1) I must disgaree with you regarding climate change. Pretty much all respected scientific publications and institutions accept the main facts of global warming/climate change, namely that it is happening and that it is associated with human activity. The minority of "experts" who argue otherwise tend to have questionable qualifications and motivations.
This video explains the "confusion" regarding climate change rather well... (note I am not a "liberal" and do not agree with TYT in many issues, but on this issue, they hit the nail on the head.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xwkrMQYlI
2) Whilst I sympathise with the difficulties those with Autism must face in daily life, it does not make the scourge of racism any less important, as it is one of the most widespread and common forms of discrimination suffered by millions of people in the USA and across the world. It should not be a zero-sum game. All discrimination and bigotry is wrong, and perhaps there needs to be greater awareness of bigotry against those of a "different mental state", but it does not mean that racism should be any less of an issue.
There are two questions relating to climate change which, to date, no one has ever successfully answered.
1) why are the changes always presented as a negative? How do we know that the planet isn't moving back to where it is *supposed* to be, climatologically speaking, and that our unintended side-effects are helping rather than harming? Why are the predictions so full of doom and gloom?
2) Why do the predictions presume that humans are stupid? "All the polar ice caps will melt (causing the sea levels to rise), all the arable farm land will disappear (leading to widespread famine), and tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons will increase in severity, all of which will lead to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people". (clearly, this is paraphrasing--no one actually said this) What? People who live in low-lying areas along coasts are just going to sit there and drown? "oh, if only we owned a boat we could get away. *sigh*" What, no new areas of arable land will emerge? Why not? I am certain Russia won't mind if Siberia, the vast majority of which is not currently being used for anything, suddenly becomes the world's largest green belt. In short, some people make it seem as if future humans will be unable to cope when adaptability and creativity have long been our strongest advantages.
@Mathsorcerer 1) Climate science is not exact, there are too many variables to accurately predict exactly what will happen, but we know within reasonable scientific confidence that A) human activity has significantly accelerated climate change. rapid climate change is traumatic for delicate ecosystems (historic mass-extinction events coincides with "climate chaos". C) general trends suggests greater likelihood of extreme weather events such as floods, storms and other generally negative consequences.
2) Millions of people will not perish gradually as their homes sink beneath the waves. However, over time, many millions will be forced to move from productive land that is no longer productive due to encroaching sea levels and desertification. The worst affected regions are some of the most over-populated and impoverished places in the world such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. Millions won't drown, but poor nutrition, inter-communal conflict over scarce resources, disease, poverty etc will exacerbate human suffering for the many millions affected by climate change.
Perhaps Siberia and the UK will become more productive thanks to warmer weather... but do you think the Russians will readily allow 200 million displaced South Asians to settle in Siberia? Sure short of a global catastrophe, some nations will cope just fine, some might even prosper (Arctic trade routes and energy supplies unlocked by melting ice cap), but the net-cost-benefit analysis is overwhelmingly negative on a global scale.
@Heindrich I am not saying that racism is not an issue. I am saying that race ought not be an issue since it has no impact on a person other than appearance wise. To put it another way I have transcended the whole race prejudice issue and I am upset that much of the rest of the world is still stuck in a rut about race.
@Tresset Unfortunately we do not live in a world where that is the case. Just look at Syria and Iraq... thousands dying just cos somebody else believes a slightly different version of Koran. I know it's frustrating, but it's the world we live in.
Overall... it will be difficult to convince China to change its course when it comes to carbon emissions simply because doing so would be potentially devastating to its economy. Forcing a change of pace down their throat could create a lot of human suffering in the "right now", and it is a very unsavory trade-off. That is the sad, unfortunate truth.
And this... is why, sadly, I don't think the problem of climate change is soluble. It asks the people of today to sacrifice a great deal for the people of tomorrow. If there were a unified global government, it might have been possible, but no developed democratic government can expect to push through a crippling carbon-emissions policy, and significantly lower standards of living for the sake of undefined future generations and "foreigners". No developing country will accept that their citizens must accept a much lower standard of living than developed western countries.
The Chinese arguement, shared by the likes of India, is that "Western Europe and other developed nations have exploited the world's resources and polluted its atmosphere for centuries so that their citizens can enjoy all the comforts and luxuries of modernity. Why must Chinese and Indian citizens bear the price for the excesses of the West? Why are our citizens not allowed their right to drive cars, live in air-conditioned homes and jet off on holiday? If emissions must be cut, then developed countries should shoulder a greater proportion of the burden, and technology, capital and resources ought to be transferred to help developing countries minimize their emissions without sacrificing economic development."
In fact Chinese society is much less "climate-skeptic" than the USE or Australia. We have seen how our own climate has degenerated dramatically in the last few decades in the mad rush for economic development and industrialization. However, like I suspect everyone else, Chinese people do not care enough about climate change to sacrifice their living standards today for the "greater good" tomorrow.
I'd also say that race really isn't just something that is related to skin colour (though physical appearance plays a big role in it). The Irish for instance were once considered (I'm talking 1400's to 1600's) to be a "race" by the English and not in a particularly good way either (they were considered to be uncivilized savages, similar to later European views of native americans). Likewise in the 20th century Ashkenazi Jews, despite having a white skin colour, also have seen their share of racist policies despite having the same skin colour as their persecutors. Even where I live if you actually look at the history of my city (Toronto) you'll find that in the late 19th and early 20th century Italians, Jews, finnish peoples and people from eastern Europe weren't considered to be of the "white" race (for lack of a better description) by the majority protestant scottish/english/irish population. At least not until after the Second World War (and even then not so much when it came to how Jews were treated).
Also throughout Canada's history (and there is a book about this called None is Too Many that covers the 1930's and 1940's specifically on this) Jews were viewed by our immigration officials as being a people that lacked the knowledge or ability to farm and who only would end up residing in cities, so we wouldn't take them. Regardless of their qualifications.
Anyways the point I'm trying to make is that race is a social creation that can be linked both to physical and cultural differences. Its not as simple as skin colour.
@elminster True enough. I knew someone would bring that up. Still doesn't affect the brain though.
Culture is something I kinda sorta separate from race and it does have a profound influence on who you are. The only way I see race being relevant these days is you can use it, preferably in combination with other factors, to make a reasonable guess as to what someone's culture is since race and culture often coincide with each other. It is usually not a good idea to make such assumptions, though, as they are often wrong.
Anyway, whenever I have to fill out a survey that asks for race/ethnicity I always make a point of leaving it blank because I think it ought not matter.
Anyway, just Google George Carlin and "The planet is fine." You should find it.
tell that to the dodo bird. The And Alaotra Grebe, Brush Warbler, Arabian Ostrich, Bali Tiger, Barbary Lion, Hartebeest, Bushwren, Canarian Black Oystercatcher, Cape Verde Giant Skink, Caribbean Monk Seal, Carolina Parakeet, Caspian Tiger, Caucasian Wisent, Colombian Grebe, Craugastor escoces, Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby, Darwin's Galapagos Mouse, Desert Bandicoot, Desert Rat Kangaroo, Dusky Seaside Sparrow, Formosan Clouded Leopard, Golden Toad, Grand Cayman Thrush, Guam Flycatcher, Guam Flying Fox, Hawai'i 'O'o, Hawaiian Thrush, Heath Hen, Indefatigable Galapagos Mouse, Japanese Sea Lion, Javan Tiger, Kaua'i 'O'o, Laughing Owl, Laysan Rail, Little Swan Island Hutia, Mariana Mallard, Paradise Parrot, Passenger Pigeon, Pyrenean Ibex, Roque Chico de Salmor Giant Lizard, Round, Island Burrowing Boa, Ryukyu Wood Pigeon, Santo Stefano Lizard, Schomburgk's Deer, South Island Piopio, Syrian Wild Ass, Tasmanian Wolf, Tecopa pupfish, Thick-billed Ground-Dove, Thicktail Chub, Toolache Wallaby, Wake Island Rail, Western Black Rhinoceros, and the thousands of other undocumented species that have gone EXTICT in the last 100 years, not to mention the addax, African wild ass, Alabama cavefish, Amur leopard, Arakan forest turtle, Asiatic cheetah, axolotl, bactrian camel, Black Rhino, Brazilian merganser, brown spider monkey, California condor, Chinese alligator, Chinese giant salamander, gharial, Hawaiian monk seal, Iberian lynx, Javan rhino, kakapo, Mediterranean monk seal, mountain gorilla, Northern hairy-nosed wombat, Philippine eagle, red wolf, saiga, Siamese crocodile, Spix's macaw, southern bluefin tuna, Sumatran orangutan, Sumatran rhinoceros, vaquita, Yangtze river dolphin, northern white rhinoceros, and about 3000 other endangered animals I'm not posting here. *end longest sentence ever*
Do you know what makes a person a certain race? I will tell you! It is the amount of a simple pigment called melanin in their skin. That's it! D!!!!! .
Along with their bone structure, stature, face shape, area of origin, area they grew up, culture they grew up in, culture they're in now, and AND the amount of melanin.
I see many people on the left, both those in government and those who would be considered your 'average Joe', who seem to believe that America should be ashamed of what it is and what it has been historically. They seem to think that America needs to be changed and remade and needs to apologize to the entire world for various crimes against humanity or whatnot. Many of those on the right side of the political spectrum, however, do not seem to believe this is the case and are afraid of the direction the country is being dragged in by the government. I personally do not understand why we should be ashamed of our country. I see no great evil that America has committed that would prompt a need to remake our country or to apologize to the rest of the world for. What I have seen are a great many historical inaccuracies and untruths about our nation being accepted as hard and undeniable fact on a widespread scale.
Hmm... I would say we have a few major fuck-ups. Say, stealing our land from natives with no regard to their culture or even humanity, slavery, shooting most of the shootable animals for sport, cutting down the majority of the trees in the Midwest, fostering a culture of fear and violence in it's people, invading various counties for no reason, illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan(hmmm... I think I could add to the list the fact that when I typed "afga" my iPad tried to correct it to "afganimals") on false pretenses, and starting a mostly nonexistent, uncalled for, and excessive "war on terror" to justify and continue past present, and future fuck-ups.
I'm sorry to dissect your post so... Aggressively, @Tresset, but it incited some strong emotion in me, and I felt the need to say a few things. I think it's quite long enough now.
Anyway, just Google George Carlin and "The planet is fine." You should find it.
Big list.
... Yes, a shame that... It doesn't even begin to approach the events that happened in the past, however. Ever hear ofThe Great Dying? 90% of all living species died out. This was long before even the dinosaurs, who also died out eventually. Like George Carlin says: It happens all the time. We don't even know why it happens most of the time. The vast majority of it happens on its own to without any human involvement. It is always a shame to lose species diversity but there is very little we can do about it. And don't you get preachy to me! Animals are my life (far more so, I'll wager, than possibly anyone else on the forum) and I am all for saving the whales and what not. I just happen to have a realistic view of the situation.
Do you know what makes a person a certain race? I will tell you! It is the amount of a simple pigment called melanin in their skin. That's it! D!!!!! .
Along with their bone structure, stature, face shape, area of origin, area they grew up, culture they grew up in, culture they're in now, and AND the amount of melanin.
You can ignore my point if you want to. None of that affects the brain and culture, as I said earlier, is independent of race although the two often do go together.
I see many people on the left, both those in government and those who would be considered your 'average Joe', who seem to believe that America should be ashamed of what it is and what it has been historically. They seem to think that America needs to be changed and remade and needs to apologize to the entire world for various crimes against humanity or whatnot. Many of those on the right side of the political spectrum, however, do not seem to believe this is the case and are afraid of the direction the country is being dragged in by the government. I personally do not understand why we should be ashamed of our country. I see no great evil that America has committed that would prompt a need to remake our country or to apologize to the rest of the world for. What I have seen are a great many historical inaccuracies and untruths about our nation being accepted as hard and undeniable fact on a widespread scale.
Hmm... I would say we have a few major fuck-ups. Say, stealing our land from natives with no regard to their culture or even humanity, slavery, shooting most of the shootable animals for sport, cutting down the majority of the trees in the Midwest, fostering a culture of fear and violence in it's people, invading various counties for no reason, illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan(hmmm... I think I could add to the list the fact that when I typed "afga" my iPad tried to correct it to "afganimals") on false pretenses, and starting a mostly nonexistent, uncalled for, and excessive "war on terror" to justify and continue past present, and future fuck-ups.
Ah, yes. The historical inaccuracies I mentioned. That is to be expected. But I would like to ask you how it is illegal to defend ourselves against those who attacked us in a craven terrorist act, which in itself was an act of war. Is it legal to hijack 4 airplanes and use them to mass murder innocent civilians? What would you have us do? Just sit there and say "Yup, there go the terrorists. Those silly rascals are murdering us again. Ah well, better mash our lips firmly on their butts and hope they forgive us for doing nothing to them."? And besides, Do you really think that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein? That tyrant guy who enjoyed suppressing the Iraqis rights at the best of times and torturing and killing them at the worst? As for your descriptions of the war on terror I would say they are largely inaccurate. Uncalled for? How many people need to die from a terrorist attack before it is ok? Mostly nonexistent? That would be a bad thing to say to all the troops that get their extremities blown off and their comrades killed off when fighting that "nonexistent" enemy. False pretenses? You don't still think we did it for the oil do you, because we gave all that back to the Iraqis along with shiploads of foreign aid. Excessive? You do know that all these terrorist organizations are still mostly at large right?
I'm sorry to dissect your post so... Aggressively, @Tresset, but it incited some strong emotion in me, and I felt the need to say a few things. I think it's quite long enough now.
Bah! just wrote a long response that was deleted accidentally by clicking backspace... don't have time now but will weigh in on the "is America a evil jerk or not" (the answer is definitely not... at least not more so than any other nation) question when I get the chance and am not exhausted from a long work day.
Interesting. On the War on Terror. . . or TWAT. Is it something that had to fought, from my view, Yes. Were we fighting it the right way? No. It's not a fight you can win from mass deployments of men and equipment. All that does is give the enemy a very large target they can use IEDs on. It needed to be a war fought with intelligence, which I can tell from experience is something sorely lacking. You gather intelligence on a cell, learn it's members, their locations if you can then use either special forces, aircraft or drones to go in and get them. You want to be in quickly and out twice as fast.
It is also painfully public, casualties are high and the cost is immense.
oh, lol... I was like "Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't come out until August" haha
I don't plan on seeing that movie simply because I don't really like Dinesh D'Souza's approach to political discourse. I dislike Obama's policies just as much as he does, but I don't like how D'Souza questions the motivations of people who disagree with him and tries to (arrogantly) psycho-analyze them. I find it kinda distasteful, even if I agree with D'Souza on a number of points.
How many people need to die from a terrorist attack before it is ok?
How many people need to die in the reprisals for that terrorist attack before we sate our desire for revenge? Should we have directed our revenge against people who didn't do it?
We should not apologize for the things our predecessors did--we weren't there, we didn't do it, and I never advocate apologizing for something you didn't do. We should always acknowledge the things our forebears should not have done and we should always strive to be better than they were--never repeat the mistakes of the past.
@Heinrich finally! Someone *finally* took the initiative to craft well-thought-out responses to the difficult questions I have been asking in other places for years. Why did it take someone here to answer them and not on some of the other more deeply social/political forums? (fora? erm...what is the correct plural on that? singular "forum" should be plural "fora" I think but I have had a little too much whiskey right now) Granted, nature without humans attains a certain equilibrium state and thus human activity introduces a random factor which unbalances the equilibrium. Given our advanced satellite monitoring capabilities, though, we should be able to give sufficient advance warning to people in the path of extreme weather events and thus avoid real tragedy. Katrina was an exception--people were told to leave yet stayed anyway; we'll deal with that recent history elsewhere, though. Still....extreme weather events need not be catastrophic if we take proper precautions beforehand and begin constructing housing more intelligently--more people should switch to pre-cast on cast-in-place concrete, which make the construction faster and less expensive as well as making the dwelling more durable. No, Russia wouldn't like to see millions of people swarming into Siberia but it isn't like they could stop it, either. Once there, those people can become productive citizens in the new Siberian economy and enjoy the influx of income as they sell their agricultural products for whatever we can barter with them in trade.
As far as truly apocalyptic predictions are concerned....well, sometimes I look forward to living in that sort of post-industrial Fallout-like Wasteland. I already know where to go, what to do, what to take with me, and where to go for the things I don't already have.
You make another good point, as well. Most people who claim that fighting climate change means that the world--they really mean the United States but they won't come out and say it--needs to put hundreds of billions of dollars into a general fund (or some such scenario) are ultimately just trying to get access to the vast wealth the United States still has. However, we have cleaned up our act in the last 40 years but if developing nations are not also on the same page then the United States can cut its emissions by 90% and it won't be enough.
Now for the other hard questions. Why are the predictions of these changes always at some point in the future? We have been told that "the end is near" for nearly 30 years now--I was around for the good old days when the ozone hole over Antarctica was going to kill us all with skin cancer (didn't happen)--and no disaster has occurred. Either a) the scientists are misinterpreting their own conclusions, b) the effects take longer than even the most alarmed scientist thinks they will take, or c) the predictions are incorrect. Of course, nothing motivates people and politicians like being told the the specter of death is imminent--act now or there won't be a tomorrow.
Why the term "climate change"? By its very nature the climate is supposed to change--even Mars has climate changes, according to the evidence collected by surface rovers. Shouldn't a different term be coined to more accurately reflect the situation, one a little less....illogical?
Good stuff all the way around and with no flame wars, I might add. That is most un-Internet-like, in my opinion.
Yeah, he kinda does that a bit and obviously has no love for Obama. Not an unbiassed film but it was more about American history and throwing a different perspective of it under the spotlight. An optimistic perspective that is hardly ever focused on, or taught in schools nowadays. Everyone is too busy focusing on an extremely pessimistic perspective that is based rather loosely on historical fact. It was an ok movie and I can easily see how it would offend some people that may otherwise be persuaded.
Citizens of the United States who constantly point out the flaws in the United States--like I do from time to time, when we deserve it--are like spouses in a less-than-stellar marriage who, deep down, know they won't ever get divorced. "Yes, my wife and I fight from time to time. No, I can't stand how she nags or bitches at me over trivial little things. Good Heavens, no, I would never cheat on her or divorce her--she's my wife, for goodness sakes!" The honeymoon is definitely in the past and we are at the stage where all we see are each other's flaws.
@Mathsorcerer I like this. I think it's possible the Russian's would be thrilled with a climate change that turns Siberia into the new bread basket. It would turn the Russian economy into a powerhouse. The money they'd make from becoming the some of the more viable farm land. . . Wow.
I've never really thought about the term "Climate Change". Everything is in a constant state of change so I agree that it is an awful name. There is going to be a conference of 150 countries in Paris next year to decide what action should be taken on Carbon Emission reduction among other things. It will be very interesting to see the results. Even if you don't believe in climate change (Awful name) there isn't a reason to not move towards a new, cleaner and more sustainable for of energy. Even if coal and oil aren't bad for the environment, they are a limited supply and will run out eventually. . . what happens then?
How many people need to die from a terrorist attack before it is ok?
How many people need to die in the reprisals for that terrorist attack before we sate our desire for revenge? Should we have directed our revenge against people who didn't do it?
It wasn't about revenge. We were trying to take out the organizations that were threatening us. It was about national security. Just because you may think that the people who responded to the terrorist attack did so out of revenge doesn't make it so. If you asked them I am sure they would say it was about national security and not revenge. Even if it weren't true I imagine that it would be very difficult to prove otherwise without them saying otherwise... Unless you are an illithid (if you take my meaning)...
I'll tell you what the result of Paris will be--a lot of posturing, a lot of sound bytes, and in the end they'll put together some sort of feel-good Kyoto 2 that won't really be binding and some countries won't sign it.
Coal and oil can run out? Even though they are geologically created? Weird....anyway, suppose they do run out. Well, then...I guess we'll get busy putting up solar panels on all the roofs, wind turbines in the backyards, and some areas will just have to go dark until they catch up.
Yes! I would *REALLY* love to thank everyone for playing nice! I love an intelligent debate, not a senseless flame war. Air your opinions, defend them, back them up, other people will pick them apart and argue their own point that is how it works! But the lack of personal attacks has been amazingly refreshing!
@Mathsorcerer also consider the rate we are breeding . . . the population on this planet has been increasing at an insane rate and it's only going to get faster. All these people need food to eat, power for their homes, fuel for their cars. They will use buses and trains, boats and planes, all of which use more fuel.
Terrorism is certainly not a non-issue, but it hardly deserves the weight that is put on it by the media and government. The media, because they rely on fear tactics to make money, and the government, to justify their actions. In 2010, 11,078 people died from gun violence, excluding suicides. In 2010, zero people were killed by terrorism. (In the u.s.)
We spent trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, invaded Americans privacy, and violated our constitutional rights in the "war on terror", yet we cannot even pass reasonable gun control legislation, such as background checks. Most or out action against terror are driven by fear, lust for revenge, and ignorance, and causes more harm than good. My point is that the issue has been blow waaayyy out of proportion. We have bigger problems to spend our money, time, and effort on.
Also, I would like to say that in my list of nasty things the u.s. Has done, I am playing devils advocate a little bit. Most of those things are so far into the past that they are hardly relevant. Though we regret those actions, All those people are long dead and what's done is done, pretty much. Also, @booinyoureyes i was a bit worked up after going through the list of extinct species. Every other county has a list just like it, I'm sure.
Speaking of that, @Tresset how can you use a mass extinction event as a justification of human caused extinction through over hunting and habitat disruption? You said "George Carlin says: It happens all the time. We don't even know why it happens most of the time. The vast majority of it happens on its own to without any human involvement." It should happen all the time like it does now. I continent populated by millions bison roaming in huge herds does not loose it's entire population in 50 years without human involvement of a massive natural disaster such an enormous meteor or supervolcano. The billions of passenger pigeons that once blotted out the sun on mass migrations across North America do not go extinct in 30 years 'just because'. Rainforests do not burn themselves down, you know. I really don't see how the great dying is relevant.
I should go to bed. This probably isn't very coherent or logical, is it? Whatever. You can probably make out most of the big ideas.
Hmm... I would say we have a few major fuck-ups. Say, stealing our land from natives with no regard to their culture or even humanity, slavery, shooting most of the shootable animals for sport, cutting down the majority of the trees in the Midwest, fostering a culture of fear and violence in it's people, invading various counties for no reason, illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan(hmmm... I think I could add to the list the fact that when I typed "afga" my iPad tried to correct it to "afganimals") on false pretenses, and starting a mostly nonexistent, uncalled for, and excessive "war on terror" to justify and continue past present, and future fuck-ups.
I'm not really in the position of judging the US treatment of natives given Canada's history on the matter. One only needs to look into residential schools in Canada to see how much big of a douche white people in Canada were towards them before I was around.
Not really going to touch on the whole slavery issue either since most western nations can't hold their head too high about it (neither can many countries and civilizations quite frankly). In Canada's case (though it is remarkably under-reported here) we actually had a lot more native slavery than African slavery, but I still can't really judge the US today based on the actions of 150+ years ago.
The US certainly had cause to enter Afghanistan. Not for nation building or to stay there for 10 years (which they ended up trying both and largely failing at it), but to find the people responsible for 9/11. Yes, yes, Osama got away at Tora Bora and it took them 10 more years to catch him. Sure, they ended up using the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq and by doing so kicked a hornets nest that really aught not to have been kicked (plus the thousands of lives lost and the injured). However, nobody really knows whether or not Saddam would have survived the arab spring, let alone the result that might have had in Iraq. I don't think entering Iraq was even remotely justified (lets face it countries around the world trade with nations that are probably as bad if not worse) but I also don't think it by itself caused what we are now seeing in Iraq. Had Saddam not been killed then it could have very well been the case that we would be witnessing another Syria like situation (largely islamic rebel groups rise against a firmly established dictator).
It wasn't about revenge. We were trying to take out the organizations that were threatening us. It was about national security. Just because you may think that the people who responded to the terrorist attack did so out of revenge doesn't make it so. If you asked them I am sure they would say it was about national security and not revenge. Even if it weren't true I imagine that it would be very difficult to prove otherwise without them saying otherwise... Unless you are an illithid (if you take my meaning)...
We succeeded. Al Qeuda (however you want to spell it) is broken and there hasn't been a serious threat against us in nearly a decade; those two numb-nuts in Boston don't count because they were lone actors. Unless you want to count Benghazi--I am unclear if Washington ever officially declared that as a terrorist attack or if they are sticking to their guns about it being an impromptu riot as a result of someone's lame "anti-Muslim" YouTube video which had been up for months.
No, I am not an illithd, only highly intelligent and highly cynical (sometimes a bad combination).
Terrorists are very hard to up root and tend to go underground when threatened. We haven't won, not by a long shot. We may, eventually. But they have to be fought.
I'm not convinced that "fighting" is the right answer to Islamic Fundamentalism. Every time there is a war waged in the Middle East by a Western Power, we cement ourselves as the enemy. Whenever a corrupt and repressive government is given support by our elected leaders, we undermine our credibility. Every time our governments and intelligence services use illegal rendition, indefinite detention without trial, interrogation techniques amounting to torture and so on - we become easier to define as "the bad guys".
All these things have happened many times in the years since 2001. Reasons to hate western democracy have gone from "they don't believe the same stuff as me" to "they're violent hypocrites who claim to defend peace and freedom while waging aggressive war, abducting and torturing people".
That is not to say that Islamic Fundamentalism is a good thing, or is right. But there are better ways to oppose it than war. Firstly we need to retake the moral high ground, if we don't we'll always be hypocrites. A start would be saying "never again" to the extrajudicial detention and "it's not quite technically torture" that occurred. We need to find a better way to deal with terrorists than brute force, because while every cell leader killed might disrupt a plot, it creates a dozen more new people who want us dead.
Corvino, islamic people hate us from the deepness of their hearts. There is no way of talking out with these people - even those we call "moderate" are not. They do not share our same values, and before people are going to understand that , the better it will be. If you do not agree, just tell me one islamic nation that has christian churches. There is not.
Turkey
Turkey is also a member of NATO. One of the most powerful nations in Europe/Middle East and is pretty open and tolerant. Masses of tourism, I know a half dozen people that have visited and given it an excellent review. It's also an Islamic country. . . Mainstream Islam isn't the problem. Extremist taking the word of Islam WAY to far are the problem.
Comments
Firstly @Tresset ...
1) I must disgaree with you regarding climate change. Pretty much all respected scientific publications and institutions accept the main facts of global warming/climate change, namely that it is happening and that it is associated with human activity. The minority of "experts" who argue otherwise tend to have questionable qualifications and motivations.
This video explains the "confusion" regarding climate change rather well... (note I am not a "liberal" and do not agree with TYT in many issues, but on this issue, they hit the nail on the head.)
2) Whilst I sympathise with the difficulties those with Autism must face in daily life, it does not make the scourge of racism any less important, as it is one of the most widespread and common forms of discrimination suffered by millions of people in the USA and across the world. It should not be a zero-sum game. All discrimination and bigotry is wrong, and perhaps there needs to be greater awareness of bigotry against those of a "different mental state", but it does not mean that racism should be any less of an issue. @Mathsorcerer
1) Climate science is not exact, there are too many variables to accurately predict exactly what will happen, but we know within reasonable scientific confidence that A) human activity has significantly accelerated climate change.
2) Millions of people will not perish gradually as their homes sink beneath the waves. However, over time, many millions will be forced to move from productive land that is no longer productive due to encroaching sea levels and desertification. The worst affected regions are some of the most over-populated and impoverished places in the world such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. Millions won't drown, but poor nutrition, inter-communal conflict over scarce resources, disease, poverty etc will exacerbate human suffering for the many millions affected by climate change.
Perhaps Siberia and the UK will become more productive thanks to warmer weather... but do you think the Russians will readily allow 200 million displaced South Asians to settle in Siberia? Sure short of a global catastrophe, some nations will cope just fine, some might even prosper (Arctic trade routes and energy supplies unlocked by melting ice cap), but the net-cost-benefit analysis is overwhelmingly negative on a global scale.
Unfortunately we do not live in a world where that is the case. Just look at Syria and Iraq... thousands dying just cos somebody else believes a slightly different version of Koran. I know it's frustrating, but it's the world we live in. @booinyoureyes
And this... is why, sadly, I don't think the problem of climate change is soluble. It asks the people of today to sacrifice a great deal for the people of tomorrow. If there were a unified global government, it might have been possible, but no developed democratic government can expect to push through a crippling carbon-emissions policy, and significantly lower standards of living for the sake of undefined future generations and "foreigners". No developing country will accept that their citizens must accept a much lower standard of living than developed western countries.
The Chinese arguement, shared by the likes of India, is that "Western Europe and other developed nations have exploited the world's resources and polluted its atmosphere for centuries so that their citizens can enjoy all the comforts and luxuries of modernity. Why must Chinese and Indian citizens bear the price for the excesses of the West? Why are our citizens not allowed their right to drive cars, live in air-conditioned homes and jet off on holiday? If emissions must be cut, then developed countries should shoulder a greater proportion of the burden, and technology, capital and resources ought to be transferred to help developing countries minimize their emissions without sacrificing economic development."
In fact Chinese society is much less "climate-skeptic" than the USE or Australia. We have seen how our own climate has degenerated dramatically in the last few decades in the mad rush for economic development and industrialization. However, like I suspect everyone else, Chinese people do not care enough about climate change to sacrifice their living standards today for the "greater good" tomorrow.
Also throughout Canada's history (and there is a book about this called None is Too Many that covers the 1930's and 1940's specifically on this) Jews were viewed by our immigration officials as being a people that lacked the knowledge or ability to farm and who only would end up residing in cities, so we wouldn't take them. Regardless of their qualifications.
Anyways the point I'm trying to make is that race is a social creation that can be linked both to physical and cultural differences. Its not as simple as skin colour.
Culture is something I kinda sorta separate from race and it does have a profound influence on who you are. The only way I see race being relevant these days is you can use it, preferably in combination with other factors, to make a reasonable guess as to what someone's culture is since race and culture often coincide with each other. It is usually not a good idea to make such assumptions, though, as they are often wrong.
Anyway, whenever I have to fill out a survey that asks for race/ethnicity I always make a point of leaving it blank because I think it ought not matter.
*end longest sentence ever* Along with their bone structure, stature, face shape, area of origin, area they grew up, culture they grew up in, culture they're in now, and AND the amount of melanin. Hmm... I would say we have a few major fuck-ups. Say, stealing our land from natives with no regard to their culture or even humanity, slavery, shooting most of the shootable animals for sport, cutting down the majority of the trees in the Midwest, fostering a culture of fear and violence in it's people, invading various counties for no reason, illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan(hmmm... I think I could add to the list the fact that when I typed "afga" my iPad tried to correct it to "afganimals") on false pretenses, and starting a mostly nonexistent, uncalled for, and excessive "war on terror" to justify and continue past present, and future fuck-ups.
I'm sorry to dissect your post so... Aggressively, @Tresset, but it incited some strong emotion in me, and I felt the need to say a few things. I think it's quite long enough now.
I edit my post to correct a one letter typo. Yes, I am that OC.
Very informative.
It is also painfully public, casualties are high and the cost is immense.
I don't plan on seeing that movie simply because I don't really like Dinesh D'Souza's approach to political discourse. I dislike Obama's policies just as much as he does, but I don't like how D'Souza questions the motivations of people who disagree with him and tries to (arrogantly) psycho-analyze them. I find it kinda distasteful, even if I agree with D'Souza on a number of points.
We should not apologize for the things our predecessors did--we weren't there, we didn't do it, and I never advocate apologizing for something you didn't do. We should always acknowledge the things our forebears should not have done and we should always strive to be better than they were--never repeat the mistakes of the past.
@Heinrich finally! Someone *finally* took the initiative to craft well-thought-out responses to the difficult questions I have been asking in other places for years. Why did it take someone here to answer them and not on some of the other more deeply social/political forums? (fora? erm...what is the correct plural on that? singular "forum" should be plural "fora" I think but I have had a little too much whiskey right now)
Granted, nature without humans attains a certain equilibrium state and thus human activity introduces a random factor which unbalances the equilibrium. Given our advanced satellite monitoring capabilities, though, we should be able to give sufficient advance warning to people in the path of extreme weather events and thus avoid real tragedy. Katrina was an exception--people were told to leave yet stayed anyway; we'll deal with that recent history elsewhere, though. Still....extreme weather events need not be catastrophic if we take proper precautions beforehand and begin constructing housing more intelligently--more people should switch to pre-cast on cast-in-place concrete, which make the construction faster and less expensive as well as making the dwelling more durable.
No, Russia wouldn't like to see millions of people swarming into Siberia but it isn't like they could stop it, either. Once there, those people can become productive citizens in the new Siberian economy and enjoy the influx of income as they sell their agricultural products for whatever we can barter with them in trade.
As far as truly apocalyptic predictions are concerned....well, sometimes I look forward to living in that sort of post-industrial Fallout-like Wasteland. I already know where to go, what to do, what to take with me, and where to go for the things I don't already have.
You make another good point, as well. Most people who claim that fighting climate change means that the world--they really mean the United States but they won't come out and say it--needs to put hundreds of billions of dollars into a general fund (or some such scenario) are ultimately just trying to get access to the vast wealth the United States still has. However, we have cleaned up our act in the last 40 years but if developing nations are not also on the same page then the United States can cut its emissions by 90% and it won't be enough.
Now for the other hard questions.
Why are the predictions of these changes always at some point in the future? We have been told that "the end is near" for nearly 30 years now--I was around for the good old days when the ozone hole over Antarctica was going to kill us all with skin cancer (didn't happen)--and no disaster has occurred. Either a) the scientists are misinterpreting their own conclusions, b) the effects take longer than even the most alarmed scientist thinks they will take, or c) the predictions are incorrect. Of course, nothing motivates people and politicians like being told the the specter of death is imminent--act now or there won't be a tomorrow.
Why the term "climate change"? By its very nature the climate is supposed to change--even Mars has climate changes, according to the evidence collected by surface rovers. Shouldn't a different term be coined to more accurately reflect the situation, one a little less....illogical?
Good stuff all the way around and with no flame wars, I might add. That is most un-Internet-like, in my opinion.
I've never really thought about the term "Climate Change". Everything is in a constant state of change so I agree that it is an awful name. There is going to be a conference of 150 countries in Paris next year to decide what action should be taken on Carbon Emission reduction among other things. It will be very interesting to see the results. Even if you don't believe in climate change (Awful name) there isn't a reason to not move towards a new, cleaner and more sustainable for of energy. Even if coal and oil aren't bad for the environment, they are a limited supply and will run out eventually. . . what happens then?
Coal and oil can run out? Even though they are geologically created? Weird....anyway, suppose they do run out. Well, then...I guess we'll get busy putting up solar panels on all the roofs, wind turbines in the backyards, and some areas will just have to go dark until they catch up.
Consider: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bevis-longstreth/post_8010_b_5577323.html
In 2010, 11,078 people died from gun violence, excluding suicides. In 2010, zero people were killed by terrorism. (In the u.s.)
We spent trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, invaded Americans privacy, and violated our constitutional rights in the "war on terror", yet we cannot even pass reasonable gun control legislation, such as background checks. Most or out action against terror are driven by fear, lust for revenge, and ignorance, and causes more harm than good.
My point is that the issue has been blow waaayyy out of proportion. We have bigger problems to spend our money, time, and effort on.
Also, I would like to say that in my list of nasty things the u.s. Has done, I am playing devils advocate a little bit. Most of those things are so far into the past that they are hardly relevant. Though we regret those actions, All those people are long dead and what's done is done, pretty much. Also, @booinyoureyes i was a bit worked up after going through the list of extinct species. Every other county has a list just like it, I'm sure.
Speaking of that, @Tresset how can you use a mass extinction event as a justification of human caused extinction through over hunting and habitat disruption? You said "George Carlin says: It happens all the time. We don't even know why it happens most of the time. The vast majority of it happens on its own to without any human involvement."
It should happen all the time like it does now. I continent populated by millions bison roaming in huge herds does not loose it's entire population in 50 years without human involvement of a massive natural disaster such an enormous meteor or supervolcano. The billions of passenger pigeons that once blotted out the sun on mass migrations across North America do not go extinct in 30 years 'just because'. Rainforests do not burn themselves down, you know.
I really don't see how the great dying is relevant.
I should go to bed. This probably isn't very coherent or logical, is it? Whatever. You can probably make out most of the big ideas.
Not really going to touch on the whole slavery issue either since most western nations can't hold their head too high about it (neither can many countries and civilizations quite frankly). In Canada's case (though it is remarkably under-reported here) we actually had a lot more native slavery than African slavery, but I still can't really judge the US today based on the actions of 150+ years ago.
The US certainly had cause to enter Afghanistan. Not for nation building or to stay there for 10 years (which they ended up trying both and largely failing at it), but to find the people responsible for 9/11. Yes, yes, Osama got away at Tora Bora and it took them 10 more years to catch him. Sure, they ended up using the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq and by doing so kicked a hornets nest that really aught not to have been kicked (plus the thousands of lives lost and the injured). However, nobody really knows whether or not Saddam would have survived the arab spring, let alone the result that might have had in Iraq. I don't think entering Iraq was even remotely justified (lets face it countries around the world trade with nations that are probably as bad if not worse) but I also don't think it by itself caused what we are now seeing in Iraq. Had Saddam not been killed then it could have very well been the case that we would be witnessing another Syria like situation (largely islamic rebel groups rise against a firmly established dictator).
No, I am not an illithd, only highly intelligent and highly cynical (sometimes a bad combination).
On a side note, Jihad. Now funded by the Australian tax payers.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/terrorist-khaled-sharrouf-went-to-jihad-on-welfare/story-fn59niix-1226986295927#
All these things have happened many times in the years since 2001. Reasons to hate western democracy have gone from "they don't believe the same stuff as me" to "they're violent hypocrites who claim to defend peace and freedom while waging aggressive war, abducting and torturing people".
That is not to say that Islamic Fundamentalism is a good thing, or is right. But there are better ways to oppose it than war. Firstly we need to retake the moral high ground, if we don't we'll always be hypocrites. A start would be saying "never again" to the extrajudicial detention and "it's not quite technically torture" that occurred. We need to find a better way to deal with terrorists than brute force, because while every cell leader killed might disrupt a plot, it creates a dozen more new people who want us dead.