More temperature lies

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

Let's take the argument away from climate change for a second, and focus on pollution. I don't for one second think pollution is acceptable. I think picking up trash is great. I think recycling is fantastic. That said, global warming/global climate change/global whatever is questionable IMHO and a number of other's opinions. According to many people's logic (and your's I believe), global climate change is supposedly a function of pollution. This is where I get lost in this debate.

Pollution is the "source" of the problem, according to you and people who agree with you, pollution IS the problem according to me and people who side with me. Why can't we just agree to fight to constrain pollution and not need to dwell into the scare tactics of global warming? I don't think anyone would deny that dumping is bad. Stick to that route and you're more likely to get people on board. IMHO the problem comes in when people want to shut down the capitalist society for environmental reasons. IMHO things pollution should be limited and I believe markets are the best way to handle the problem. Pay to pollute may not sound attractive, but I bet it would constrain things. IMHO the environmentalist front is sometimes (actually many times) used as an attack on capitalism.... therefore, a number of people aren't sincere in thier attachment to the environment, instead they are using it for a political agenda.

Lastly, the only other issue I have with this whole debate is simple: If we can "change the climate" one way (which I don't believe we can), why can't we change it back the other? If for some reason, we have the ability to alter climates, why can't we alter them back to normalcy? That side of the debate says we can change things..... therefore, we have climate control, just not a very good one yet. I don't think one can say "we can make it bad, but can't make it better". Yes, the technology may not be there, but who's to say it can't or couldn't ever be there?

firstly global climate change is not strictly related to pollution ... pollution encompasses a plethora of causes such as toxic waste, grey water, etc ... so, dumping shit into a river aka polluting it is bad for a host of reasons - it is not causing climate change ...

secondly - we are altering the climate but we are not altering it a known fashion ... it's not like we are making it different with known results ... it doesn't work that way ... it's these disruptions to the environment that is causing all the problems including things as food shortages, diseases spreading, infestations, etc ...

the technology to address climate change is here already ... it's available ... it just takes everyone accepting there is a problem and the greedy people who will suffer from change to step aside ...

sourdough

It's not only about what we're putting into the atmosphere that is the problem but it is also that we are removing the earth's mechanisms to compensate. It's not bad enough that we're emitting billion of tons of CO2 but we're removing millions of acres of forests that would otherwise naturally help remove the GHGs.

Sort of related... This is a must-see clip from 1992. The speaker is Severn Suzuki (daughter of David Suzuki) during the Rio Earth Summit in Rio. She was 12 years old at the time. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and she was a phenomenal speaker. I'm shocked at how prophetic that speech was and wonder when we'll ever start taking the environment seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY

angelica

saveuplife wrote:

IMHO the problem comes in when people want to shut down the capitalist society for environmental reasons.

This is a BIG issue I see as well.

IMHO the environmentalist front is sometimes (actually many times) used as an attack on capitalism.... therefore, a number of people aren't sincere in thier attachment to the environment, instead they are using it for a political agenda.

Again, I agree with you. With one big difference....I know many of these people. They are genuine in their concern for the environment. The problem is they are unconscious of their own agenda-issues beneath the surface that drive them to align with certain sources of info, and certain ideologies over others. Like the average person, they deny their own bias. They see they are "right" and that others are "wrong". Just like they are unaware that they have ingrained yet-blatant-to-others biases against capitalism.

It's deplorable to me the willingness people have towards controlling others....corporations, individuals, etc....trying to control life. That's a clear cut case of the human ego to me.

I am grateful that so much power struggle is currently happening on so many levels, and that we're not willing to accept these right/wrong views anymore. As polaris said even if 75% is on board, the fallout from the 25% can be enough to stop any 'progress' in it's tracks. As it should be, imo.


'Majority rules' at the expense of the segment of society (the minority in any given instance) that until now has been minimized, pathologized or otherwise marginalized makes for ongoing unhealthy imbalances societally speaking.

Where we're actually moving in evolutionary terms is to a level that is MUCH improved from this "majority rules" stuff ... We are moving to a place where we learn to accept all views, to stop weilding inauthentic power, and to work out our problems, case by case.

The idea that anyone of us can control this without actually problem-solving in situation to situation, and the idea that we can weild inauthentic power externally, and legislate this inauthentic control into place will continue to show itself as not working, as it currently does.

It's all good when we wake up past our attachment to our own view and our ego-driven-story.

sourdough

See I don't see it as an attack on capitalism. I'll be honest, I see some very serious flaws in a free fall capitalist system. It is just simply not compatible with sustainability and real social justice BUT I do not advocate for the destruction of the system but one that recognizes the long term consequences of a system that does not take into account the reprocussions that threaten lives now and down the road. There has to be responsibility which is lacking in the system we have now.

angelica

sourdough wrote:

See I don't see it as an attack on capitalism. I'll be honest, I see some very serious flaws in a free fall capitalist system. It is just simply not compatible with sustainability and real social justice BUT I do not advocate for the destruction of the system but one that recognizes the long term consequences of a system that does not take into account the reprocussions that threaten lives now and down the road. There has to be responsibility which is lacking in the system we have now.

Responsibility comes from within.

sourdough

angelica wrote:

Responsibility comes from within.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that responsibility is up to the each individual? That it is subjective for everyone? Just to clarify...

angelica

sourdough wrote:

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that responsibility is up to the each individual? That it is subjective for everyone? Just to clarify...

I feel that when people accept responsibility for their actions, these issues will all go away. We are all held accountable, in terms of responsibility in every day by life--through cause and effect. Many of us fail miserably, tune out the causes and effects we create, and then look for inauthentic ways to control life and others, and to absolve ourselves of the negative consequences we create.

Any external enforcement of responsibility is a band-aid manner of coping with the issue of people not accepting responsibility. We use such measures when we don't have better ones. When we 'force' someone to accept responsibility, it is very different than people evolving and stepping up to the plate in terms of taking responsibility and BEing responsible. People will only take responsibility when they evolve to that place.

A key issue that we are not solving our problems but are continuing imbalance is that we expect to infringe on the freedom of another in any way, as a way to 'solve' our problem. At times it may be the best we have, and yet we bring in all kinds of new fallout to deal with...hence this chaos we have and and feeling we are further away from actually solving our problems.

angelica

sourdough wrote:

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that responsibility is up to the each individual? That it is subjective for everyone? Just to clarify...

Responsibility is definitely not subjective. We are held to account by universal laws at all times, whether our subjective awareness acknowledges it, or does not, or to what degree it does, or does not.

polaris

angelica wrote:

This is a BIG issue I see as well.

Again, I agree with you. With one big difference....I know many of these people. They are genuine in their concern for the environment. The problem is they are unconscious of their own agenda-issues beneath the surface that drive them to align with certain sources of info, and certain ideologies over others. Like the average person, they deny their own bias. They see they are "right" and that others are "wrong". Just like they are unaware that they have ingrained yet-blatant-to-others biases against capitalism.

It's deplorable to me the willingness people have towards controlling others....corporations, individuals, etc....trying to control life. That's a clear cut case of the human ego to me.

I am grateful that so much power struggle is currently happening on so many levels, and that we're not willing to accept these right/wrong views anymore. As polaris said even if 75% is on board, the fallout from the 25% can be enough to stop any 'progress' in it's tracks. As it should be, imo.


'Majority rules' at the expense of the segment of society (the minority in any given instance) that until now has been minimized, pathologized or otherwise marginalized makes for ongoing unhealthy imbalances societally speaking.

Where we're actually moving in evolutionary terms is to a level that is MUCH improved from this "majority rules" stuff ... We are moving to a place where we learn to accept all views, to stop weilding inauthentic power, and to work out our problems, case by case.

The idea that anyone of us can control this without actually problem-solving in situation to situation, and the idea that we can weild inauthentic power externally, and legislate this inauthentic control into place will continue to show itself as not working, as it currently does.

It's all good when we wake up past our attachment to our own view and our ego-driven-story.

1. the current capitalist system is flawed ... again - i propose this example to people - if you had a plot of land to grow all the food you need for yourself ... do you a. take care of it and grow enuf food for you to sustain yourself and ensure that it will continue to grow that food year in year out or b. do you not take care of it and just hope it grows food for you or c. do you over-grow food so that there is excess yield one year but significantly less the next?

2. i find the second part of your post offensive to say the least ... who are you to know what i know or don't know and how i come to my decisions? ... it would appear that it is your ego that assumes we have not reached a level of enlightenment that you have reached and therefore we are blinded by our ideologies.

sourdough

angelica wrote:

I feel that when people accept responsibility for their actions, these issues will all go away. We are all held accountable, in terms of responsibility in every day by life--through cause and effect. Many of us fail miserably, tune out the causes and effects we create, and then look for inauthentic ways to control life and others, and to absolve ourselves of the negative consequences we create.

Any external enforcement of responsibility is a band-aid manner of coping with the issue of people not accepting responsibility. We use such measures when we don't have better ones. When we 'force' someone to accept responsibility, it is very different than people evolving and stepping up to the plate in terms of taking responsibility and BEing responsible. People will only take responsibility when they evolve to that place.

A key issue that we are not solving our problems but are continuing imbalance is that we expect to infringe on the freedom of another in any way, as a way to 'solve' our problem. At times it may be the best we have, and yet we bring in all kinds of new fallout to deal with...hence this chaos we have and and feeling we are further away from actually solving our problems.

I respectfully disagree with you. I'm not so sure we are held accountable as we often do not see the effects of our actions. Here in Vancouver we do not experience climate change as those Africa afflicted by worsening droughts or those in Asia who are at highest risk of sea level rising etc... I'm nicely cushioned from that so how am I being held accountable. I'm not.

I do not think people accept the responsibility when people make poor decision about what they buy and what they do. The price of a good does not reflect the environmental effects all the way through the production and distribution process nor does it reflect the working conditions or all other sorts of negative reprocussions that may be associate with what they are purchasing.

I would agree that we all should take it upon ourselves to act as responsible citizens. Absolutely, but our society does not emphasize the common good does it? Individualism and self interest seem to rule the day, which IMO is counter-productive when we are looking at global and shared concerns.

how long will it take (if ever) for humans to "evolve" to a shared idea of responsibility and what of those who die along the way because of our indifference? Maybe I'm just more cynical than you.

angelica

polaris wrote:

1. the current capitalist system is flawed ... again - i propose this example to people - if you had a plot of land to grow all the food you need for yourself ... do you a. take care of it and grow enuf food for you to sustain yourself and ensure that it will continue to grow that food year in year out or b. do you not take care of it and just hope it grows food for you or c. do you over-grow food so that there is excess yield one year but significantly less the next?

I'm the first person to admit that the way the system plays out is seriously flawed. What I am for is finding healthy, and productive ways of dealing with this, rather than the ones we've been using that contribute to the problems.

2. i find the second part of your post offensive to say the least ... who are you to know what i know or don't know and how i come to my decisions? ... it would appear that it is your ego that assumes we have not reached a level of enlightenment that you have reached and therefore we are blinded by our ideologies.

I didn't say you, or allude to you. Are you putting yourself in this category?

The truth on this subject, polaris, is that I have no idea what you know environmentally. If you can see environmentally what I see psychologically...and if you see as far beyond the common view of the environment as I do psychologically, then I have great respect for what you see. I trust you will operate from the best and most aware position you can. I cannot blindly put my faith in another, however. I'm being honest and expressing why I don't trust the science. There are way too many human power struggles involved and that I see play out all over the place, psychologically and politically.

I speak to many principles that exist as is. I don't claim that I am perfect. I'm not even close to living consistently from my own principles. I'm not close to living consistently at a place detached of ego.

In principle, living beyond ego is about valuing all views. And all perspectives, even when I don't agree, or when I outrightly think they are wrong. In seeking the greater good, one must rise above their own perspective, in order to embrace all the variables. The basis must be on a mutual respect, which is the opposite of 'my view is superior, yours is not'. any one-up, one-down view or one that says I'm right/you're wrong starts off at a place that is not ready for problem solving.

angelica

sourdough wrote:

I respectfully disagree with you. I'm not so sure we are held accountable as we often do not see the effects of our actions. Here in Vancouver we do not experience climate change as those Africa afflicted by worsening droughts or those in Asia who are at highest risk of sea level rising etc... I'm nicely cushioned from that so how am I being held accountable. I'm not.

I do not think people accept the responsibility when people make poor decision about what they buy and what they do. The price of a good does not reflect the environmental effects all the way through the production and distribution process nor does it reflect the working conditions or all other sorts of negative reprocussions that may be associate with what they are purchasing.

I would agree that we all should take it upon ourselves to act as responsible citizens. Absolutely, but our society does not emphasize the common good does it? Individualism and self interest seem to rule the day, which IMO is counter-productive when we are looking at global and shared concerns.

how long will it take (if ever) for humans to "evolve" to a shared idea of responsibility and what of those who die along the way because of our indifference? Maybe I'm just more cynical than you.

Do you believe in karma? I see it's effects all around me, for all people. Clearly. it's not as simple that if I steal someone's car, my own car will be stolen from me.

It sounds like we're both in agreement though that people are not accepting responsibility. Our methods of dealing with that is where we differ, it seems.

angelica

When I talk of ego in this thread, I refer in general when people as so adamant they are right that rather than grow and find ways to resolve the problems, seek to control someone else. That, in principle is ego, plainly and simply.

Once we are justifying weilding power over another, we are not aligned with problem solving.

yes, I'm the first one to admit I am opinionated, and that I'm attached to my view. I do not seek to force another to do my bidding however. I feel it's imperative that we ALL find ways to accept all views, and work from there or we will continue to undermine all our systems, including the environmental ones, due to human lack.

sourdough

angelica wrote:

Do you believe in karma? I see it's effects all around me, for all people. Clearly. it's not as simple that if I steal someone's car, my own car will be stolen from me.

It sounds like we're both in agreement though that people are not accepting responsibility. Our methods of dealing with that is where we differ, it seems.

No I don't believe in karma. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Anyway, that might be another conversation for another thread.

So if we agree that people are not taking responsibility and the repercussions are of great consequence, isn't that when we should start questioning the status quo? Isn't it the gov'ts job to intervene when there is a disconnect between behaviour and outcome? Isn't that why it is ok to have laws that prohibit us from behaving in a way that is damaging to society?

angelica

sourdough wrote:

No I don't believe in karma. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Anyway, that might be another conversation for another thread.

So if we agree that people are not taking responsibility and the repercussions are of great consequence, isn't that when we should start questioning the status quo? Isn't it the gov'ts job to intervene when there is a disconnect between behaviour and outcome? Isn't that why it is ok to have laws that prohibit us from behaving in a way that is damaging to society?

I definitely agree we need to question the status quo!

I feel it depends on case by case. And who is involved in each case. And what those involved feel is important to the situation. and what they bring to the table. What they all together work out given the variables is what will be.

sourdough

angelica wrote:

I definitely agree we need to question the status quo!

I feel it depends on case by case. And who is involved in each case. And what those involved feel is important to the situation. and what they bring to the table. What they all together work out given the variables is what will be.

Agreed. So don't you think that if people are not taking responsibility for the environment and our impact on it than there should be changes made? Capitalism in the form that we have now is not responsive to the environment. Clearly we've demonstrated that it is going to be insufficient to leave it to individuals, so wouldn't you agree that it becomes absolutely necessary for gov't to step in? You seemed to be opposed to this.

angelica

sourdough wrote:

Agreed. So don't you think that if people are not taking responsibility for the environment and our impact on it than there should be changes made? Capitalism in the form that we have now is not responsive to the environment. Clearly we've demonstrated that it is going to be insufficient to leave it to individuals, so wouldn't you agree that it becomes absolutely necessary for gov't to step in? You seemed to be opposed to this.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just see the negative ramifications of doing so. I can't stand behind what I don't believe in. There are enough times I am unconscious of the consequences of my own actions, and must learn the hard way. I'm not adding to that by voluntarily and consciously/deliberately signing up to learn the hard way. I personally have intricate understandings of karma. I take it very seriously.

I am all for accepting what is. And at this point in time, I accept the lack of humanity, just as I accept the evolutionary laws that are molding and shaping our progress. I see that there is perfect balance all around us at all times, independent of our good opinions of it. I'm well aware that the vast sweeping majority instead sees disconnection and randomness. It is what it is.

At this point in time, most people are going to come from a place of ego, and they are going to back the government stepping in. My voice is better served pointing out theory that may evolve our consciousness to where we can make more effective choices with less fallout. Each of us is complementary to the system somehow.

angelica

sourdough wrote:

Clearly we've demonstrated that it is going to be insufficient to leave it to individuals, ...

I feel that it's clear individuals are not accepting responsibility, but I also see we are held accountable to life for our actions at all times. Nothing escapes universal law. Hence I see this perfect balance, like of the yin-yang symbol, at all times. No exceptions. And the first sign that I'm seeing egoistically, is when I start to see myself as separate from this perfect balance, and when I start to see that my ideas are 'right' and will lead to nature being 'righted' of its wrongs.

dmitry

polaris wrote:

1. the current capitalist system is flawed ... again - i propose this example to people - if you had a plot of land to grow all the food you need for yourself ... do you a. take care of it and grow enuf food for you to sustain yourself and ensure that it will continue to grow that food year in year out or b. do you not take care of it and just hope it grows food for you or c. do you over-grow food so that there is excess yield one year but significantly less the next?

Farmers maintain their land because that land is their livelihood, and they also do everything they possibly can to maximize their crop yield every year. What you've written doesn't make any sense. With modern farming techniques there is no such thing as overgrowing food on existing farm plots.

The correct answer would be

d. grow as much food as you can every year and maintain the land.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

dignin

polaris wrote:

- yes, climate has fluctuated historically but we're talking thousands upon thousands of years ... the real drastic changes all have been explained through some natural occurence ... the issue now is that we are the trigger and it is happening at a much faster rate ..

this is the point i think most people dont understand...it needs to be shown again and again.