Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse
brianlux
Posts: 42,055
Sobering words from Noam Chomsky The article is rather long so I'll just post some highlights but the whole read is worth the time:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/noam_ch ... e_partner/
Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse
For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That’s been true since 1945. It’s now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.
And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.
...all over the world — Australia, India, South America — there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it’s a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand.
So, at one extreme you have indigenous, tribal societies trying to stem the race to disaster. At the other extreme, the richest, most powerful societies in world history, like the United States and Canada, are racing full-speed ahead to destroy the environment as quickly as possible. Unlike Ecuador, and indigenous societies throughout the world, they want to extract every drop of hydrocarbons from the ground with all possible speed.
Admittedly, when it comes to alternative energy development, Europe is doing something. Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn’t have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn’t even have renewable energy targets. It’s not because the population doesn’t want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It’s institutional structures that block change. Business interests don’t want it and they’re overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one.
The other issue is nuclear war. It’s been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It’s well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was.
What to Make of the Iranian and North Korean Nuclear Crises
At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn’t work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/noam_ch ... e_partner/
Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse
For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That’s been true since 1945. It’s now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.
And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.
...all over the world — Australia, India, South America — there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it’s a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand.
So, at one extreme you have indigenous, tribal societies trying to stem the race to disaster. At the other extreme, the richest, most powerful societies in world history, like the United States and Canada, are racing full-speed ahead to destroy the environment as quickly as possible. Unlike Ecuador, and indigenous societies throughout the world, they want to extract every drop of hydrocarbons from the ground with all possible speed.
Admittedly, when it comes to alternative energy development, Europe is doing something. Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn’t have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn’t even have renewable energy targets. It’s not because the population doesn’t want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It’s institutional structures that block change. Business interests don’t want it and they’re overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one.
The other issue is nuclear war. It’s been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It’s well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was.
What to Make of the Iranian and North Korean Nuclear Crises
At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn’t work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
;...What happened in the missile crisis in October 1962 has been prettified to make it look as if acts of courage and thoughtfulness abounded. The truth is that the whole episode was almost insane. There was a point, as the missile crisis was reaching its peak, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy offering to settle it by a public announcement of a withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. missiles from Turkey. Actually, Kennedy hadn't even known that the U.S. had missiles in Turkey at the time. They were being withdrawn anyway, because they were being replaced by more lethal Polaris nuclear submarines, which were invulnerable.
So that was the offer. Kennedy and his advisors considered it – and rejected it. At the time, Kennedy himself was estimating the likelihood of nuclear war at a third to a half. So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we – and only we – have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others – and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does.
...At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.
Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West – not in the Arab world, not in Asia – the gravest threat to world peace. It's a Western obsession, and it's interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I'll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that's been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly.
The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn't be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this. What happened?
You won't read about it in the newspapers because it wasn't reported – only in specialist journals. In early November, Iran agreed to attend the meeting. A couple of days later Obama cancelled the meeting, saying the time wasn't right. The European Parliament issued a statement calling for it to continue, as did the Arab states. Nothing resulted. So we'll move toward ever-harsher sanctions against the Iranian population – it doesn't hurt the regime – and maybe war. Who knows what will happen?'
Hating on Canada. Typical. Everybody hates on Canada.
We stand on guard for thee. Okay? So back off, man.
Hey, whoa, you're kidding, right? If this is for real, it ranks #1 for strangest crime leveled against me on the forum. If it's a joke it's rather, ahh, subtle. Please, fer crise sakes tell me it's a joke!
Look, I just watched Neil Young's movie "Journeys" and your telling me I hate Canada?
No fuckin' way! What is it you think I hate? Something with artificial lines called borders that are an abstract entity? Hockey? Vast pine forests? I don't understand.
I know we do some shitty things with that power and do at times overstep our bounds. I am not shrugging off the bad things we do. it's a delicate line we have to straddle though.
I will never understand the idea that talking with and dealing with middle eastern gov'ts is wrong. It isn't giving in, it isn't surrender. That is an archaic way of looking at the world, and the coming apocalypse will be a result of stubborness bred through years of the American Exceptionalism ideal. To be truly exceptional America would quit involving themselves in the affairs of others and just simply try to help the peoples of the world through trade agreements that do not benefit warlords and despots.
I don't know which type of apocalypse we will cause first, nuclear or environmental, but I will be very sad if it is simply because of stubborn assholes who are continuing their policies only because of campaign donations and votes. I think many in the country would rather have nuclear war than to leave the middle east to the middle easterners to figure out.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
a nuclear war/attack in the mid-east would be highly more likely without he US being there. right or wrong we are often the deterrent.
Business interests are certainly a significant impediment and the the US as a whole may be close to the international norm in concern for global warming. However, those that are not are very vocal and do manage to influence some politicians. A few years ago my employer introduced a green initiative to offer some publications electronically to subscribers. It was a voluntary opt-in and print versions were still available to those who wanted them. The roll-out campaign was well received as a whole, but some of the negative response was shockingly venomous. I was quite surprised by how angered some people were by an invitation to go paperless.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Big fish in small pond keeping the peace... or a looming threat that tends to keep all the small fish on guard?
Maybe having nukes as a deterrent is actually having the opposite effect you claim. It's a little disconcerting that any country has buttons they could push to make the world could go kapoot. Look how everybody goes batty when they hear of North Korea trying to build nukes to level the playing field. Of course, all the guns your citizens keep in their closets and by their bedsides keep people honest so we'd never have to worry about anyone pushing buttons, eh?
There are some places that would argue their country isn't safe because of the role your country is playing. It might be safe in your country with nuke sin your back pocket, but it's not so safe in Iraq.
As well, you're kind of a selective big brother that cares more for some siblings than others (depending on what the sibling has to offer you). For example, 'brotherly love' didn't do much to protect the Tutsi people in Rwanda, but mountain gorillas were not enough motivation to 'keep the peace' and save a genocide carried out with machetes. It hardly would have been an effort to save that situation.
First I want to say I don't believe that. I think we are helping to breed an environment that makes it more and more likely that someone will set off a nuclear device. But I guess it is all how you look at it.
Is there a specific reason why you think that? What hostility would there be to the west and us specifically if we left the region to the people who live there?
We don't own the world, we have our land, we should stay on it.
Alliance with none and trade with all is a much faster way to peace than alliance with some and sanctions for others. But I could be wrong, I don't think if I am that the world would be a more dangerous place. I think at worst we would simply be in the same situation we are now, but i just don't see how that would be possible. Either way I think we would be safer. The west forces borders on people that don't want them, and we manipulate/control their efforts to change them change them.
I am not naive enough to think world peace is possible, but I do think that the more trade agreements countries have between each other the less likely they are to bomb each other, in the very least the less likely they are to attack us.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
is North Korea more likely to use their nukes if we have them to strike them in retaliation or if we don't have the capability to retaliate?
second part I bolded - so you complain about our intervention in some situations...yet then complain about our NOT intervening in another?
:P
Had to be someone, right?
Or put another way..............https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs
no, he's saying that the US uses selective intervention based on the benefits. when has the US ever intervened and overthrown an existing government/dictator when they had no interest in the resources or geographical location of said region?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
of course we have used selective intervention, every situation calls for a cost-benefit analysis. it would be stupid not to. the point being is when we do intervene we are bad guys and when we don't intervene we are bad guys. how can we ever win in these situations?
Vietnam and afganastain don't have much resources
You couldn't be more wrong.........especially in afganastan
Rare earths and poppies, right?
mmm poppies..... yes... poppies will make them sleep.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you answered your own question. it's not about being the world's big brother. it's about being the world's biggest opportunist. the US never helps anyone merely to help them (and "helping" is even stretching it). they need to benefit from it otherwise it doesn't happen.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You've made my point.
Don't try to rationalize your military actions under the noble guise of big brother protecting everyone when a cost-benefit analysis needs to be performed before deciding whether or not you wish to intervene. You unravel your military might when it benefits you- not as you seemed to suggest in the post I referenced.
I think it is fair to be critical of some countries (Canada included) that fail to intervene when intervention is necessary. I also think it is fair to be critical of some countries when they are excessive in their aggression. You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.
and by whose criteria do 'we' determine which countries should be left alone? and define 'left alone'
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.
I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?
I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.