by frog
A few interesting links to start your day:
New Scientist addresses the misunderstanding some have that cold weather means climate change isn’t real: Errors and lies thrive in cold weather
Mother Jones on Climate Change’s Low-Hanging Fruit
From the Guardian: Shell faces shareholder revolt over Canadian tar sands project
And for art lovers, this 2010 calendar featured by Treehugger
Published in THE GAME by frog on Tue, January 26th, 2010
Tags: general debate
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Neither are accepted for recycling. If it’s good enough for milk to be in type 2, then why not it’s frozen counterpart?
What stops industry getting it’s act together?
I re-use, compost, recycle as much as I can, but still end up dumping far too much, nearly all of it packaging that could/should be readily recycled.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
A man tears the head off a kitten in front of his children and right wing commentors call for longer and more severe jail terms, citing the horror the children were subjected to.
Left wing commentors wonder if the man himself was subject to sights like that when he was young and is behaving accordingly and call for a more temperate approach to the issue.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
They could swap notes.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
It’s not just the pain experienced by the animal, it’s the use of psychological and physical torture to achieve another end.
As I say, scum.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Jail eh!
That’d sort out the guy who set his pit-bull onto the abandoned kittens. He’d come out a reformed, much gentler fellow, especially if the sentence was doubled over what it is now.
Rough justice for those who kill
animalscats and dogs.Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
You can’t reform these people. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of inmates imprisoned for a violent offence were reconvicted within two years of their release, and over three-quarters (79%) were reconvicted within five years.
They have time and money spent on them, and what do you know – they’re still scum.
We lock them up to keep them away from us. Anything else is a bonus. And a fluke.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10 (-6)
# Peter (200) Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Three years would be not nearly enough.
Utter scum.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’d give him the same sentence as if he’d done that to a child.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Some groups* need someone looking over their shoulder, it’s a fact of life. The left paint people like him as victims of “the system”.
*Note that his sister called it “an error of judgement”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“I’d give him the same sentence as if he’d done that to a child. ”
people who harm animals are the sort who develop into psychopaths. He is just a very expensive individual who is unlikely to contribute anything positive to society, other than having a very positive effect on GDP.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Stupid irresponsible parents breeding stupid irresponsible children, all financed by the hard working middle class taxpayer.
Time we put a high cost on having kids. Better for the planet, too.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
People don’t think this scumbag should be in jail?!?!?
Argue your point, you cowardly downvoting #*@*%.
Like or Dislike:
3 
12 (-9)
There but for the grace of god I go.
Even those of us that have lived relatively normal, stable lives with loving families are only one big psychological trauma away from being set down a path towards becoming a “scumbag” or “dirty crim”.
Get out in the world and you’ll see people who lose their job, suffer a medical trauma or psychological disease and are drawn towards drugs, alcoholism, violence and a life of crime – all because they have no hope of anything else.
These people need support, understanding and humane treatment not some armchair judge, jury and executioner screaming for vengeance.
Having worked in prisons and with young offenders then proportion of these people who are truly ‘evil’ and beyond any form of help is minuscule.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Whimps.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
Quite frankly Blue I think ripping human beings to bits before they take their first breath is a much more pressing issue.
Are you telling me baby cats are more important than humans?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
They’re not humans, they’re an embryonic mush of cells. Besides, isn’t your God the biggest abortionist out? What’s a miscarriage?
Meow.
/-/
/a a _
= Y =/-~~~~~~-,_____/ )
‘^–’ ______/
/
|| |—’
(_(__| ((__|
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I think killing kittens that haven’t opened their eyes yet could also be considered abortion by that logic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Bluepeter wrote: “You can’t reform these people. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of inmates imprisoned for a violent offence were reconvicted within two years of their release, and over three-quarters (79%) were reconvicted within five years.”
I’m not sure we can conclude from that that they can’t be reformed. I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that the only prisoners who are being put through serious, well-funded programs to stop recidivism are those convicted of child sexual abuse, so maybe we would stop more of these violent offenders if we spent more on programmes for them, too.
but then JH added: “people who harm animals are the sort who develop into psychopaths.”
If he is a psychopath, then Bluepeter’s suggestion is correct. You can’t rehabilitate psychopaths, though they may be more deterred by the threat of punishment than other offenders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – are we discussing the man who set his dog onto a brace of kittens?
If so, bear in mind that the kittens died very quickly, more quickly, I’m guessing, than deer that are bow-killed or poisoned by 1080.
They report talked about one kitten having been ‘disemboweled’, but that would be the case with every sheep, cattle beast, pig or fish that you’ve ever eaten, wouldn’t it?
I’m not defending the man. I’m questioning the emotive reaction to the death of some kittens.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I take your point, Greenfly. However, it’s not just about the animal in these killings. It’s about something deeply wrong in the minds of perpetrators. It’s psychopathic behavior, or close enough to it to be a serious concern.
I’m not against putting unwanted cats down, for example. So long as it is done quickly and humanely by a vet.
Being ripped apart by a dog doesn’t wash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter wrote: “I take your point, Greenfly. However, it’s not just about the animal in these killings. It’s about something deeply wrong in the minds of perpetrators. It’s psychopathic behavior, or close enough to it to be a serious concern.”
I think this is true. I also think there are other, worse examples that as yet aren’t even prohibited under the animal welfare act. I refer to pig-hunting with knives, and big-game fishing (which involves catching sharks with small hooks to make it a more protracted death and therefore more of a challenge for the angler).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Yes Kahika – I’d also draw BluePeter’s attention to the methods used by some pig hunters to train their dogs – good ol’ boys!
BP – your assertion that those who are cruel to animals are likely psychopaths, despite its common citing, needs some backing up – what have you got to support your claim? I suspect that wanton cruelty to animals is a fair indicator of someone to whom killing a person might be no great stretch – do you suspect also that Mr Apiata was cruel to animals when he was young?
Justice would demand, I suppose, that we don’t condem a kitten killer as a psychopathic killer of humans and treat him thus – perhaps there is a strong case for early intervention of a more effective sort – nip them in the bud and try to unravel the behaviour before it becomes lethal – watch out for those boys who pull the wings from flies
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’m not a fan of either pig hunting or big game fishing.
I know the point you’re making – why am I making a distinction? It’s not difficult for me to decide that someone who takes kittens, gives them to a dog to shred, and then videos it, is seriously unbalanced.
It’s not rocket science, is it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Best they weren’t born. Best they were adopted out. Best their P addled “parents” weren’t handed p money by the state.
Best they took some personal responsibility.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BluePeter – when someone is ‘unbalanced’, seems they need ‘balancing’.
Would jail ‘balance’ someone like that?
As to ‘best they weren’t born’ … cruel people are born only to “P addled parents” are they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would anything?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Of course, but you’re calling for jail as the solution. I’m dowsing for the milk of human kindness in you
I have to admit though, the videoing of the kittens’ death makes me seriously dislike this man. The phones should wear some of the blame, but doubtless the ‘guns don’t kill people’ line would spring up. I see confrontations between youths affected by the ‘film it with your phone’ phenomenon and it adds an ugliness.
You say you’re ‘not a fan’ of big game fishing – do you oppose the practice or decry its practitioners?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It’s not rocket science, is it. ”
No and neither is ending a viable human pregnancy any less horrific.
I have no sympathy for people that claim to care about animals but see no problem in ending viable human life as a form of birth control.
I am not even talking about banning abortion, just the callous acceptance of such a hideous procedure, and the total lack of motivation to at least minimise it’s use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
What’s a miscarriage?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Shunda – speaking of cruel, your ‘outing’ of Big Bro/Big Bruv on Kiwiblog as an ex-Green voter is the wickedest act I’ve ever witnessed online!
Those resident jackles will eat him alive over that (D4j struck immediately) and I’m picking he’ll have to change his moniker if he’s to ever to go back there!
Perhaps he’ll choose something like ” Rip DieselSlammer” or ” BullDeck RoughRider” to try to erase his bleeding-heart past!
Shunda!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Blue – it’s when justice isn’t done (for example, a life sentence for someone whose dog killed some kittens).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@greenfly 1:35 PM
I missed that ‘fly. Giz us a link.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – 12:55
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/sickening.html#comments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LOL. Really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
He need not be a psychopath, but the abuse of animals for personal pleasure can be a ‘gateway drug’ to psychopathy in predisposed individuals. Some can kill chickens every day and not get the least but of pleasure from it while others gain pleasure every time the hear the ‘crunch’. There does seem to be important genetic and environmental influences. Some will likely just do it because they have learned such actions to be appropriate or to follow with external reward of some sort. It is difficult to know which based on the story, even the recording could go both ways.
~
Bob,
Not at all, most people are surprisingly able to withstand such trauma. As an example, while I can not remember the exact percentages, it is only a very small minority of childhood sexual abuse victims and rape victims that ever go on to have any negative side effects.
Those that turn to the bottle or drugs do so because they have a genetic and environmental predisposition to do so and lack restraint. The loss of a job usually temporarily weakens the restraint and then the drugs keep the restraint down. Many, if not most, that cycle through the prison system never bothered with restraint in the first place. People are different, do not tar everyone with the brush of the “scumbags” you work with.
I have a genetic and environmental predisposition to drug use and, to a lesser extent, violence; I find it incredibly hard to control, but I do. There is no excuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – yes, could be and well worth ‘keeping under observation’, but it’s not a given, I’d have thought. The kitten killer and the big game fisherman, are they really so different? The fisherman works within a code of conduct that the rest of us endorse, probably without really understanding the degree of suffering the fish undergo. I’m betting they film the
tortureepic struggle as well (and post it on the internet).Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly,
Given that he recorded the ordeal and that he did so in front of his children, I would actually think he did so more for social approval than due to psychopathy. A psychopath, at least a half-intelligent one, would do so in private so as to maximize the future potential for psychopathic acts. A druggie of sorts, not wanting to upset the dealer. That is, of course, assuming he did not feed off fear his children may have shown.
The kitten killer and the fisherman are similar but not the same. Just as the psychopath and a doctor are not the same. The kitten killer kills the kittens for pleasure or recognition with no intention of eating them and often this has a lot to do with feeling powerful. While the fisherman intends the fish as nutrition, even if the big game hunters do tend to go for the recognition and feeling of achievement also. It is a thin line ethically given that we have such access to plant foods, but it is a big difference psychologically.
As to the whole abortion thing; yes it is killing. So what? We kill all the time to protect our society. At least the ball of cells can feel no pain and is not conscious of it. We abort because the child would damage the life of a conscious member of society, we abort because a child brought up in such a manner would be of detriment to society, we abort because it allows the mother to have a child latter in life and better support that child and thus benefit society, and we should abort because the child is deformed, chemically impaired, or carries genetic disorder. Even after birth there is some argument for abortion simply because we live in a society of scarce resources. Its all about the investment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What’s a miscarriage?”
It’s what happens in a railway yard when the staff drink too much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiam,
Where I live (Melbourne), types 1-7 of plastic can be recycled. I don’t know how they deal with type 7 (other), but we were explicitly told to recycle ice cream and margarine containers. So the fact you can’t recycle ice cream containers must be due to limitations at your recycling facility, or maybe it is not cost effective?
Aside from pushing for different packaging or better recycling, have you considered buying ice cream in cardboard packaging (though this is less common now, and I’m not sure how cardboard stacks up against plastic environmentally)? Aside from that, you really don’t have much option other than to put up with the waste, make your own ice cream or eat less of the stuff.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The world according to: Shunda and Blue Peter
Knitting needles in back streets and a brutish future existence which will suck up and spit out any Kiwi that shows compassion and NZ will evolve into a society of greed (already got that!) a jail and throw away the key mentality (already got that!) and hanging (a little way to go then, Mr Key?).
What I want to know is what happens to the children? Do we intend for them to repeat the father’s actions some years later? Has anyone asked the father “Why”? yet?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
So PM, abortion is a positive trait of our society? No need to at least try and address the rising abortion rate? No need to acknowledge the terrible effect it is having on women in this country years after the procedure?
Ideology driven crap screws people up, don’t pretend to care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Addressing the cause of the abortion would be the best path but, given there is a limit to how efficacious such efforts may be, abortion is very much a positive thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Sapient, why has there been bugger all effort from the left regarding reducing a procedure that is causing so many problems? You can’t tell me it has nothing to do with ideology.
While I am against abortion, I would still work with pro choice people who had a conviction to reduce the abortion rate, why does this never happen?
The reality is people are comfortable with it regardless of what recent studies are showing us about the effects it has on women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Shunda,
I think it is a combination of political will and a limit to how much can actually be done. Then there is, of course, the little thing about labours main base being low paid, unskilled, people and solo-mothers.
Past free contraception and education in schools there is not that much that can really be done without first introducing major social change. We could decrease abortion by increasing after birth support but frankly that would encourage the behaviour and it would be so costly that I would rather the abortions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“American farmers are feeling the effects of a concentrated seed industry. Seed options are diminishing while prices increase at historic rates. A new report by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign, Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry…”
http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
samiam – here’s your man!
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=19549
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The BBC highlighted a new report by the New Economics Foundation (an environmental group), titled “Growth Isn’t Possible”. It’s a report stating the obvious (though rarely understood) fact that the finite nature of our planet precludes indefinite economic growth.
Click here for the article.
Check out the last comment, from an out-and-out free market economist. He basically says that the report is bunk because people want economic growth. With that sort of attitude, how can collapse be avoided?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Oh Dread!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh dear!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’m not sure what that comment was supposed to mean, or what it refers to, greenfly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nandor, sofistek.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tolley’s a loon. She’s been demoted and will now shrilly ram her standards stupidity down the throats of schools.
Key’s spin is just how he goes about his business.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Why greens always fall for this stupidity is beyond me. Economic growth does not necessarily equal more consumption of finite resources. It does not mean if we had 1,000 smokestacks in 1900, we must have 10,000 today. It does not mean that if we hunted 1,000 whales a month in 1830, that we must therefore be hunting 1M whales today.
In many cases, such as dams vs tress for heating, we use far fewer resources to provide much more today than we did then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are Australians also loons?
“TEACHERS identified as underperformers by the Government’s new school rating system should expect to be roused at by disgruntled parents, the Education Minister, Julia Gillard, says.
The My School website, to be launched on Thursday, will allow parents to compare schools and will have enough data to pinpoint specific subject areas of underperformance, potentially identifying the responsible teachers. Following a briefing on the website yesterday, Ms Gillard told the Herald the Government welcomed the fact that the website would empower parents to badger school staff to lift standards. ”We would expect parents to have robust conversations with teachers and principals,” she said. Ms Gillard said teachers were already trained to deal with complaints on parent-teacher nights. Now, parents would be armed with even more information with which to complain. This should put pressure on people,” Ms Gillard said.”
What is so wrong with parents knowing more about the performance of their kids?
Teachers, just like everyone else, should be held to account for job performance.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“Tom Clougherty, executive director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market think-thank, said Nef’s report exhibited “a complete lack of understanding of economics and, indeed, human development”.
“It is precisely this economic growth which will lift the poor out of poverty and improve the environmental standards that really matter to people – like clean air and water – in the process, as it has done throughout human history,” he told BBC News.
“There’s only one good thing I can say for the Nef’s report, and that’s that it is honest. Its authors admit that they want us to be poorer and to lead more restricted lives for the sake of their faddish beliefs.”"
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
BluePeter,
Please explain.
Doesn’t economic growth mean making, buying and using more stuff and services? If now, what does it mean and why pursue it?
Mind you, even zero economic growth means consumption of finite resources and pollution. Unless we have a radically different economic model.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Compare 45 records with MP3s.
One uses a lot of material and transportation, the other uses….1s and zeros.
Water over a dam lasts forever. How many forests would you need to cut down to power Auckland, the way they used to do (fireplaces)?
Think Microsoft.
Think Google.
A resource is only a resource because we decide it is one. At one time, oil was not a resource, it was a nuisance. It ruined farmland.
Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re using more scarce resources to do so, as illustrated above.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tom Clougherty, like all economists, believes in infinite resources and infinite ability of the environment to harmlessly deal with our waste.
I’m not sure what BP’s purpose was in quoting the exact thing I was pointing out (economists think the planet is a subset of the economy, which is infinite in extent).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
MP3s are not the economy. They are part of the economy. Are you saying all parts of the economy can become 1s and 0s, whirring round in a resource free ether? Even MP3s consume resources, however.
Renewables is one way out but cannot fuel growth indefinitely. There are limits even to renewables (including environmental limits).
A resource may be only classified as a resource if we decide to use it but it’s still finite.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I have to agree with Chris Martenson that Copenhagen and Economic growth
are mutually exclusive.
What then is the ETS for, other than a new tax.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The sun is finite. So what?
You are using up resources with your very existence. Stop existing and don’t breed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
If they believe National’s education policies have value, they are as looney as Tolley, yes!
She’s been demoted but not far enough.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Well, yes. This is the problem with the social-constructivist view that says that resources are “created”. Blue Peter seems to be sensibly avoiding that extreme position and is merely saying that resources are recognized.
I agree with BP, you can have exponential economic growth without increasing resource use. Think of it as providing people with better stuff instead of more stuff.
But while I think that’s possible it is very, very difficult. And it can be true only if you first work really, really hard to structure your economy to be like that, which would mean first restructuring the tax system and laws along the lines the Green Party supports. Tax resource use, etc.
I’d be interested to hear Blue Peter’s view on what he thinkgs the govt and tax structure should be like if we wanted to achieve economic growth without more consumption of finite resources.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’ve no idea what Tom Clougherty says. But there’s a vast amount of economic research into how best to manage finite resources. And the average economics faculty-member is probably greener than an average member of the public.
Economists get a bad rep here partly because the “Chicago School” of efficient-market fundamentalists had a much bigger effect on New Zealand than on most of the world, after their capture of Treasury: their current decline into disgrace since the credit crunch doesn’t seem to be being noticed over here.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BluePeter,
This is the reply of economists and all those who don’t have an argument that economic growth can continue indefinitely on a finite planet.
It sounds like you’re quite happy to continue business as usual until economies and societies collapse, rather than being intelligent about it. Don’t worry, most of the developed world’s population (and incresing numbers of developing nations’ populations) believe in infinite resources, just like you. Unfortunately, it will drag us all down to collapse.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
icehawk, BP said a few days ago:
That is, infinite economic growth is possible, as long as:
- the amount of raw materials extracted and energy produced is at or below some base sustainable level;
- any additional negative externalities (ie. pollution) are kept below the “sink” capacity of nature; and
- we have a fiat money system.
I asked how he would determine the “base sustainable level”, after which he disowned the idea entirely and later said he didn’t like the word “sustainable”. Too bad as he was going in the right direction for just a bit.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
icehawk,
Hmm, could you explain this? I’ve seen it said many times but it always comes down to unrealistic economies.
So, you’re saying that people can constantly buy better stuff (that uses no more resources than the stuff they already have), at increased cost, in order to get economic growth? In that ideal world, how does that not consume increasing resources? Is everything recycled ad infinitum using no energy or other resources to do the recycling?
How do you deal with population growth?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Shunda,
Re reducing our abortion rate: Are you trying to claim that it’s the right-wing conservatives that push for subsidized contraceptives and more sex ed?
I’m sure your local family planning clinic will be very pleased to learn of this new support they’re going to get from conservative politicians.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Minister of Agriculture David Carter is dissapointed that a threat of legal action by the Pork Industry Board has delayed the release of a new code of welfare for pigs.
I see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Federated Farmers have complained that unease is growing among farmers who question the cost benefits of a scheme that requires an electronic ear tag for stock.”
No matter, the Nats have made it compulsory. For farmers (well for their cattle and deer that is).
The irony, the beautiful irony.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
While recent rain throuhout Otago has been welcomed by farmers, climate specialists say it will have barely penetrated the topsoil. Agricultural climatologist Alan Porteous said it would not be news to farmers that it had been one of the toughest seasons of the past 20 or 30 years.
“Some farmers have reported it is the driest they have ever experienced”.
I see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
valis,
I agree with BP on that, but it’s a bit circular. Yes, if you keep resource use at a low level and reduce negative externalities then you’ll be sustainable.
The real question is what changes to our laws and govt you should do to accomplish that. BP enjoys harping from the sidelines, but is remarkably reticent at fronting up with positive suggestions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
That rather depends on the resource and on how low is low. No non-renewable resouce has a sustainable level of consumption. Every renewable resource has a sustainable level of consumption, but only if that consumption doesn’t result in degradation of our biosphere.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
BluePeter,
You’ve still provided no argument for how economic growth can continue indefinitely on a finite planet. I doubt you ever will.
By the way, I’ve understood, every word you’ve written on this. I wonder if you have.
I see that you removed that bit about “Most western populations are below replacement”. At least you sometimes check what you write, then, so there is still hope for you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
It’s because “sustainable” in the context the greens use it is different than how I might use it. I did not “disown the idea entirely”
The “base sustainable level” is a very hard thing to quantify, and will chop and change based on context. In drought ridden Africa, a village of over 50 people might not be sustainable due to scarce water supply. Nature has a way of regulating such an overbalance, as do markets.
It’s more a way of talking about the issue. We’re really not going to “expand indefinitely” as there are many market and natural limits keeping us in our place. We’re also not going to “use up” all resources. These are theoretical limits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Sigh…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
“Sigh”? Is that your argument?
It’s not particularly convincing, is it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So many threads, so much to chose from.
Frog,
loved the link to that calendar, the art direction was amazing.
Icehawk, Sofistek
nice arguments, neatly side-stepped most of the logical traps BP throws up
BP-
constantly amazed how you have time to run a business from home while keeping a running attack on allcomers. Must be something that does a lot of it’s own work for itself without your intervention.
Financial services? Amway? Lol, the mind boggles.
It’s obviously captured you in a 90′s free-market ideology, which hasn’t kept up with recent developments in economic development theory – not all of which is taught in university economics departments, I’d hasten to add, as Environmental Science seems to be doing the majority of teaching on sustainable development these days, thus by-passing the Chicago-School capture in the business schools.
Have you heard – continuing to do that which does not work, is the definition of insanity?.
The young of the world have looked at the global financial crash, have looked at the dwindling resources, have looked at the melting glaciers, and have politely turned their backs on the thinking that got us all into this mess.
You may be able to continue consuming and working in the way that you currently do, until the end of your working days, but that model of behaviour is not going to be taken up by the next generation.
Changing now, as some of us in our middle years are doing, will teach you new skills; envigorate you by coming into contact with vibrant, keen young minds who are creating solutions to the problems we face; and help to counter the images of destruction and defeat that we see in the media constantly, by participation in activity based around a different economic paradigm.
It’s one of the reasons I continue to look in here regularly – because I get a sense of what is in the current zeitgeist of thinking on green principles.
Reactionary rants by those who oppose change just because it does not suit them to acknowledge that change is both necessary and inevitable, does not make a good conversation, nor lead to a healthy worldview.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I work west coast US hours, and yes, most of it takes care of itself.
‘aint technology grand….
It works. As I say, ‘aint technology grand.
I see no point explaining anything to you. I simply can’t dumb down our differing definitions of resources any further. Perhaps someone else will….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“the stone age didn’t come to end because we ran out of stones”
and guessing that it refers to finding new ‘rocks’ to replace the old, which, I guess, continues on, with new ‘rocks’ being discovered ad infinitum as the old are exhausted or superceded, until the ‘magic rock’ is arrived at, the rock that never ends, the inexhaustable rock.
Have I got it right, Blue? You’re putting your money on the discovery of the magic rock?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
It strikes me that the green movement have the biggest problem with change, particularly when it comes to technology.
The “change” the green movement seeks is regression to some idealized, pre-industrial, agrarian, “self-sufficient” community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Katie are you sure that those young keen minds are not just regurgitating the same old stuff that every previous generation has?
The more I read about world history the more I realise there is “nothing new under the sun”. There are just forces – political, economic, and military that go round and round, while each generation thinks that they were in fact the ones to invent the wheel.
Is it progression or regurgitation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What ended the stone age, Fly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are people making and using stone tools today Peter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I notice you’re using a computer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your powers of observation are astounding!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Is it made of stone?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The thing is BP the progression of technology was easy when there was a lower population and abundant resources.
The world is a much different place now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wars helped too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Huh?
You need a substantial population and capital to come up with nano-technology.
Greens might want to read up on nano-technology. Then consider what sustainability really means….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A letter to the editor appeared in the NZ Herald the other day which has considerable merit.
It’s the 20 20 20 approach to taxation.
First $20,000 tax free.
Balance 20% tax.
GST 20%.
People earning $20,000 would be better off by $1110 pa.
Those earning $48,000 would be worse off by $1310 pa, unless they spent $6550 or more on overseas travel or a mortgage.
Anyone earning $70,000 would be better off by $900 pa, even if they spent the lot in NZ.
Even politicans and other rich people would be better off.
And it is a much simpler method.
Why didn’t the TWG think of it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it made of stone?
Why? Is yours?
You’re drifting away from rational thought Peter. Pull up your socks and address the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter,
If you have nothing to say on the matter (and, so far, you haven’t) then just say that you don’t have a clue how your ideal world can continue but you hope it does, nonetheless.
Perhaps you think that infinite and finite mean the same thing, rather like flammable and inflammable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He believes in magic rocks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Technology does look like magic when one first encounters it.
We’ve been innovating for a very long time now…..
Or “making magic”……
Whatever you’re most comfortable with….
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sof,
One of the reasons I dislike the sustainable argument is that it’s a theoretical position. It’s physically impossible to “use everything up”. You’ll hit many limits – price being a major one – before you get anywhere near such a situation.
For example, it is impossible to use all the oil. At some point, it may become economically unviable.
I suspect oil may simply be replaced with something else, most likely electricity. Also consider we don’t need to replace all oil usage, merely displace some of it, if indeed we are “running out”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stone tools are technology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Arrrrghhhhhhh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not claiming that we can stop using resources. We do use resources and always will. I’m claiming that we can grow our economy without growing the amount of resources we use.
It’s all about efficiency. A green economy is *all* about efficiency.
Economic growth comes from several things. Using more natural resources is *not* the biggest engine of economic growth. More efficient use of resources is the biggest driver of economic growth.
Our economy copes very well at becoming more efficient in areas where resources are constrained. Labour is the best example. Our economy produces about 20 times as much per person now as it did 120 years ago. That is not achieved by having each person work 20 times as many hours.
Look at the Coromandel. 120 years ago guys knocked down all the big trees into ponds behind temporary dams, then burst the dam to wash the logs out down the stream-gullies to the sea. They lost far more logs than they shipped out and wrecked the soil. I can’t imagine there is anyone in the Coromandel today using as many resources as those guys did to do their job. Yet almost everyone in the Coromandel today will be producing more, measured in terms of real dollars, than each of those guys did. Because they were doing something astonishingly resource-inefficient: working with axes to cut down forests.
Why did they do that amazingly inefficient waste of resources for so little result? Well, because the resources were cheap.
How do you get more efficient? Three ways.
First, technology. Technology makes it possible to use resources more efficiently.
Second, capital deepening (ie, owning useful stuff).
Third, increase the cost of access to resources to provide incentives to become efficient.
For exaxmple: a modern wind-turbine powering heat-pumps for 1,000 well-insulated houses produces far more heating for less carbon-use than 1,000 wood fires. That uses technology that didn’t exist 100 years ago, but also assumes that some useful stuff is owned now than wasn’t owned then (insulated instead of uninsulated houses). The market pushed people towards the change because they no longer lived somewhere where wood is dirt cheap because the country was no longer covered in forests that are being cleared.
Sorry about the long rant.
But this is the odd bit about some of those who praise the free market: they think the free market is super-powerful but that it’s so fragile it couldn’t possibly cope with taxing of resources. They lack faith in their own god.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sophistry and overly-pedantic. We both know that resources can be over-exploited: look at the North Atlantic fisheries, the over-grazing around the Med, etc. Whether they completely reach zero left isn’t the point. Nor can countries always adapt: Diamand’s book “Collapse” on societies that died is an interesting historical study and it finds over-use of finite resources and consequence ecological collapse at the heart of most such situations.
Piffle. There’s a lot of different strands to the green movement. I represent one of them, arguing here with Sof. He represents another. His heart’s in the right place, and we’re both Greens, but we’re not the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Piffle”
Poetry!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
True, but close enough is good enough. Resource use of mineral resources at a sufficiently low level to last 500 years is fine for now: by 400 years from now we’ll have a different technology base to work from.
Ecology is more worrying, because once it’s gone you can’t get it back. But fisheries and etc really are renewable if handled with care.
Honestly: if we reduced our resource use to the point that it looked to be sustainable for the next 3 or 4 centuries, I’d be quite relaxed about that. But that’s a hell of a long way from where we are now with resource use, so how about we get to that level of sustainability first and then worry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Icehawk – the hope that ‘we’ will reduce our resource use to a sustainable level’ is a forlorn one, in my view. I see incremental losses, death by a thousand cuts, constant erosion of resources by succeeding generations/owners/occupiers as the norm. You talk about the fisheries, but to me, ‘sustainable’ is a nonsense word in that field – ‘sustainable whitebait fishery’, sustainable eel fishery? The only contribution the fishers seem able to make is to stay their hands a little, take less than they would like to, in order to ‘preserve’ their fish stocks. It seems to be the most selfish, minimalist effort toward making an ‘industry’ sustainable imaginable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
25 cents, M’Lud?
Is
that
all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do they mean when they say our SAS troops haven’t fired a single shot in anger ???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Remember that BP seems quite relaxed with population die off as a corrective measure for unsustainable resource use.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hey Valis I was in the book store the other day and spotted an interesting stand in the “religious” section.
This particular stand had all the main religions under their various titles and wadayaknow – atheism was smack bang in the middle!
So they have finally made it! they are officially part of the global family of religion.
I see also American atheists are now holding “fellowship” services complete with sermons and readings!, my goodness me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter,
If it’s possible to use everything up, in a practical sense, then don’t you think we shouldn’t do that? Sustainability isn’t about using everything up, it’s about living within the resource budget provided by nature in a way that doesn’t degrade our habitat. If we don’t do that, then eventually we get into trouble. From many standpoints, we’re seeing that trouble already.
Indeed, and at that point, it is effectively all used up. However, we get into trouble a long time before that point. When the supply of relatively cheap oil can’t keep up with demand, then a global economy that relies on oil starts to feel pain.
Electricity is a carrier, not a source, of energy. But it won’t be simple to replace, partly because of the enormous energy return we get from oil, partly because of the uses oil is put to and partly because of the enormous infrastructure in place to utilise oil at over 85 million barrels each day.
Sustainability is about all resources we make use of, not just one or two, and we are utterly dependent on many that have already peaked or will likely peak within decades.
I’m not sure why so many people dismiss the finite nature of our planet, under the assumption that technologists can repeal the laws of nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
icehawk,
Efficiency has limits. That document I linked to talks about efficiency. Why do you think efficiency has no limits? If you do think it has limits then you must see that efficiency improvements can’t provide economic growth for ever.
Could you cite a source please? Efficiency certainly is a big factor but it ultimately allows more people to buy more stuff and use more services, thus, increasing resource consumption.
Correct, it’s primarily by providing seemingly unlimited power from fossil fuels. Tools provide the bulk of productivity (sometimes along with smarter processes) and tools require resources to make and use.
And now they can deforest at an enormous rate. What is your point? That provided we can keep consuming finite resources and ruining our environment that economic growth can go on? How long do you think that is?
Icehawk, I’m not denying the ability of technology to improve efficiencies. But technology has done that for centuries. Do we use more or less resources now than we did 200 years ago?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
icehawk,
That’s dicing with death, surely? It’s what Richard Heinberg refers to as “waiting for the magic elixir”. There are many things wrong with that approach. Our descendents may not thank us for assuming technology will deliver, if it can’t. Also, if we are using resources only at a level to last 500 years, that will mean a very different economy (especially as many minerals may have only decades at current levels and half of that time to peak) which may not be able to recover 500 years worth of minerals if it is only at a low level. For example, it would likely mean a very cut down mineral extraction and processing industry that may not have the resources to maintain resource bases or discover new ones. What happens at 100 years in, if it’s starting to become clear that there aren’t 500 years of that resource? So this is a potentially bad strategy that amounts to wishful thinking.
Close enough isn’t good enough but extremely low levels of consumption may be a starting point that can be revisited regularly over time.
I’ll be honest as well. I’d probably be happy with that but as soon as we reach that level, we should start to look at sustainability proper. I think we would, too, in that situation, but the likelihood of us reaching even that is zero, IMO. As you say, it will be extremely difficult to do that, not least because an economy that doesn’t grow (and we’re not talking about growth of any significance at those levels of resource use) will be very different from today’s and it appears no-one wants that. Consequently, our societies will remain very unsustainable and that will mean collapse, probably within our lifetimes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This particular stand had all the main religions under their various titles and wadayaknow – atheism was smack bang in the middle!
So they have finally made it! they are officially part of the global family of religion.
Of course, I’m happy in the knowledge that simply saying it don’t make it so. The ignorant do also write books.
I see also American atheists are now holding “fellowship” services complete with sermons and readings!, my goodness me
That requires a link for me to even consider it!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Or perhaps the authors witnessed an academic conference where some aspect of objective reality was being discussed
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“That requires a link for me to even consider it! ”
I think it was on TV3 late news last night.
As an aside, I was lent a copy of “the Open Society” recently by an atheist friend. It would seem the editorial was more than a little critical of Richard Dawkins and friends for making things “that much harder” also described as “absolute disasters” for the cause.
Very interesting reading it was
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, many have made the argument that a tolerant “open” society requires we don’t challenge religious beliefs at all. But Dawkins and others aren’t challenging the political tolerance afforded to religion, but insist that intellectual challenges (on any topic) should be encouraged. I can’t see why this shouldn’t be so. To do otherwise is actually itself intolerant.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
“Do you mean Karl Popper’s book? Wasn’t that written during WWII? What editorial are you referring to?”
Volume 82, number2, Winter 2009. By Hayden Wood.
Some interesting articles in this little publication.
Haven’t converted to the dark side yet though
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That would be the Satanists. We’re much less creepy.
I remember the journal now and know of the NZARH. Possibly named after Popper’s book, which he wrote while living in New Zealand. They put on a very good conference in Welly in 2008 with the Humanist Society, with Lloyd Geering and others speaking.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Be aware that Hayden Wood is an AGW denier (to all intents and purposes) and takes a very different stance on green issues than the previous editor, Bill Cooke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly asked:
“What do they mean when they say our SAS troops haven’t fired a single shot in anger ???”
I hope that means that the only shots that have been fired have been for training purposes and for testing, not at people.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sofistek asked:
“Is everything recycled ad infinitum using no energy or other resources to do the recycling?”
No, everything needs to be recycled that is not itself a renewable resource. Energy is available from renewable resources so there is no requirement not to use any energy for recycling.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
While it is true that Dawkins, et al. encourage intellectual challenges on any topic -and so they should-, Dawkins himself does explicitly challenge the political tolerance given to religion rather often. One could even say that it is one of his favorite argumentative points. It is always entertaining when he argues against a Moslim, though, as he invariably brings up that point, female circumcision, and the death penalty for leaving the faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By political tolerance, I mean he doesn’t suggest taking away a person’s right to practice a religion in a free society (within the limits of the law of course). Have you any examples to the contrary? He does have big issues with what is taught in state funded schools, for instance, particularly when the result is a watering down of the science curriculum. This can been seen as a political debate, but is exactly the sort of debate that should occur and which can be surpressed if we treat religion as untouchable.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Trevor,
There may be no requirement to use a non-renewable energy source for recycling but we don’t have environmentally neutral access to unlimited amounts of renewable energy, so that has to be taken into account (along with the energy required to run whatever society we end up with). Also, recycling uses other resources, not just energy, and is never 100% efficient. Consequently, we can’t grow the economy by recycling and, indeed, would have to scale back our economy and our society if recycling was the only source of non-renewable materials.
The point of my original post on this was to show that economists (and most people) don’t understand that the earth is finite or, at least, assume that the limits that a finite planet imposes will not be of concern for a very long time. That is, our economy and society are based on wishful thinking. Economic growth is not sustainable. Period. This is true if growth was only “a little bit” or if efficiency improvements allow us to shrink the resource intensity of our economy.
I hear the argument a lot that people won’t stand for powering down our society or for adopting a no-growth economy. Unfortunately, nature has a way of having the last word and this is a finite planet with limits that are probably much closer than most people would want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
I misinterpreted you. When someone says ‘religious tolerance’ I think about the “this is my faith, you have no right to question it” kind of ‘tolerance’.
I do agree strongly on the matter of indoctrination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dawkins is just rude plain and simple, that is why people don’t like him.
Religion can be challenged for sure, but this guy takes things to another level and encourages ridicule from people less intelligent than he.
Isn’t that what certain preachers do? try to get the ignorant masses to dismiss your opponent with out really engaging?
He is just offering a different dogma.
People like ridiculing other people, give em a righteous excuse to do it and they go nuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
I used to think the same. All “live and let live” regarding religion and sexuality. Not so much anymore.
I am increasingly becoming more convinced that action is needed and that Dawkins is taking the right approach. The more psychology I learn, the more I see that the indoctrination of children is naught but child abuse. Someone has to stand against these idiots whom insist on spreading their mental disease to the next generation. Someone has to stand up against the encouragement of retardation that is the very cause of social ills.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
We’ve gone over this ground before Shunda and you’ve never been able to defend these kind of statements.
Dawkins is just rude plain and simple, that is why people don’t like him.
I’ve asked for examples before and you never provide them. How about this time? Otherwise, please give up this slander.
Some don’t like him because he breaks the unwritten rule not to challenge people about their irrational beliefs. The affront is nearly the same whether it is done rudely or not.
Religion can be challenged for sure,
So how might that work?
but this guy takes things to another level and encourages ridicule from people less intelligent than he.
The potential for ridicule is inherent in the topic I’m afraid. Again, doesn’t matter how nice one is about it.
Isn’t that what certain preachers do? try to get the ignorant masses to dismiss your opponent with out really engaging?
He doesn’t do that.
He is just offering a different dogma.
Shunda, Dawkins offers the opposite of dogma. Go look up the word if you have to. Dogma is not simply anything that someone argues strongly for. It is belief held despite the facts.
I know you are not as ignorant as you sound here. I understand that you are offended by a challenge to your religion, but see that for what it is and don’t respond with this sort of tripe.
People like ridiculing other people, give em a righteous excuse to do it and they go nuts.
So don’t go nuts next time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Let’s all support Sapient and ‘stand up against the encouragement of retardation’ – I’m on my feet already!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Someone has to stand against these idiots whom insist on spreading their mental disease to the next generation. Someone has to stand up against the encouragement of retardation that is the very cause of social ills.”
Well you could start with Shortland Street Sapient!
What sort of Religious behaviour are you talking about? you seem so convinced of the destruction this is causing. But really honestly most churches are filled with people that have suffered “mental disease” from a completely different source, church is where they regain some sense of belonging.
Are you talking more about radical elements of Islam for example?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Shortland Street!? One drug at a time! This is something that must happen gradually.
A large problem is that faith encourages people to stop asking questions. Science asks ‘why’ and then continues to ask ‘why’, a religious person asks ‘why’ and on hearing “because god wants it to be so” stops.
The major problem is the extension of this behaviour to children. When a child is indoctrinated they are at an age when they are incredibly imprintable. If you tell them something at that age they are rather unlikely to disbelieve that latter. In their youth children acquire what is called a ‘cognitive style’, the cognitive style is the single biggest factor in the individual being able to comprehend their world. If a child acquires a poor cognitive style in their youth then they will be retarded, compared to what they could have been, for the rest of their life without some major correction. How a child is talked to is the biggest factor in determining the first path of the cognitive style development but the way the parent responds to the child is the biggest factor in determining if they latter ask ‘why’. A child whom is brought up not asking ‘why’, even if they have a good cognitive style, will instill on their child that same tendency to not ask why and a negative cognitive style to top it off. Cognitive style is directly relates to the ability of an individual to achieve any goals they may set and even to if they set goals.
It is mental rape to preach religion to a child. Many religious people do so exactly because they know the child can not look at it all logically.
Let the child grow up without religion and choose it for themselves. The Christians, of course, don’t like that as it would mean they lost almost all of that generation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So I should not be allowed to share my beliefs with my kids?
In my experience religious folk who engage in indoctrination in a legalistic way usually only alienate their children, they can easily pick the usual hypocrisy and rebel against them.
But the reality is you assume that non religious folk are doing a better job by default, there is no evidence that religion is any more destructive to society than other values people impose on their kids.
The problems our society is facing are not so much due to roaming gangs of church kids, what does it matter if people believe in weird religion? Surely it is just a valid expression of humanity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
It is not the values but the cognition. The prevalence and distribution of religion would seem to counter your experience. As Dawkins remarks; “If you were born in India you would believe in Vishnu”
You should no more be allowed to indoctrinate your kids than rape them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well I guess it all comes down to the definition of indoctrination, if my son asks me is God real and I share my opinion with him are you saying that is liken to rape?
My Kids regularly ask such questions what should I tell them? something I don’t believe in?
I do not feel I indoctrinate my kids but I do tell them what I believe, I can’t see how this is harmful.
” Science asks ‘why’ and then continues to ask ‘why’, a religious person asks ‘why’ and on hearing “because god wants it to be so” stops.”
I think some people instinctively ask why and keep asking why regardless of the answer given, I don’t think religion has any power over such people. There are plenty of passive thinkers outside of religion!!
I just don’t think Dawkins fears are justified, some people are predisposed to be sheeple regardless of religion or anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Some people will always be sheeple, yes. That much is unfortunate. What we can do, though, is vastly decrease the numbers that end up as sheeple.
As to your son, I would recommend a “I think so” and encouragement to think for himself in life. I would not class that as indoctrination. Reading to him from the bible and telling him that he will go to hell if he is naughty or does not believe, though, is rape. Telling him to stop asking questions and just accept that the world is how it is because god wants it to be this way is rape. As is pretty much anything in the old testament. Sending him to schools where he will have it hammered in to him would be another good example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What we can do, though, is vastly decrease the numbers that end up as sheeple.”
I don’t know whether that is really possible, my experience with the human race to date is only pointing in one direction…. lowered expectations!!
Many people I have had to deal with, religious and non religious, just seem hell bent on living in a fantasy world, I call them “the wilfully mentally ill” I know you have a hard time seeing me as a logical person, but seriously Sapient, there are much much worse than me around!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Shunda,
I know there is much worse than you.
I agree with the sentiment of the “willfully mentally ill”; it is not limited to religious folk, there are plenty of supposedly atheistic examples in this party. Religion, like ideology, does not only attract the mentally ill but propagate them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One possible line of evidence is civilization and the predominant view that humans are the ultimate creature, designed/created to dominate all other parts of nature. Religion teaches people, implicitly, that humans are what earth is here for and that they have dominion over everything. This predominant culture has led the earth to its present problems that are ultimately to the detriment of the creature which is supposedly at the top of the pile.
It’s akin to abuse because you’d be indoctrinating him with ideas that have no basis other than imagination, and those ideas could influence his actions. When our kids asked such questions, we replied with something like, “some people think so but you’ll have to make your own mind up”. Once they were into their teens, they would have been very clear what our opinions were, concerning the notion of gods, but, by then, they had much better critical thinking abilities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It’s akin to abuse because you’d be indoctrinating him with ideas that have no basis other than imagination, and those ideas could influence his actions.”
This is pretty unfair, critical thinking is no less of a problem in the majority of the Christian community than any other part of society.
Quite frankly I think that wealthy people telling their kids they are inherently more “valuable” to society because of their status is far more destructive.
Arrogance always leads to ignorance, look at the types of people causing problems in society – they are not church groups!!!
This is a bizarre position to hold and just seems like good old fashioned prejudice to me.
You seem to think that because there are some nutters in religion it justifies persecution, you could say the same of the environmental movement and just about everything else.
Blaming certain sectors of humanity for problems that are common to all people just seems like bigotry to me.
Very few people even WANT to critically think about ANYTHING!, pursuing personal comfort and escapism are much more popular in our shallow society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
You may perceive it as unfair but it is ultimately true that there is a marked deficit. Statistically the more stupid you are, the more likely you are to be a religious person; particualry a rather devout religious person. The inverse applies. That is different to saying that religion causes the stupidity but it does show that there is a deficit when you compare averages; thus problems with critical thinking are more profound and populated in religious groups.
Telling children that they are more valuable than others because of their status is damaging; it is ideology. This, though, is little different to telling a Jewish-born child that they are the chosen people, or a Moslim-born child that they are the chosen people, or a Christian-born child that they are correct and everyone else is wrong and because of their faith they will go to heaven while the heathens burn in hellfire. Both religion and ideology are immensly damaging. Some humans may be capable of horific acts without either, but both religion and ideology justify, to the individual, actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. Religion and ideology have the potential to turn entire societies to psychopaths.
Really? It is the protestant ethic that drives the capitalist to exploit the workers, it is religious groups which kill doctors, it is religious groups which protest against any change in rights, it is religion that was used to fight against womens sufferage, the end of slavery, black sufferage, a womens right to choose, it is religion or ideology that has been used to justify almost every war, It is religion that has caused the problems in africa, it is religion that has caused the overpopulation of the pacific, it is religion that enourages people not to think, etc., etc., etc.. But of course you may have been refering to the thieves and muggers; those people whom are almost exclusively christian, at least in so far as they believe in the christian god.
Religion, shunda, demands that one does not utilise their critical thinking skills. If one does utilise their critical thinking skills they soon loose their religion. There is no support for or against a deistic god, but that is not the god of any major religion. There is no support for the Abrahamic god and yet there is a fair bit of evidence against it. There is so much support for evolution -which nulifies the need for a god to explain the diversity and complexity of life- that is is a natural law as proven as anything ever can be. It is on the same level as gravity. Any imperfectly replicating group of beings will evolve with time, it is a physical and statistical law. There has not yet been found a single piece of evidence against evolution. Not a single piece. Applying critical thinking skills it is obvious which one should through their support behind.
I would suggest that faith is inherantly irrational. I would also be interested to hear exaclty what you do beleive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So many spelling errors, that is bad even for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From today’s Southland Express Opinion Column
Ah summer! How fondly I remember you; your blue skies, your sun’s yellow face, the surf, the sand, the sandwiches! It seems like only … several years ago that you were here.
Have you forsaken your southern fans?
We still look forward to your arrival every year. We air our Speedos, wax our boards and brush out the dog’s winter coat in preparation for your unbearably hot days and endless, balmy evenings.
It’s not too late for you to drop by. We can pump up the paddling pool at the drop of a sun-hat and pull on the board-shorts quick as look at you. We’ve grown enough lettuce, thanks to the generous rainfall you’ve sent instead of sun, to fatten a rabbit farm and plenty of tomatoes that would ripen, if you were to visit.
We could do summer together. It’d be fun.
At least the cooler temperatures down here have prevented the Summer Madness that has afflicted some of our politicians further North, in particular Gerry Brownlee with his heat-struck plan to dig mines in our national parks and replace our beautiful Fiordland walking tracks with tarmac and road signs. He’s one camper who’d benefit from some time in the shade and that’s something we have had plenty of, shades of grey, slate and cumulo-dribbulis where there once was sky. We Southlanders have even been warned that we risk becoming deficient in vitamin D and may have to buy supplements to keep our spirits up. We’d prefer a week or two of sun, if you’re able to see your way clear to coming south.
We’ve not given up on you, summer, we’ve just begun to forget what you look like.
Come on, put in a (slightly late) appearance, brown our skin, add a wrinkle or two to the corner of our eyes and restore our faith in the you and in the other seasons that seem to have shouldered you aside just lately.
We want you back.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Sapient I don’t really know what to say, I just can’t see how you can say that religion is the cause of all those ills, it is people Sapient, PEOPLE!! that are the problem.
Religion has been used to justify all sorts of evil but so has science, the problem is not which vehicle is used, it is the driver of the vehicle!!
Christianity also has contributed heavily to combating the evils in society, it was also the most efficient way of limiting capitalist greed, at least for a time.
I am in no way being an apologist for the ills of religion, what I am saying is that they are no more destructive than other manifestations of destructive humanity.
If you are indeed correct that only dull people engage in religion then there is a net gain to society, they are grouped together in one place and gain a level of functionality that would not exist otherwise. You should actually encourage a social structure that caters for people that would otherwise cause problems.
These people are not affecting NZ society so what’s the problem?
You have contradicted yourself by stating that stupid people are predisposed towards religion, then being concerned that smart people may be indoctrinated, which is it?
Do you really believe if the worlds main religions were eliminated that people would actually become more logical? I am sorry but all my experience to date suggests that people are illogical because they want to be, not because they are told to be.
Human beings seem to use their intelligence more to wilfully blind themselves than to gain more understanding, just try an argue with someone who believes in “earth quake weather” or burring a crap filled rams horn in a paddock.
You need to watch the South Park episode about atheism me thinks, sums it up nicely!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Greenfly, do you feel like a trip up West? The weather has (is) been magnificent, warm days, long twilights, just magic!
Having to do a lot of watering though, old Blazey is really giving us a work out!
So start your trek soon, before the big J starts digging everything up
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Where’s little bruv today ‘fly? Or does he live only at The Standard?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hand on heart, I don’t know who he is, Toad, but I like his style!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Shunda – were it not for the tar-melting heat today has brought, I’d be packing my Veturi pump, sluice box and shotguns into the Hummer and heading your way, but what would your god-fearing wife think as I throbbed up the Barunda driveway (I play my doof doof music LOUD!), given that I’d have Sue on board!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
She’d be ok fly, she loves that music!! And Sue would be quickly pacified with a cool Monteiths cider, then respectful debate would ensue and our differences settled.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Oh Greenfly
You and a Hummer? Yea right!!
That is so deliciously funny I actually have water in my eyes.
My imagination is now running overtime.
By the way, have a good New Year.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
On your recommendation, Shunda, I tried a cider from Monteiths. Not too bad at all, but I’ll bring a carboy or two of the real stuff, South Coast brewed, when I come up.
As to respectful debate, yes, from Sue, but I’m a truculent fire-brand and love to argue, so you and I will retire to your smoking lounge and break out the cheroots.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Shunda,
Yes, the problem is people. Religion and ideology are vehicles. In their absence people are their own guides and make their own decisions. With the introduction of religion and ideology people no longer make their own decisions; a few people make the decisions of many. It is that which is dangerous; compulsion. Science lacks this trait. Science does not have an ‘ought’, science has an “if you want to achieve this goal then this approach would appear to be the most efficient and effective”.
You cannot say that religion and ideology are no more destructive than the other manifestations of a destructive humanity for they are the only manifestations of a destructive humanity present in societies sufficiently large as to allow them to become so destructive. Non-ideological atheists do not form armies and march on entire religious and ethnic groups, skewering them. Ideological atheists and religious folk do.
There was no contradiction. All people are predisposed toward religion should they have religious parents as a result of them being predisposed toward believing their parents. The more dull someone is, the less likely they are to escape and the more likely they are to fall into the hole they were not in initially. Many people whom do believe do have the ability to achieve higher levels of cognition and do have the ability to contribute to society to a far greater degree than they do at present. Religion stops this contribution, so while it may have a gross positive effect in that it keeps the most stupid of the masses in check, it ultimately has a net negative effect. Substantially so.
I believe that, were people brought up without religion, they would grow in to adults which ask more questions of the world and have greater logical faculty. I believe this would be an improvement. While it is true that many desire ignorance, they desire ignorance because they desire the comfort that ignorance provides. They desire the cover that religion places over their insecurities. The thing is that those insecurities are created by religion in the first place and thus the elimination of religious upbringing should, for individuals with even the remotest ability to reason, eliminate the only reason that people desire ignorance and god.
I have seen that episode a few times. It does not sum anything up nicely. It just assumes a world on the path this one is presently on minus religion and makes no account of any differences occurring as a result of the elimination of religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Boys!
Can you please flirt somewhere else, there are people with important rants to post who need the space.
Fer instance, I’ve completely lost track of what Sapient was saying…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
As have I.
But that happens frequently, even without interruption.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
We all have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can anyone tell me if the complete absence of select committee access to the 1st supercity bill that took away Franklin’s right to be a unitary authority is illegal?
I thought access to select committee was a legal replacement for not having an upper house in Parliament, and therefore every bill had a proviso of access to protest or praise.
Mr Key and Mr Hide removed a democratic right for Franklin and Papakura to have a vote on a unitary authority. I say this is illegal. Can anyone with a glimmer of lawyer knowledge take a stance against the third bill which seals Franklin’s imprisonment without legal defence. Even criminals are entitled to a legal defence. Franklin and all the other councils have been denied legal defence to state their case against the Auckland land and asset grab. Assets and individual rights were stolen by the first bill. Last chance to ‘act’ against the third and final bill/nail in the coffin which is democracy is 12 February.
After that, Kiwis, you have no democratic rights because Hide, and Key hiding behind Hide, have taken them away in a matter of months.
How pathetic has been the current protest when there was such an uproar when Labour brought out the bill stopping powerful and wealthy lobby groups from derailing INDIVIDUAL right to protest or praise. Individuals never lost the right to protest under that bill, only the likes of the Exclusive Brethren who lied in pamphlets about the Greens and vilifying newspaper ads by powerful business interests (read The Hollow Men) that were supporting Brash and now Key.
Obviously it’s acceptable for National/Act to take away rights from every NZ’er but not ok for Labour to level the playing field against big business and religious groups.
This protest against loss of democracy and theft of assets in Franklin and Papakura should be taken up countrywide, because already other centres are being stalked.
I’m surprised that even Aucklanders aren’t up in arms about corporations controlling all of our billions of $ worth of assets and having no accountability to anyone but themselves (and later their shareholders after privatisation. Privatisation – that’s a promise, people, if we don’t stop them now). Perhaps, because Auckland is in debt and Franklin and Papakura are not.
At least we received a stay of execution for the welfare of dairy cows and iconic land when over 5000 Kiwis protested from all over New Zealand. Think now, just how precious your own freedom is. Fight for your own democracy just like you did for vulnerable animals.
Remember that wherever you live in New Zealand, Hide’s totalitarian states will proliferate. You will regret not supporting Auckland’s 8 Councils’ freedoms when it happens to your area.
Divided New Zealanders fall, united we wipe Hide off the map, and Key if he does not listen and pretends this is all Rodney Hide’s work when anyone with two brain cells knows John Key could stop this asset and democracy theft overnight.
Just think Mr Key – your shiny new knighthood to add to your ‘multimillionaire/prime minister/sir’ CV will be spat on by Kiwis who finally realise how little real loyalty you have to New Zealand and the democratic rights New Zealanders supposedly hold dear.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Shunda,
I disagree. If you are indoctrinated with the idea that some unseen being, for which there is zero hard evidence, created everything and has given some vague instructions for those creatures (which he created) on how to live life, instructions which you must follow, even though they’re vague, then you will be less likely to question the wise ones who interpret those instructions and more likely to use some interpretation of those instructions to guide your opinion on many matters, including those which might be deemed moral issues.
That is hideous also, but religious indoctrination goes through all wealth layers and, therefore, is more destructive, because it affects more people.
Maybe not overtly but that lack of connection with, and respect for, the rest of nature is born from the religious idea that the earth is for humans. Civilisation itself is probably born from that notion, and civilisation is destroying the planet.
Nope. What I’m really saying is we need to remove religious indoctrination of the young and let them make their own minds up when they have learned to think. That indoctrination is a kind of persecution, itself.
Which is exactly my point. Even those who aren’t religious are bomboarded with religious messages frequently in day to day living, particularly the idea of humans being some god’s ultimate achievement. But, I take your point. Critical thinking is low down on the list of academic subjects at school, if it is on the list at all. We’re not expected to think at all, just accept the word of others who are doing it.
I’m not putting all the ills of civilisation on religion but I think it holds a lot of the guilt for them, going back thousands of years. I know a lot of very nice people who are religious but few of them can think critically.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Hey Pentwig and a Happy New Year to you as well!
When I’m up your way, I’ll call in and we’ll have a few beers over a meal of Orange Roughy, show each other our old rugby scars and have a look through some chainsaw brochures that I’ve been saving for a special occasion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I have been expecting to see some comments about the major power outage in Auckland a few days ago, along with some remarks about a third world grid, but surprisingly I haven’t seen any. I haven’t worked out just what has been happening between Transpower and the farmer, and I suspect there is fault on both sides. However I would like to point some of the blame at the Electricity Commission and some of the major generators as well.
The Whirinaki fast start generation plant was set up at Whirinaki (north of Napier) simply because they had consents for this site. Given that it is remote from most of the major load centres and on the wrong side of a transmission bottleneck, along with a lack of a gas supply and insufficient on and off site fuel storage, there wasn’t a lot else to recommend this choice. Had some or all of the 155MW of generator been available near or north of Auckland when the lines through the Waikato were lost, the impact of that loss would have been less.
Contact Energy are setting up another 200MW of fast-start gas-fired generators, which could also help ensure security of supply into Auckland – except that these are located in Stratford, on the wrong side of the transmission bottlenecks in the Waikato. Again, the generator owners are requiring Transpower to get the electricity across a lot of countryside into Auckland.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)