank. If the bank goes bust, say goodbye to it. Last in line.
From the BBC Middle East desk in reply to a Medialens contributor.
Thank you for getting in touch.
>
> We have reviewed the article in question but cannot agree with your
> assertion of bias.
>
> Over time, the US’ use of Agent Orange as a defoliant in SE Asia certainly
> killed more people than the attack on Halabja. Frank Gardner’s line: “But
> nothing compared with what happened at Halabja” was meant to convey that
> no single chemical attack in recent years compares to the horror of
> Halabja. Frank Gardner has now amended the line to make the meaning
> clearer, so it now reads: “‘No single chemical attack in recent years
> compares to the horror of Halabja”.
>
> With regards to your point about depleted uranium, this was an article
> about chemical weapons and uranium is not classed as a chemical weapon.
> Similarly, phosphorus is classed as a pyrotechnic, not a chemical weapon.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Middle East desk
> BBC News website
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
Note that uranium is not classed as a weapon and that phosphorus is a pyrotechnic, not a chemical weapon!!
A survivor from Cast Lead called Sawsan said:
“No, I survived the phosphorus rained down upon us from the helicopters and air craft of the Yehuda. But it was these very fireworks that have scarred me for ever, pretty though they are, and which killed my brother Saad. He is with Allah. The scars are with me.”
py·ro·tech·nics
(pī’rə-tĕk’nĭks) pronunciation
n. (used with a sing.verb)
1.The art of manufacturing or setting off fireworks. Also called pyrotechny.
2.A fireworks display.
3.A brilliant display, as of rhetoric or wit, or of virtuosity in the performing arts.
No words.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1380800901.html
5 London bus fulls of euros anyone?
“The €20bn mystery: Could Iran be the owner of huge cash stash at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-20bn-mystery-could-iran-be-the-owner-of-huge-cash-stash-at-moscows-sheremetyevo-airport-8854563.html
Ex-NSA/CIA chief Hayden jokes of putting Snowden on kill list
October 03, 2013
‘Speaking at a panel discussion on Thursday, the ex-NSA director made it clear that he’s aware of Snowden’s nomination for a European Human Rights Award.
But Hayden revealed that he’d rather see the NSA whistleblower on a kill list than a short-list:
“I must admit in my darker moments over the past several months, I’d also thought of nominating Mr. Snowden, but it was for a different list,” Hayden said during a cybersecurity panel hosted by the Washington Post.
As the audience laughed, US lawmaker Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, offered Hayden his support: “I can help you with that,” he said.’
http://rt.com/usa/hayden-joke-snowden-rogers-696/
Are these people not vile and disgusting? ‘As the audience laughed……’
Here RT speak to David Swanson on the matter. There is a delay on the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3jGPrRNsY#t=38
David Swanson – a decent human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson
Exexpat,
Thanks for that Guardian link re the ‘Yids’ chant. I confess to being a football ignoramus – what is the connection between this team and Israel? Is it just that it has a strong British Jewish following (source: Wikipedia)? The flag in the photo is interesting – and is a rather political statement for a football team. Is an express “support for Israel” a tenet of following the club?
For what it’s worth, I would tend to be in agreement with David Baddiel that ‘Yid’ as an offensive term needs to be discouraged. But, if Jewish people are reclaiming the moniker in order to reduce its power, then it is clearly complex. Thus, I hope the police apply the legislation with caution.
Mary, if you are on the ML message board, that reply from the BBC is potentially wrong, and you may wish to flag it to whoever posted it. It’d require some research, but basically I think phosphorus is classified depending on its usage. If it is used to shed light on an area, it is a pyrotechnic, but if it is used on people it is a chemical weapon. That point should be put to the BBC, though of course the poster should do their research on the classification systems first.
Fred, thanks.
I’m not sure what your two links are evidence of, though. Monbiot and Greenwald are both excellent journalists, and represent a splendid challenge to power that is quite rare in the mainstream press. But, as welcome as their output is, they are (a) relegated to the comment pages, which are just as likely to feature Frazer Nelson or Tony Blair, (b) their genuinely progressive output is a small chunk of the paper’s total output, and (c) their views are unlikely to be reflected in an editorial piece.
The broad point I’m making is, well, what I said earlier: the sum of progressive views in the whole of the mainstream media is a tiny proportion of its total output, and this is not an accident*. Even if we take into account other progressive writers, such as Gary Younge (Guardian), Pilger (previously the Mirror, occasionally New Statesman), Fisk (Independent), their total word count pales in comparison to the space devoted to the status quo. Whilst I plucked the figure of 5% out of thin air earlier [the percentage of progressive to conservative/capitalist views given space], I don’t think it would be an exaggeration.
* I’m not advancing a conspiracy theory though, for the reasons I set out earlier relating to human behaviour and subconscious biases. But I note there is not much (corporate) activity dedicated to correcting this problem either.
Evening Jon – with you on the football – I prob know less than you about it! Just found this article:
“I’m a proud Yid, even if I can’t stand Spurs
When a team with a wide Jewish fan base and prominent Jewish businesspeople among its executives proudly call themselves Yids, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it.” http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/1.547673
Lets see what happens on Saturday – but it’s going to be particularly amusing if the police nick an actual Jew for chanting that he is proud to be a Yid.
Also it appears to be all over the web now – so for sure it will be chanted. Are the police planning on arresting 38000 fans?
@Jon
So how many pro capitalist articles do the guardian publish?
I don’t remember seeing any “aren’t our bankers wonderful” pieces.
If the Guardian just slips in a few anti banker articles to keep their credibility up there must be a lot of pro banker articles out there. Where are they?
Here’s more evidence.
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/30/jokes-about-bankers
Where’s yours?
Fred you should “lurk moar” around medialens mate.
An obvious example of media bias is exaggerated risks. Why are they always going on and on about terrorism when the risk of it is tiny?
I refer you to
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/edward-snowden-files-john-lanchester#exaggeratedrisks
***
Since 9/11, 53 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK. Every one of those deaths is tragic. So is every one of the 26,805 deaths to have occurred on Britain’s roads between 2002 and 2012 inclusive, an average of 6.67 deaths a day. Let’s call that the SDRD, standard daily road deaths. The terrorist toll for 12 years comes to 0.0121 SDRD. This means that 12 years of terrorism has killed as many people in the UK as eight days on our roads.
****
Also re the BBC its always been a mouthpiece of whichever government is in. Its shocking how biased and Pro UKUSIS and establishment its output is. And whenever there is an anti establishment/UKUSIS piece is aired its almost always out of peak hours and/or never promoted. Its ultimately owned by the crown and functions as the PR department of the worlds richest womans family so you won’t be seeing much anti-establishment coverage there.
@ Anon
From Gaia.
Slugs and Snails and puppy dogs tails and sugar and spice and all things nice!
Got it!
@fred
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/27/royal-mail-shares-privatisation-applying
Thats an article for how to apply for shares in a public company we already own.
I think thats the definition of capitalism isn’t it?
“An obvious example of media bias is exaggerated risks. Why are they always going on and on about terrorism when the risk of it is tiny?
I refer you to…”
Hang on a minute.
You are referring me to an article in the UK media. The Guardian no less. Don’t you know they are corporate lackeys trying to brainwash us?
“Thats an article for how to apply for shares in a public company we already own.
I think thats the definition of capitalism isn’t it?”
That article just tells the ordinary man in the street how to profit from what is already going to happen.
For an opinion on what is going to happen see:
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/oct/02/privatisation-threat-royal-mail-six-days
Particularly the “At a Guardian fringe event at the Conservative conference sponsored by Save Our Royal Mail,” bit.
“sugar and spice and all things nice!”
They still taste like anchovies though.
The wonderful US of A. 4 decades in solitary for a crime he did not do. Now, like al Megrahi was, he is dying of cancer.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/2/after_4_decades_in_solitary_dying
All these stories are subdued by the Zionist press. When is there going to be a public inquiry into Lockerbie? Ask Kempe, and Fred, and Villager and all the other pro-Zionist activists on this blog.
Sad and sure-fire Technicolour. Our mind mincer ‘school-conditioning’ not only roots an enormous pressure on children to succeed, our kids eventually drop out the mincer back-end as consumption units programmed to buy, spend, consume and obey while instantialized to a generic ‘dry-run’ enabled education template lacking inquiry, evaluation and verification.
As an example when will children be taught that the mind is not confined to the head and hypocrisy, deception, lying and treachery are perfectly acceptable ways to spread fear and control.
Mark, just before I go to bed I don’t think ordinary teachers fail children. They teach that bullying, cowardly acts and stealing are wrong. When they children grow up, those that do, they learn that there are other schools like Eton and Harrow and the prep-schools for Yale and Harvard teach a different agenda, where bullies and those who do cowardly acts and make laws where stealing is acceptable, you have a different kind of adult – the adults that govern. All that buggery and fagging was not done in vain. It maintains the status quo, the ones who own MSM and everything else – the 1%.