Jump to content

Work more, earn more, spend more


Recommended Posts

This general preaching and posturing makes me quite cross. [:@]

Why am I made to feel guilty for enjoying my life?

If I were feeling miserable and guilty, would it be more acceptable to the preachers?

What is the acceptable level of 'sacrifice'?

Who says what is and isn't acceptable?

How much am I supposed to reduce my lifestyle by?

How can you preach to me when you don't know how I live?

Whatever effort I make towards 'saving the planet' or 'helping the third world', it's never enough. For example, the village market only takes place once a month. Should I bankrupt myself buying at local shops to keep them afloat? Am I supposed to feel guilty at shopping at the nearest supermarket?

Tell me in practical terms how changing my lifestyle is going to save the world. [:@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Had to be away

for a couple of days.  Sorry, after

posting the original post I should have taken a more active role.  A couple of comments. 

It is impossible, utterly impossible, for

anyone to live “outside” capitalism or “the system”.  A few people actually try quite seriously (I am not one of them at present), to

live as much outside the system as they can. 

Jose Bové does not try.  So he

buys a tractor, and load of other things. 

PdF can’t do it either, so pointing out that he has contradictions is

not a really convincing point.  I will quickly vounteer a list of my own contradictions if anyone cares.  That is,

it does not “win the argument” to point out that you can't live a clean life in a dirty world.   What

is interesting is to see what each individual, each community or each

country, tries to do in their particular situation.  There are individuals, usually termed (nice) fanatics by their

(laughing) neighbours, who make considerable personal efforts and choices to live

differently.   There are small hamlets

in France that have moved to being a net exporter of electricity, for

example.  Quite impressive, and showing

that it is possible to make big changes. 

Similarly countries make decisions to move in one direction or another

with energy production or waste disposal. 

Showing that there is “some” alternative and there are, even now, various outcomes possible.  So I usually look at the experiments that exist and take some

encouragement from them.  But you do

have to look, they are not as well known as “normal consumption and normal

life”.

Replacing

polluting, energy intensive, degrading or wasteful jobs with useful, decent

jobs is not a real problem  Nearly any

small group of people, of any political persuasion, can get together in a small

room, and think of all the things that are NOT done, that need doing in a

particular area.  There is no shortage

of wholesome, useful work that needs doing that NO ONE is doing.  Ranging from highly technical to not so technical.  We could have a minor thread to suggest "jobs that need doing" that starts with cleaning up dog do, helping old people live a happier life,

working part time or full time food production (locally and appropriately),

teaching reading and writing, helping people start up small businesses (well

known that small and medium business grow the most jobs nearly everywhere),

supervising physical activity at all ages, fixing all the stuff that goes wrong

in daily life, retraining peole whose jobs are no longer wanted, inventing new treatments and production methods … it really is

not hard to realise how much work does not get done by OUR system of economic

organisation. 

 Logan:

In most

capitalist western democracies the arguments of the nineteen thirties have

largely been won. The conflict between the ideologies of socialism and

capitalism were settled generally through long social experience. No system is

perfect but people expect one that works and elect governments to regulate as

best it can the negative effects. Capitalism is now generally accepted as the

only system that really delivers on our aspirations and ambitions.

 Tom: 

All I can say

here is that I agree that capitalism is currently very much top dog in the

globe in most respects.  But it is

important to see that underneath the surface, there are also remnants of feudal

regimes, family relations, black economies, emotional ties, spiritual movitations, alternative production and

ownership, traditional social and economic relations… all going on as

well.  Just as during the time of the

Soviet Empire there was the Empire on the surface, looking pretty powerful,

number two, and underneath there was a revolt brewing.  Most people didn’t see that revolt or

underestimated its eventual power.  For

those that stayed on the surface, looking at appearances, it was the “sudden

collapse” of the Soviet Empire.  Its

like that with capitalism too.  Maybe it

won’t collapse in our lifetime, but there are little struggles going on

everywhere to undermine it and to construct alternatives.  To fully see the picture, you have to look

for the surface stuff and then also under the surface.

 Logan:

These

expectations are general in the majority population. Financial security, good

health care, a high standard of education for our children. There are many

others and are self evident. Unfortunately these aspirations have to be paid

for through general taxation or private financial initiatives. There really is

no such thing as a free lunch for anyone. The market economy in my opinion

provides the means to deliver a high standard of service for the community.

This also involves working hard and universal effort by the population in mild

competition with each other.

 Tom:

Hard to argue

that most of us want financial security, good health care, and high standard of

education for our kids (and might I add for adults who need re-edcuation or

re-training), as well as a number of 

other, possibly more important things.  

Questions arise immediately. 

First, do we get those things? 

Second, given our capability, what is actually possible, are we really

getting what we could get or are we settling for a second rate system?  Thirdly, who is the “we”, and what about the

others who are the “them”?

 This post is

already really long, so lets just take the issue of financial security.  Along with millions of people who have a

little, or a medium amount of savings invested in capitalism, I lost loads of

savings, and others lost loads of pension money, in recent crashes and

scandals.  Its just gone.  There is no insurance, no refund, we were

warned that it could all go anytime. 

This is not financial security. 

They write you a letter and say its gone.  My dad just got a notice a while back that his Chrysler health

plan in the USA, was cancelled.  Just

plain cancelled.  I am mentioning

personal examples, but  commonly known

examples exist all over the place, to illustrate that we live in what some

sociologists call a “risk society”.  In

fact, we have NOT produced a society where financial security is actually

possible for the mass of the people. 

Even taking rich countries alone, forget about what financial security

the majority of the world’s population has. 

Education and health can also be looked at closely and we can see, at

the very least, some big cracks.  My

overall point would be that this current society neither produces what it says

it should, nor does it produce anything remotely resembling what it COULD.  People know both those things.  And they are unhappy about it.  Even if 

they think they  can’t do

anything about it or are convinced “there is no alternative”, the TYINA

argument of the Thatcher years.

 I won’t mention

here what happens to people who are not part of the “we” who have all that

Logan thinks they have.  Later maybe.

 Logan:

Benefits of

course produce problems and negative effects. Rather like the generation of

electricity with nuclear fuel. The waste problem is greater than the benefits.

However capitalism has not yet reached that watershed. I believe that the

market and ecology working together can and will eventually solve the crisis of

global warming and waste disposal. Governments working alone or in co-operation

with each other cannot deal with it alone.

 Tom:

I don’t know

what you mean by “the market” and “ecology” “working together”.  I really don’t.  the market is system of exchange.  Ecology is the study of entire eco-systems.  Do you mean that sometimes some

environmental concerns need to take precedent over strictly market

mechanisms?  Something like that?  And if so, how about social concerns

sometimes also taking precedent? 

 Logan:

The problem and

the threat it poses is simply too great. If you put two people in a room and present

them with a large problem to solve. One will see only difficulties the other an

opportunity. Without the market economy I would argue that difficulties would

overwhelm our societies and backward we would go.

Tom:

Surprisingly

to some, most people who are critical of the market do not actually say the

market as such must be abolished.  Often

they point out that markets of various kinds have existed for ages.  Emphasis on “various kinds”.   I know of no one whatever in the

anti-capitalist movement who is keen on any of the state run, capitalist, pseudo

markets that are failed experiments.  Very few people, outside strictly Marxist

circles, are terribly disappointed or surprised that Soviet style experiments

are dead.  I never saw them as a model,

and neither did anyone I knew or worked with for forty years.  Their problems are well-known.  The questions are more like what “kinds” of

markets, governed by what rules, and what do we do about those who lose out in

a market.  Anyone who thinks that

markets exist without regulation and rules is clearly a fanatic.  I am not one of those.  I believe the rules need to be set up

fairly, and that the flaws in the market system have to be looked at and

corrected by NON-market systems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Russethouse,

You have said quite a bit.

Two comments.  I asked my friend Sue who is the chief of Greenpeace - UK, and was formerly the Science Officer of Greenpeace UK, if what you say is true, or if Greenpeace has ever said it.  She said no way.  She has been with them or associated with them from afar for fifteen years.  I also looked on teh website for information remotely like what you say. They have never argued that cyclical sun activity casues global warming.  They have always argued that our production of CO2 has something to do with the problem, but have said that it is a complicated problem and not entirely something we can control.  But all we CAN controlis what we do, so we had best try.  You are simply wrong.  Or if you are not, then cite your source, please.

Second.  Of course people who are aware of the probem of global warming and its causes and consequences are aware of the complexity of the argument.  They have weighed it up and have chosen their arugment and act accordingly.  Obviously.  Those, who, like you, either deny global warming (not many of them left now, but here were loads ten years ago) or who deny we have a role to play, will obviously not alter their activites drastically.  Which makes sense.  That's the conflict.   Often I favour the tiny minority argument, like you do.  Not this time.  Although I have and have read many more sites to support your argumentif you wnat the URLs.  It is vitally important to say that there are also loads of other reasons to live differently than just global warming.  That is an argument of the moment, recently become a big deal in the media and in the public consicousness.  Can you believe that five years ago we had to ARGUE that glboal warming existed in many many arenas?  But there are many more arguments and problems of the environmetnal sort that lead to trying to act and think differently, not merely global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"] I really believe we should face the facts now before it's too late.

Climatic change is  the biggest threat mankind has ever faced and the chaos and mayhem has already started.

It's not just a few small islands in the Pacific being evacuated due to repeated flooding: my local Amar (refugee centre) is handling demands right now from people fleeing the misery and hardship created by climatic change in the lake Tchad region. (just a few hundred km's away from our second homes, our giant  hypermarchés and our SUV's etc) A once flourishing ecological system based on the fishing yield  from the now drastically reduced lake surface has broken down due to climatic change and tens of thousands of people are suffering and leaving the area. Some of them have already arrived in Montauban - in a few years time the demands put on the western countries by refugees  is going to be uncontrollable.

 

[/quote]

PdF,

On a pedantic note, you should surely have said "Lac Tchad" or, as you are posting in English "Lake Chad"

Lake chad - just a few hundred kms away.... try about 3500 kms, somewhat slightly more than "a few hundred"

"Lake Chad is believed to be a remnant of a former inland sea which has

grown and shrunk with changes in climate over the past 13,000 years."

I know you dont say that we are to blame, just that its happening (again), The inference is of course that we are all responsible because of our "consumer lifestyle"

"It nearly dried out in 1908".. and we caused global warming then perhaps????

"An increased demand on the lake's water from the local population has

likely accelerated its shrinkage over the past 40 years. This is

largely due to overgrazing  in the area surrounding the lake, causing desertification and a decline in vegetation."

Are we (the nasty consumer society) responsible for the increased water demand and overgrazing?

A touch of "over-egging" I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Clair"]This general preaching and posturing makes me quite cross. [:@]  Seconded!!!!

Why am I made to feel guilty for enjoying my life? Because the miserable ones want you to be miserable as well

If I were feeling miserable and guilty, would it be more acceptable to the preachers? Most certainly, they would then be happy

What is the acceptable level of 'sacrifice'? Any sacrifice by others is acceptable, as long as the ones asking dont equally have to sacrifice

Who says what is and isn't acceptable? The miserable ones of course

How much am I supposed to reduce my lifestyle by? As much as possible, then lots more

How can you preach to me when you don't know how I live?Easily, you live, therefore you can be preached at!

Whatever effort I make towards 'saving the planet' or 'helping the third world', it's never enough. For example, the village market only takes place once a month. Should I bankrupt myself buying at local shops to keep them afloat? Am I supposed to feel guilty at shopping at the nearest supermarket? Of course you should feel guilty, we should ALL feel guilty

Tell me in practical terms how changing my lifestyle is going to save the world. [:@] Give all your wordly good to the cause then curl up and die

[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Russet House sends us all to look at some comments by a few isolated  'états uniens' (the US counterparts of Claude Allegre) and then onto a columnist for The Daily Mail (it makes me cringe just typing the title of this despicable rag), to convince us that  the large majority of the world's scientists are totally wrong in claiming that global warming is caused by human activity, doesn't surpise me - in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just typed a long response and comments to this thread but decided not to post it all, would be a dialogue with the deaf.  Short version then PdF, get a life for goodness sake, some of us stayed in the UK when you left (25 years ago I think you said in another thread) to fight Thatcherism, rampant consumerism and everything that went with it so we don't need to be hectored and lectured about what we may now have, life style and the rest.

And you're not the only person involved in environmental and ecological campaigns and projects so please get off the high horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 TV - read through the last link, it is in the text:

All this took place after Channel Four television had dared to challenged the global warming juggernaut with an enthralling documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle which produced dozens of world-famous scientists - including on of the co-founders of Greenpeace - saying that global warming was being causes by cyclical sun activity, not the human production of CO2.

PdF - This is where I'm afraid your argument goes belly up, instead of arguing the point you attempt to discredit the person putting forward an alternative view. (be it me or any of the authors in the links I have published ) That does nothing to forward your point and in fact is just what those who question your argument have been asked not to do to you, by TV. It would be nice if you too could extend the same courtesy to others.

In the meantime perhaps you can explain what caused global warming in Roman times or explain  (from the first link):

Furthermore, a study in Science October 2, 1998, refutes the claim that the current warming could only be caused by human activities.

It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years. This natural change was more than 10 times the "catastrophic" warming environmentalists claim only humans could be causing and it occurred in half the time.

Recently more and more people are questioning how much human behavior has on climate change however that goes in hand in hand with a desire to take better care of our planet, it is not seen as excuse to return to old, bad habits.

By the way the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday you so despise had an 18 page supplement by Sheherazade Goldsmith, wife of Zac, (no doubt you have heard of him). all about green issues.  I suppose its OK for them to preach a message you agree with, esp as they are the second biggest selling newspaper in the UK......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying to myself, stop following this thread, but keep looking. Guess I'm the eternal optimist hoping that this potentially interesting thread wouldn't be hijacked like the other one. I won't hold my breath.

My suggestion to all who have similar feelings on this, ignore all postings by this fool and he might just go away. Where's Miki when you need him.................

I'm gone................................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I despise The Daily Mail - it represents all that I hate........it always has and  it always will. The 'little Englander' viewpoint coupled with the reactionary political tendancies  and opinions vehiculed by this despicable organ would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it's the second largest seller in Britain. The fact that (I imagine) The Sun is  number one  only confirms my view that I was right to quit the country as soon as I had the chance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a theory about climate change which I would like to put forward which takes bits of different arguments and other information and puts them all together.

My theory is this. World governments who in turn are lobbied by large manufacturing companies are aware that in the life time of us now middle aged people the oil will run out. It is therefore in their extreme interests that we stop or slow down our use of this form of fuel. One way of doing this is to instil fear in to the general populous. What better way than to use a natural occurrence such as global warming to justify a drastic reduction in the use of oil by saying it is the greatest creator of CO2 which is the major contributory cause of global warming. This in turn would mean that we need to reduce oil usage, protect the stocks thus allowing large corporations to continue manufacturing goods that require oil to produce.

Why is oil so important? Well apart from the fact that 90% or the worlds transport is dependent on oil we forget that most plastics originate from oil like food packaging, the box your computer came in and it is also used (I didn’t know this) in the pharmaceutical industry. A lot of furniture and bedding also come from oil feedstock’s. We are in short totally reliant on oil for many things other than running our cars. The real pessimists want us to stop using oil for transport immediately and keep it for irreplaceable purposes like these.

I am sure many of you would like to know some of my sources so here goes.

In the Scientific Journal March 1998 Dr Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere concluded: "The world is not running out of oil - at least not yet. "What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend." They suggested there were perhaps 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil still to be produced, though the US Geological Survey's World Petroleum Assessment 2000 put the figure at about 3,000 billion barrels.

In April 2004 the world was producing about 75 million barrels per day (bpd). Conservative (for which read pessimistic) analysts say global oil production from all possible sources, including shale, bitumen and deep-water wells, will peak at around 2015 at about 90 million bpd, allowing a fairly modest increase in consumption.

On Campbell and Laherrere's downbeat estimate, that should last about 30 years at 90 million bpd, so drastic change could be necessary soon after 2030. In May 2003 the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (Aspo), founded by Colin Campbell, held a workshop on oil depletion in Paris. One of the speakers was an investment banker, Matthew Simmons, a former adviser to President Bush's administration.

From The Wilderness Publications reported him as saying: "Any serious analysis now shows solid evidence that the non-FSU (former Soviet Union), non-Opec (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries] oil has certainly petered out and has probably peaked. I think basically that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is... that peaking is at hand, not years away. If I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating... If the world's oil supply does peak, the world's issues start to look very different.”

There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies. Aspo suggests the key date is not when the oil runs out, but when production peaks, meaning supplies decline. It believes, based on us having reached about 84 million bpd, the peak may come by about 2010. Fundamental change may be closing on us fast. And even if the oil is there, we may do better to leave it untouched. That would mean burning far less oil than today, not looking for more. There are other forms of energy, and many are falling fast in price and will soon compete with oil on cost, if not for convenience.

Interesting to note that the Kyoto Protocol wants us all to meet our CO2 reduction targets by between 2008 and 2012 and that oils peaks in 2010 right in the middle. Funny that Cristy, Reiter and Liudez (hope I spelt their names right) of the IPCC (which is a body controlled and financed by the US government) to name but a few have also said that CO2 s not the cause of global warming.

Well it’s only a theory and I might be totally wrong but I think it’s worth looking in to.

Russethouse was slightly wrong in here reference to Green Peace in that she implied it was more than one person when in fact it was Patrick Moore one of the co-founders.

Sorry about the long post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"] TV - read through the last link, it is in the text:

All this took place after Channel Four television had dared to challenged the global warming juggernaut with an enthralling documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle which produced dozens of world-famous scientists - including on of the co-founders of Greenpeace - saying that global warming was being causes by cyclical sun activity, not the human production of CO2.

[/quote]

I read it quite carefully.  It referred, without saying his name, to the views of David Bellamy, who was one of the founders of Greempeace.  But since he left decades ago, and has nothing to do with Greenpeace, and it has nothing to do with him, the break happening long before the global warming debate happened, then you are repeating a fact, which is not really a fact.  Furthermore, if you look at the page on Bellamy in Wikipedia you get a good summary of that famous global warming incident.  He really blew it there.  But he is getting quite old, and is much better as a personality now than an active environmentalist.

But could we keep global warming off the table, at least as the central focus.  There is hardly anyone who thinks it is not happening.  The only debate is how much "we" do and how much is "natural".  The huge majorty of all climate scientists are on one side, and your pals on the other. People can read the stuff and choose.   The environmental movement and the decroissance movement deal with this issue among hundreds of others.  Even though it might be the most crucial, or not.  The movement sides with the vast majority of scientists, not with the quacks and wierdo former Marxists who made that channel 4 programme that contains the "fact" you cite.

Those who wish to see an exchange of letters between Bellamy and Monbiot on this very question can look at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/19/correspondence-with-david-bellamy/

Here is the bit from the Wiki:

In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as "poppycock" [3]. A letter he published in New Scientist (16 April 2005)

asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being

observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not

retreating. However, Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast

majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[1] Bellamy has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May 2005 [4] that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming" [5]. However he has not withdrawn his assertions about the causes of global warming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said it was not David Bellamy but Patrick Moore co-founder of Green Peace. The lead author of the IPCC report (John Christy) has said on record that many of the 25,000 lead scientists who's names appear on the report about global warming never took part in or had read the report before it was published. Two people who are said to be co authors namely Paul Reiter (IPCC and Pasteur Institute), Richard Lindzen (IPCC and MIT) and Jon Cristy himself have all said that they disagree with CO2 being the major contributor of global warming so it makes one wonder who else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add that whilst I am sceptical about man creating global warming I am not sceptical about man damaging the environment and I would like to see for instance supermarkets giving away re usable bags. I would like to see less plastic used in packaging, I would like to see recycling more and instead of penalizing those that don't we should reward those that do. Basically don't beat people with big sticks but use a carrot  to lead them. All this plastic being buried is really not a good idea and soon there will be nowhere o put the bloody stuff.

I would also like to see everyone with a roof over their head with access to decent medical care and all people everywhere to get a decent education. I don't think it's much to ask and consider it a basic human right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="TreizeVents"][quote user="Russethouse"] TV - read through the last link, it is in the text:

All this took place after Channel Four television had dared to challenged the global warming juggernaut with an enthralling documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle which produced dozens of world-famous scientists - including on of the co-founders of Greenpeace - saying that global warming was being causes by cyclical sun activity, not the human production of CO2.

[/quote]


Those who wish to see an exchange of letters between Bellamy and Monbiot on this very question can look at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/19/correspondence-with-david-bellamy/

[/quote]

Having just read the exchange of letters I did spot one error on behalf of Monbiot when Bellamy said about plants being able to deal with the changes Monbiot said "I am sorry to say, reveal that you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about. If you really believe that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere “would produce a rise in plant productivity”, I can only assume that you have not read a scientific paper on this topic over the past five years."

This morning I was looking for some other stuff in google and came across a French website “IMPACTS POTENTIELS DU CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE EN FRANCE AU XXIE SIÈCLE by the MINISTÈRE de l'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (http://www.agora21.org/mies/chan-clim.html) where there is a section that backs up what Bellamy was saying about plants. I don’t know if it was this that he was referring to or not. The section was titled “Effets potentiels des changements climatiques sur les sols” and was written by Michel Robert .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my limited perspective I believe that France are a long way ahead of UK. Certainly the supermarkets in France do not have plastic carrier bags available, are they still "free issue" in UK?

When in France we are certainly much more recycling conscious having to sort our rubbish into glass/plastic/paper & card lots plus other general rubbish. We do not have a rubbish collection but take the sorted lots to the skips in the village.

As a point of interest we got a set of three coloured bags ( marked glass, plastic, paper) which we use to transport the rubbish, I believe they are marketed by Lakeland Plastics. Very user friendly.

I believe that the use of recycled paper grocery sacks should replace all supermarket plastic bags and also that the inordinate use of superfluous packaging really must be addressed by industry.

There is an uphill battle here in the Emirates to educate people to reduce the use of plastic bags. Often in the supermarkets it is the "europeans"

who refuse the plastic carriers whilst the locals insist on a plastic carrier for even one item, its very frustrating to see. The desert bushes are festooned with blue plastic bags which are discarded ad lib. The culture of "take your litter home" has not taken hold here. The answer is obviously education but its just not happening.

The same, or similar, problem applies in respect of reducing the use of resources like water ( my particular field ), there is an attitude of " I can afford it therefore I will use as much as I want" We have probably the highest per capita use of water in the World, yet this is a hostile, desert environment and water production is an energy expensive business. Its difficult to make waves about it because we are, after all, "guest-workers" (industrial mercenaries) who, if you upset the wrong person, can be arbitrarily dismissed and deported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Clair"]This general preaching and posturing makes me quite cross. [:@]

Why am I made to feel guilty for enjoying my life?

If I were feeling miserable and guilty, would it be more acceptable to the preachers?

What is the acceptable level of 'sacrifice'?

Who says what is and isn't acceptable?

How much am I supposed to reduce my lifestyle by?

How can you preach to me when you don't know how I live?

Whatever effort I make towards 'saving the planet' or 'helping the third world', it's never enough. For example, the village market only takes place once a month. Should I bankrupt myself buying at local shops to keep them afloat? Am I supposed to feel guilty at shopping at the nearest supermarket?

Tell me in practical terms how changing my lifestyle is going to save the world. [:@]

[/quote]

Between you and Russethouse we have a couple of neutral moderators who

are really quite put out by all this Decroissance talk.  Everyone to their

own views of course, although moderators perhaps should be aware of their

delicate and tension laden role.

Guilt.  Sorry Clair, that guilt is all of your own making. 

"Enjoying your life" is not incompatible with saving the planet or

whatever.  Greenish people DO enjoy life, they really do.  As I have learned long ago, confronted by

some of these arguments, some people feel guilty about what they do, some

people feel quite happy with what they do.  Its not the arguments that

"make" you feel guilty, its something to do with you, your history

and how you see the arguments.  You see my point, I assume.  Some

people just carry on doing what they are already doing, without guilt, even

after they really "hear" the arguments.  If the guilt you feel

makes you change your way of life so as to respect the planet more, then well,

I guess that's all right.  There are loads of other motivations though. I

have always felt that basing a movement on getting people “to feel guilty” is

not nearly as good a basis as there could be.  You might also act on account

of love, empathy, anger, solidarity and so forth.  I don't like guilt much

as a motivation.

Sacrifice.  Not everyone puts it that way in the green movements.  Sacrifice is in the same family as

guilt.  You weren't a Catholic by any chance (joke, my wife was

too).  For example, my wife hassles me to turn off lights and extinguish

standby lights and various other detailed practices, like saving our grey

water.  These are not "sacrifices" really.  And the object

is not merely to turn off the light and save a bit of money, and a bit of

energy.  Obviously it does that. Its more like a kind of exercise to raise

my awareness of my impact on the planet, and hopefully lead me into new areas

and new actions, alone and with others.  Kind of "educational"

for my benefit.   Like riding the bike or walking rather than taking

the car.  But I would agree that some "sacrifice" might be

necessary.  Maybe you should start with "comfortable" sacrifices

and if you get into it, do some uncomfortable ones.  If you just feel

totally uncomfortable, and want to make no sacrifices or changes at all, then

go with that.  A programme based solely on sacrifices is nearly as bad,

but not quite as bad, as one based on guilt.  There are loads of books and

sites that can give you specific suggestions for little things you can do. 

My best advice is to suck it and see.  Try "doing something for the

planet in your personal life" and see where it takes you.  Maybe

nowhere.

YOU say what is acceptable.  Of course this takes a bit of research and

talking and testing, but you do.  Assuming you want to "do

something".  If you don't want to do something, then obviously you

won't.  Most of the little personal things you can do are quite nice

really.  They don’t solve the problem, but you move along a path that YOU

define.  Of course there are organisations you can join for support too. 

If you act in the food realm, there are food related groups.  If you act

in the energy realm, there are those too.  If you act in the animal realm,

there are those groups too.  Just depends

on what affects you or where you start.  There is utterly no objective

common starting point for anyone.

No one know exactly how much you are supposed to change your lifestyle. 

But one thing is sure.  Us rich people have got use less, recycle more,

re-use more, insulate more, produce less junk and useless stuff … sooner or

later.  That seems perfectly obvious.  But how much ... its like

asking how fluent my French has to be before I feel comfortable in

France.  Questions like that really don’t have answers, they have paths to

follow for a bit.

No one can even suggest what you might do without knowing how you live. 

How DO you live?   I’m just joking, you can't be asked to reveal any

details on this forum.  But if I were your neighbour and popped in now and

again, and ate at your house, and hung out with you, I would be able to suggest

some things you could do.  Anyone who is "green" could. 

And we might have some very intersesting conversations.

"Telling you in practical terms how changing my lifestyle is going to save

the world" is pretty hard.  I think it works like this.  You

start out with small acts that you know are NOT going to change the world, in

themselves.  You find that these acts have their rewards (not by feeling

guilty and sacrificing).  You do some more individual acts.  Then you

almost inevitably, join with others who are doing roughly the same thing. 

Depending on your inclinations, you are in a local group, a single issue group,

a greenish party, an action campaign or whatever.  From then on, you begin

to see the connections between personal actions and political or social

actions.  Until you DO it, no one will ever convince you there is a

connection.  Of course you also have to be able to deal with the tension

between the fact that it is not obvious you are going to "succeed"

and the fact that you are trying to "succeed".   But that

is up to every individual.  Sometimes you just take a chance and follow a

path without knowing exactly where it will lead.  And sometimes you just decide that path you have been following

is total waste of time and you stop.  In

my experience, lots of people stop, start, stop again, start again.  Kids, jobs, changes of health circumstances,

aging etc all tend to promote changes in your precise actions.

And you are right.  You can never do “enough”.  There is always more

to do.  The activists dilemma number four.  Usually you can help deal with that paradox or contradiction or

difficulty in company with others who share your tendencies.

Whew.   If you think I have "answers", I don't.  I

only have hints and experience.  And I read some books and reflect a bit.  But I tried to take your questions

seriously.  And a bit lightly too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks TV for the sensible reply and I admit that my post was done in exasperation at the more strident contributor on this thread.

My opinions are not related to my being a moderator on this forum. They are no less valid than any member's and I am free to express them, as any member is, within the code of conduct.

I enjoy my life and I do not feel responsible for the ills the planet or the third world are suffering.

My point of view on this has been confirmed by an lecture I attended a few years ago at the South Downs Planetarium, by Dr John Mason (former President of the British Astronomical Society).

What I remember of the lecture is that the planet we live on is subjected to a cycle of climatic events which mankind cannot stop. The cycle involves cooling and warming of the surface and various dramatic changes, the details of which I cannot remember.

I doubt that I am able to change any of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem.......how about answering the question ?

In the meantime perhaps you can explain what caused global warming in Roman times or explain  (from the first link):

Furthermore, a study in Science October 2, 1998, refutes the claim that the current warming could only be caused by human activities.

It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years. This natural change was more than 10 times the "catastrophic" warming environmentalists claim only humans could be causing and it occurred in half the time.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Both TV and PdF post as if nothing is happening, although I am in the UK my experience is different. Everyday there is something in the media about recycling / energy saving /environmental issues. People are more conscious about issues, for example air miles used to transport food across the globe. Increasingly you see people taking note of the country of origin and here children refused an item because they have not come from the UK or Europe.

This weekends issue was should we eat organic food even if it has come from say, Kenya.?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always believed that if you want to see the future you only have to simply look at the past. History is a resource of past human mistakes and the natural worlds progression towards an evolutionary end. It always astonishes me that politicians seem to needlessly repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Capitalism and climate change has evolved throughout that history. Through the generations some negative effects of human development have been corrected. There is still a long way to go. As a consequence our present is still much better than our past. Still better than any of the alternatives history has come up with. That process will continue as long as relative freedom prevails. The natural world will progress to it's inevitable conclusion. Human existence I believe will make little difference.

Tom said:-

I don’t know what you mean by “the market” and “ecology” “working together”.  I really don’t.  The market is system of exchange.  Ecology is the study of entire eco-systems.  Do you mean that sometimes some environmental concerns need to take precedent over strictly market mechanisms?  Something like that?  And if so, how about social concerns sometimes also taking precedent? 

The market is much more than a system of exchange. I could describe it as a systems solution for solving problems. When a problem arises in society so a market demand is created in parallel, which in turn fosters a solution. The market responds with options and resolutions which if proven solves the problem. So working together ecologists and capitalist free marketeers can improve the environment together. Why? Because they both have a motivational stake in a successful conclusion. You can apply this theory to almost any situation in society which needs ideas and inspirational action. Society provides the demand and the market the supply based solution.

Risk is part of the fabric of the free market. We cannot live our lives without risk either financial or personal. Risk is factored into almost every human action. Most of us accept risk in a philosophical manner until things go wrong. Then some of us seek someone or something to blame. Risk can be minimalised but never eliminated. Imagine a risk free society for a moment. Impossible and undesirable in my opinion.

Tom said:-

I believe the rules need to be set up fairly, and that the flaws in the market system have to be looked at and corrected by NON-market systems.

What are NON-market systems? Do you mean regulation which stifle ideas? Laws which prevent us solving problems. Government quangos or useless committees investigating the obvious? Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article in the issue number 17  (july 3rd 1971) of the underground magazine OZ , illustrated by a drawing of  a middle aged person  chained  in front of a tv screen, showed readers how to recognise if their parents were being slowly poisoned and turned into ignorant zombies.

          It was a fact that at that time the middle classes were  indulging in an addictive practise that  was ruining their lives....    the deadly and evil poison that was spreading through society, according to OZ  was  contained in all the pages, and especially the editorials, of The Daily Mail.

 

            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'll hazard a guess that the Daily Mail of 1971 was a very different paper to todays however I'm not interested in defending it, I read different papers at different times and I'm not about to start defend buying the Independent, Guardian, Times or Telegraph either.....but I do still want to know how you explain climate changes in the past........
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...