Debt Releif - For People Or The Environment?

[Amazonis]

Recently the G8 countries (United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) reached their deal on international debt releif. Under the plan eighteen countrys will have their debt immediately withdrawn, and approximately twenty more will be eligible if they manage to tackle governmental corruption. Nearly all of these countrys are in Africa, with a few from South America.

The main reason behind this debt releif is the preasure put on the governments by humanitarian organizations, who want to abolish the debt to ease human poverty. However humans are not the only animals in nead of this debt releif...the whole environment neads it too....

For poor countries like these, paying of their debt is their main economic concern, and they want to do it as soon as possible. So to temporarilly benefit their economys, they will exploit their natural resources. One example of this is the loss of rainforests through deforestaion in the Dem. Rep. of Congo, where less than one percent of forests lost are replanted. Replanting would benifit the economy immensly in the future, but at the moment the foccuss is on short term profit to get rid of their debt, not on an environmentally sustainable economy for the long term.

Another negative effect debt has on the environment is the governments policy of "maching the people with no land to the land with no people". This is were thousands apon thousands of poor city people are transported into the rainforest, where they are left to farm the land. This causes massive deforestation, because the people do not know how to farm properly, so once their farms are too eroded by tropical rain to produce any more crops, they have to move on and clear more rainforest. This would not be happening if it were not for international debt, preventing sustainable development and therefore making these people poor in the first place.

Luckily, some of the debt causing these environmental problems has now being eradicated. Africa's forests will get the most benefit out of the debt releif, with almost all of its rainforested countries having their debt abolished. However, we must remember that while debt is a significant contributer to the destruction of rainforests, it is one of many factors. Just because the debt is gone doesn't mean the government will all-of-a-sudden be environmentally aware, however it will certainly help in the future as the countries develope better environment practices.

While Africa's forests are safe from debt, the same can not be said about the rainforests of South America and South East Asia. The only countries to have their debt removed in South America are French Guinea and Bolivia, and these countrys do not have vast amounts of forest in anyway. In Asia no rainforest countries have had their debt abolished, and NONE are even eligible.

This round of debt releif was a step in the right direction. But we nead to start abolishing debt in countries were the environment may be suffering more than the people. After all, once all the rainforest is gone in places such as Brazil and Indonesia, many rural people will suffer poverty once the land they depend on for food is degraded beyond repair.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Sounds good so far. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[God, my arse]

But this debt relief, stops the poverty which commonly leads to poor environmental laws. Because wealthy countries are the only ones with the affluence to be able to protect the environment without harming their people.

[Amazonis]

But this debt relief, stops the poverty which commonly leads to poor environmental laws. Because wealthy countries are the only ones with the affluence to be able to protect the environment without harming their people.
Exactly, poverty prevents sustainable development and causes unsustainable development.

[Amazonis]

I am a bit concerend that the recent Live8 concerts and celebrations are causing people to forget about the real problem at hand - starving humans and a degraded environment. :/

[MrsMoe]

Recently the G8 countries (United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) reached their deal on international debt releif. Under the plan eighteen countrys will have their debt immediately withdrawn, and approximately twenty more will be eligible if they manage to tackle governmental corruption. Nearly all of these countrys are in Africa, with a few from South America.

The main reason behind this debt releif is the preasure put on the governments by humanitarian organizations, who want to abolish the debt to ease human poverty. However humans are not the only animals in nead of this debt releif...the whole environment neads it too....

For poor countries like these, paying of their debt is their main economic concern, and they want to do it as soon as possible. So to temporarilly benefit their economys, they will exploit their natural resources. One example of this is the loss of rainforests through deforestaion in the Dem. Rep. of Congo, where less than one percent of forests lost are replanted. Replanting would benifit the economy immensly in the future, but at the moment the foccuss is on short term profit to get rid of their debt, not on an environmentally sustainable economy for the long term.

Another negative effect debt has on the environment is the governments policy of "maching the people with no land to the land with no people". This is were thousands apon thousands of poor city people are transported into the rainforest, where they are left to farm the land. This causes massive deforestation, because the people do not know how to farm properly, so once their farms are too eroded by tropical rain to produce any more crops, they have to move on and clear more rainforest. This would not be happening if it were not for international debt, preventing sustainable development and therefore making these people poor in the first place.

Luckily, some of the debt causing these environmental problems has now being eradicated. Africa's forests will get the most benefit out of the debt releif, with almost all of its rainforested countries having their debt abolished. However, we must remember that while debt is a significant contributer to the destruction of rainforests, it is one of many factors. Just because the debt is gone doesn't mean the government will all-of-a-sudden be environmentally aware, however it will certainly help in the future as the countries develope better environment practices.

While Africa's forests are safe from debt, the same can not be said about the rainforests of South America and South East Asia. The only countries to have their debt removed in South America are French Guinea and Bolivia, and these countrys do not have vast amounts of forest in anyway. In Asia no rainforest countries have had their debt abolished, and NONE are even eligible.

This round of debt releif was a step in the right direction. But we nead to start abolishing debt in countries were the environment may be suffering more than the people. After all, once all the rainforest is gone in places such as Brazil and Indonesia, many rural people will suffer poverty once the land they depend on for food is degraded beyond repair.
Even with debt relief, countries will still rape thier environments. Absolving debt won't stop it IMO. Hell, the US is a prime example of a world class country that is destroying the earth and here there is zero excuse...

[Amazonis]

Even with debt relief, countries will still rape thier environments. Absolving debt won't stop it IMO. Hell, the US is a prime example of a world class country that is destroying the earth and here there is zero excuse...
Abolishing debt will certainly not stop all environmental exploitation, however it will help the situation to one degree or another. In many tropical coutries, the rate of rainforest destruction corresponds almost exactly with the amount of debt the countries are in. Old habbits are hard to break, and there is no doubt that rainforest destruction would continue long after the debt was lifted, however eventually environmental managment would improve. These countries would realise that sustainable development was important to the future of their economys, and better environmental policies would be introduced.

[MrsMoe]

Even with debt relief, countries will still rape thier environments. Absolving debt won't stop it IMO. Hell, the US is a prime example of a world class country that is destroying the earth and here there is zero excuse...
Abolishing debt will certainly not stop all environmental exploitation, however it will help the situation to one degree or another. In many tropical coutries, the rate of rainforest destruction corresponds almost exactly with the amount of debt the countries are in. Old habbits are hard to break, and there is no doubt that rainforest destruction would continue long after the debt was lifted, however eventually environmental managment would improve. These countries would realise that sustainable development was important to the future of their economys, and better environmental policies would be introduced.
Well, now that debt has been forgiven, we shall see if this theory pans out. I personally doubt anything will change in these countries and rainfroests will still fall at the same rate as before. Then again, I am no expert on this subject matter.

[Amazonis]

Well, now that debt has been forgiven, we shall see if this theory pans out. I personally doubt anything will change in these countries and rainfroests will still fall at the same rate as before. Then again, I am no expert on this subject matter.
There is no doubt that abolishing debt in these countries will slow down rainforest destruction. However, there is a lot of doubt as to how much it will slow it down. Some think that it may slow it down by up to thirty percent by 2020, and some think it may may only slow it down by five percent by 2050 (remember that both of these examples are extreme opinions). However, it will be very hard to tell exactly how much change it will make, because we will never know what it would have been like if the debt still existed.

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't want to sound condescending but plants grow back. Ever tried to get rid of weeds in a garden? Life is incredibly tenacious. The whole biosphere is in a constant state of flux, habitats and species appear and disappear all the time. Algae produce significant quantities of oxygen, so I wouldn't worry to much about rain forest destruction. It's like the population doom sayers. Paul Ehrlich predicted huge famines in the 80s that never happened. I'm sure our technology is capable of handling any problems Mother Nature throws at us.

While I'm on my soapbox, I think I'll blast Kyoto. While it's true that the US produces more carbon dioxide than any other country, other countries that produce significant amounts are exempt from the treaty. Countries like Denmark can sign the treaty without worrying because their country is much smaller. So basically the treaty is a big poke in the eye for the US. It's a way for world leaders to pat themselves on the back while not doing anything differently.

I love the outdoors as much as the next guy, but I think we need to be realistic. We live in a consumer society. The environmental degradation in the world is not irreversible.

[Amazonis]

I don't want to sound condescending but plants grow back. Ever tried to get rid of weeds in a garden? Life is incredibly tenacious. The whole biosphere is in a constant state of flux, habitats and species appear and disappear all the time. Algae produce significant quantities of oxygen, so I wouldn't worry to much about rain forest destruction. It's like the population doom sayers. Paul Ehrlich predicted huge famines in the 80s that never happened. I'm sure our technology is capable of handling any problems Mother Nature throws at us.
A tropical rainforest is an extremely diverse and complex ecosystem, and when large areas are cut down, it takes hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of years before it is as rich in biodiversity as it was before hand. This is partly due to the fact that the poor rainforest soils are washed away by the tropical rain and partly because almost half of tropical precipitation is caused by water evaporating out of the rainforests themselves. When we disturb the natural cycles of a rainforest, such as these, we are running the risk of damaging this valuable resource and saying goodby to all of its benefits.

The Aztecs are a classic example of an ancient civilisation that fell because it thought it could control nature. They cleared an area of rainforest the size of Belize for food production, only to realise that it was a big mistake. After hundreds of years of exploiting the land around them, all the land near to their major city's was far to degraded for farming, so they had to begin to farm further and further outwards, clearing an ever larger area of rainforest as they went. Eventually their food supply was so far away that by the time it reached them it was rotton. Soon after the Spanish finished off this dying civiliasation.

If only the Aztecs had understood their environment better, this would never have happened. All they would have neaded to do was keap their population down, and practice the same form of sustainable shifting cultivation that their ancestors had thousands of years earlier. We have to start managing our environments better now, or we may very well go down the same path that the Aztecs went down. Our economy depends on our environment, and we have to find a balance between preserving the two.

All we have to do is keap our population down, and log and farm on a sustainable way. At the moment only point three of a percent of rainforests cut down are replanted. If we replanted these forests we would have massive economic benefits for the future, however people only think about the short term, and forget about the long term effects of what they are doing. If we do not do something now, such as setting up a sustrainable rotating logging and farming system for these tropical areas, we'll have to can say gooodby not only the forests, but the people who depend on them for survival, too.

While I'm on my soapbox, I think I'll blast Kyoto. While it's true that the US produces more carbon dioxide than any other country, other countries that produce significant amounts are exempt from the treaty. Countries like Denmark can sign the treaty without worrying because their country is much smaller. So basically the treaty is a big poke in the eye for the US. It's a way for world leaders to pat themselves on the back while not doing anything differently.
Kyoto is no exuse for the US to not reduce its greenhouse gas emmisions. The targets set by Kyoto are pethetic, and will not solve the global warming problm anyway. Not reducing greenhouse gas emmisions because of Kyoto is like - not eating any apples, when there are three for you to eat, just because somebody tells you to eat at least two of them. It is no exuse for the US and Australia not reducing their greenhouse gas emmissions.

Just because Denmark may not be trying, does not make it ok for the US to do the same thing. All countrys nead to do their own part, and if they are all pointing their fingers at someone alse and refusing to not do anything about the problem because they're not is not going to get the human race anywere. We have to reduce greenhouse gass emmissions, reguardless of wether or not we signe Kyoto. We either make small economic sacrifices now, or we suffer massive economic, social, humanitarian and environmental probelms leter.

[Another brick in the wall]

Hold on a second. First you said that it takes thousands of years for a rainforest to recover its biodiversity, then you say that the Aztecs civilization collapsed because it plowed down the rain forest. Care to guess where the ruins of the Aztec civillization are found? In...the...jungle. They grew back!

This is switching gears a little, but every year in the western US there are huge forest fires. If it takes so long for forests to grow back, and there have been forest fires since time immemorial, why are there still forests? There are actually more trees in the US now than there were 100 years ago because wood is no longer the main source of heat. Third world countries are suffering the worst deforestation because wood is the only source of heat available.

I think you grossly distorted history. the Aztecs were one of the most powerful empires at that time. Their civilization was decimated by disease and warfare, not famine.

Rising carbon dioxide levels might actually be good for plant life. My college biology professor works on the FACE project at Duke that's studying the effects of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Plants use an enzyme called Rubisco to make sugars. Oxygen competes with carbon dioxide for the active site which reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis. More carbon dioxide means plants will grow faster.

If we can't predict the weather more than 3 days ahead, how can we predict the world's climate decades from now?

[Philboid Studge]

If we can't predict the weather more than 3 days ahead, how can we predict the world's climate decades from now?
This is like asking, 'If we can't cure the common cold, how can we expect to cure cancer?' (Hint: Climate and weather are two different things.)

[Amazonis]

Hold on a second. First you said that it takes thousands of years for a rainforest to recover its biodiversity, then you say that the Aztecs civilization collapsed because it plowed down the rain forest. Care to guess where the ruins of the Aztec civillization are found? In...the...jungle. They grew back!
Every comment i made was true. The Aztecs did clear that rainforest, and that rainforest will take hundreds of thousands of years to fully recover from it. You are claiming that i am wrong because the rainforest has grown back, however you are putting words in my mouth because i never said that a rainforest took hundreds of thousands of years to grow back. I said that a rainforest takes hundreds of thousands of years before it is as fruitfull in biodiversity as it was before hand. There is a big diference between the two.

The rainforests that the Aztecs cleared has may have now grown back, however it will not be as biodiverse as it used to be for a long time yet. The diferences between a rainforest cleared five thousand years ago and rainforest millions of years old may not be visible to you and me, but a biologist specialising in tropical rainforests would be able to tell one from the other. This can be done primarily through observing the species of plants within the forest.

This is switching gears a little, but every year in the western US there are huge forest fires. If it takes so long for forests to grow back, and there have been forest fires since time immemorial, why are there still forests?
The fires that you are talking about are situated in temperate forests. These forests are very diferent to tropical rainforest - comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Fire is part of the natural cycle in a temperate forest, and some of them, such as the Australian Eucalypt forests, cannot survive without it. However tropical rainforests are destroyed by even small amounts of fire, because they have not been exposed to it for millions of years.

Now Climate Change is brining drought to many rainforests, and these forests are now extremely vulnerable to fires that have escaped from slash and burn farmers. Massive areas of rainforest, mainly in Asia and South America, have been destroyed by fire over the past ten years, and the figures are set to get much worse. In twenty years half of the Amazon basin will be at high risk from forest fires, and much of that is at extreme risk.

I think you grossly distorted history. The Aztecs were one of the most powerful empires at that time. Their civilization was decimated by disease and warfare, not famine.
The Aztecs were one of the most powerfull empires of their time at one stage, however by the time the Romans invaded they were already suffering from lack of food. I never said that the Aztecs died because of famine, just that lack of food have negative impacts on their health, which in turn had negative impacts on their economy and power. The Aztecs were a failing civilisation by the time the Romans invaded.

Rising carbon dioxide levels might actually be good for plant life. My college biology professor works on the FACE project at Duke that's studying the effects of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Plants use an enzyme called Rubisco to make sugars. Oxygen competes with carbon dioxide for the active site which reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis. More carbon dioxide means plants will grow faster.
More Carbon Dioxide may make plants grow faster, alas more carbon dioxide also comes at the cost of higher temperatures. Tropical areas are already suffering from the effects of climate change, such as a hotter wet season and a colder dry season, and both of these temperature extremes cause tropical foliage to wilt. If the foliage is damaged the leaf will contain less chlorophyl, so the plant will be getting less sunlight, and thus growing slower.

These probelms will cause a decline in biodiversity, as sensetive species die out. However the most drastic problem that climate change will have on rainforests is that of less rain, which wil cause massive declines in biodiversity along with a hugely increased risk of forest fires. I agree that plants probably grow faster with higher levels of carbon dioxide in a lab. However in the real world the situation is complicated by many diferent factors.

If we can't predict the weather more than 3 days ahead, how can we predict the world's climate decades from now?
Natural increases in carbon dioxide have caused the climate to rise in the past.
Why do you asume something diferent will happen this time round?

[Another brick in the wall]

The Aztecs were a failing civilisation by the time the Romans invaded.
The Romans never invaded South America. I don't know why you keep saying this. I think you mean the Spanish.

Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for the past 200 hundred years and at the same time, the average global temperature has increased. Does this mean that increased carbon dioxide levels are responsible for global warming? Not necessarily. Ice cream sales and violent crime both increase in the summer, but that doesn't mean that ice cream causes muggings. They're both the result of a third factor: heat. I'm not denying the possibility that human activity could alter the climate, but I don't think we should uncritically accept any assertion.

[Philboid Studge]

Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for the past 200 hundred years and at the same time, the average global temperature has increased. Does this mean that increased carbon dioxide levels are responsible for global warming? Not necessarily. Ice cream sales and violent crime both increase in the summer, but that doesn't mean that ice cream causes muggings. They're both the result of a third factor: heat. I'm not denying the possibility that human activity could alter the climate, but I don't think we should uncritically accept any assertion.
Brick, you're killing me. If you're not familiar with the basic science of climate change, I think you should trust the scientists. There are thousands of climate scientists from all over the world -- they come from many disciplines and political persuasions and are funded by governments, private organizations, or some combo. And there is a consensus: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

On the other side are a handful of 'skeptical' scientists (I count about six) who deny the high probability that humans are responsible for climate change. In every single case the skeptic is or was some sort of consultant/lobbyist for an industry group. By itself, those affiliations do not mean they are full of shit, but since you said you "don't think we should uncritically accept any assertion," I would apply my critical eye on the scientists -- particularly if I didn't understand the science.

[Another brick in the wall]

Hey, we can't have a debate unless someone takes up the other side. When I talk to my Gandpa, I debate the opposite case. He believes Rush Limbaugh to be a great American, so you can imagine the kind of conversations we've had.

[MrsMoe]

Not that I am an expert, but wasn't the climate warmer in the middle ages than it is now?

[Amazonis]

The Aztecs were a failing civilisation by the time the Romans invaded.
The Romans never invaded South America. I don't know why you keep saying this. I think you mean the Spanish.
Yes, a simple error on my part.

Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for the past 200 hundred years and at the same time, the average global temperature has increased. Does this mean that increased carbon dioxide levels are responsible for global warming? Not necessarily. Ice cream sales and violent crime both increase in the summer, but that doesn't mean that ice cream causes muggings. They're both the result of a third factor: heat. I'm not denying the possibility that human activity could alter the climate, but I don't think we should uncritically accept any assertion.
You must not understand the basics of climate change. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you trust the people who understand all there is to know about it - the scientists. The overwhelming majority of those specialising in the area agree that the current climate change is a direct result of human activity. Those who do not are almost always paid large amounts of money by oil and car companies (Mobil and Mitsibishi are often involved). The average wage of a scientist claiming global warming has nothing to do with humans is five times greater than that of one who accepts it is the result of humans.

I know that basics behind climate change, however if you wish to learn i suggest that you use the power of the mighty internet, for it knows more than me. However i must warn you that there are sites out there that spout absolute bullshit, and should not be taken for real. Many are the global warming equivilant to creationist webpages claiming to debunk evolution.

[ocmpoma]

"Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for the past 200 hundred years and at the same time, the average global temperature has increased. Does this mean that increased carbon dioxide levels are responsible for global warming? Not necessarily. Ice cream sales and violent crime both increase in the summer, but that doesn't mean that ice cream causes muggings. They're both the result of a third factor: heat."

The problem with this analogy is that it is known that CO2 causes temperature increases. The debate isn't over whether or not human activity contributes, it's over how much.

[Cap'n Awesome]

There are thousands of climate scientists from all over the world -- they come from many disciplines and political persuasions and are funded by governments, private organizations, or some combo. And there is a consensus: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Well, with scientists agreeing on such concrete terms as that. Humans must be causing global warming! Ignoring the fact that the globe has been naturally changing temperature on it's own for time immesurable. Hey, don't worry about enjoying your life by going places in a car, or taking grocery's home in ..Gasp.. plastic bags. No no, these are things to feel guilty about.

But seriously, I feel that the enviromentalist movement has some interesting parellels to christian 'morality' in that they tell you not to enjoy life, but to feel guilty about all the evil things you are doing.

Also I don't see any justification for forgiving any country one cent of debt. It won't help the people there, just make thier already incredibly wealthy elite richer, the same as pouring billions of dollars into Foriegn Aid for these countries. Also Amazonis, I'm curious as to how you feel the people in these poor countries are supposed to get out of poverty without 'explioting' (Aka using) the natural resources around them? Whether or not these countries should honor the debt that they accumulated will have no effect on thier deforesting processes, because whether or not they are in debt, they still want money.

[PissBoner]

More naive bullshit, as usual the real thrust of the argument is all about how evil we are to have a decent lifestyle and how the west is to blame poverty so lets all ante up global Welfare because the Africans are so beneath us they can live off our charity.

Live 8, what a joke, a bunch of people go to a free concert and claim that they are doing alot for poverty, total bullshit.

Debt relief is fine but it won't do anything about DICTATORS like Mugabe who are the real cause of Africa's poverty.

Interesing how there was no mention of this during Banana's head diatribe.

IF people really want poverty to be alleviated, heres what needs to be done, Agriculture subsidies need to be cut ( hear this french farmers ) , so that the first world stops dumping cheap subsidied produce on the 3rd world.

Secondly Liberal minded people can wake up and realize that their monies are going in the hands or dictators and their militias which keep africa poor and in constant wars. Until these dictators are out of there, nothing will change.

Fucking grow up and get a job

[Philboid Studge]

Well, with scientists agreeing on such concrete terms as that. Humans must be causing global warming! Ignoring the fact that the globe has been naturally changing temperature on it's own for time immesurable.
The IPCC's 1995 wording was luke-warm for a reason. It was the template for which governments would set policy (or not); they realized anything too strong would put off the squishier bureaucrats. The phrase 'balance of evidence' suggests the common-law standard of proof required in civil (as opposed to criminal) court; that is, not as high as 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

In 2001 the IPCC blostered their statement with "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Like me, the scientists on the IPCC's panel are all well aware of natural variation, and it is figured in with all climate models. If you're interested, some background is here. (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/)

Note that all of the studies used to compile this report were peer-reviewed. Bottom line: real climate scientists say humans are changing the climate.

You needn't feel 'guilty' for using a car, but you should feel stupid for using one to drive a block and a half to buy another bag of Cheetos.

People who 'enjoy' plastic bags scare me.

[PissBoner]

>> Also Amazonis, I'm curious as to how you feel the people in these poor countries are supposed to get out of poverty without 'explioting' (Aka using) the natural resources around them? Whether or not these countries should honor the debt that they accumulated will have no effect on thier deforesting processes, because whether or not they are in debt, they still want money.

Its worse then that, with their anti-development agenda the so-called environmentalist have already done incredible damage in this regard.

Development projects have been cancelled because Environmentalist have fought against dams and mines, keeping people poor.

Millions of people in Africa are affected by Malaria, but DDT is banned thanks to Western Environmental jerk-offs so as a result many hundreds of thousands of people die each year from Malaria. It is estimate Malaria costs Africa 2% of its GDP each year.

Do some research on this, dic heads like Assholenois are doing much to keep Africa down.

Spoiled suck ass western idiots

[Cap'n Awesome]

Haha, now I will never look at plastic bags the same way again. But my point was that enviromentalists continually try to make us feel guilty for convience or progress. The two groups that fight the hardest against progress in all of human history are enviromentalists and christians (Or to be fair, christians, jews and muslims)
If I want to drive a block to buy cheetos, why should I feel stupid, guilty, or anything else for the negligiable amount of enviromental damage caused. (Which by the way, I neither drive half a block, or eat cheetos, not because I'm concerned about the non-damage I will cause, but because I don't want to be a fat disgusting slob like, say, most people) Don't impose your morality on me.
Also I'm mildly curious as to why all the scientists sponsered by socialist states who agree with you are unbiased, yet anyone who dares voice dissent against man caused global warming is some corporate stooge. In fact in the preface of the IPCC report you sent me, it says flat out "An important aim of the TAR is to provide objective information on which to base climate change policies that will meet the Objective of the FCCC, expressed in Article 2, of stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. "
The goal of thier study was to achieve thier pre-set objective. Which miraculously seems to happen in any study where the organization sponsoring it has an objective.
Sorry if this doesn't exactly sound un-biased to me. Oh wait a second, no I'm not sorry.
Its worse then that, with their anti-development agenda the so-called environmentalist have already done incredible damage in this regard.

Development projects have been cancelled because Environmentalist have fought against dams and mines, keeping people poor.

Millions of people in Africa are affected by Malaria, but DDT is banned thanks to Western Environmental jerk-offs so as a result many hundreds of thousands of people die each year from Malaria. It is estimate Malaria costs Africa 2% of its GDP each year.
I think this deserves an Amen. Or, since we are atheists, a Fuck Yeah.

[Philboid Studge]

But my point was that enviromentalists continually try to make us feel guilty for convience or progress.
It's too bad that many environmentalists project this image of cheerless scold or worse, an enemy of progress. Certainly sound environmental practices should be a component of progress, not antithetical to it.

Also I'm mildly curious as to why all the scientists sponsered by socialist states who agree with you are unbiased, yet anyone who dares voice dissent against man caused global warming is some corporate stooge.
As was stated earlier in this thread, the thousands of scientists who contribute to the IPCC get their funding from an array of sources; the handful of skeptics get their funding from industry. FYI: Some of these very corporate stooges also contributed to the IPCC reports. They invited everybody, even critics, and some of that skepticism is reflected in the work.

In fact in the preface of the IPCC report you sent me, it says flat out "An important aim of the TAR is to provide objective information on which to base climate change policies that will meet the Objective of the FCCC, expressed in Article 2, of stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. "
Yes, by the time the TAR was written, it was no longer a matter of debate whether human activity had an effect on the climate, it was (and is) only a matter of how much. But keep reading. The more you learn about the basic science and subsequent policy (or lack thereof), the more likely it is you'll evolve into a progress-hating environmentalist.

[ocmpoma]

Some say that's progress / I say that's cruel
The main goal of any economic and environmental policiy (yes, the two should go hand in hand) should be sustainability.

[Cap'n Awesome]

The fact that it was no longer a debate whether or not humans are causing enviromental change just says to me that they have moved past trying to collect facts (if they ever were) and are moving on to trying to push an agenda on me. The fact is that the enviroment and Co2 levels have been changing naturally for millions of years with no help from man. I found this graph to help you understand a little, you can take a wild guess which part I added on my own. http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/Envirograph.JPG

Of course with people such as Christine Stewert, the Minister of The Enviroment of Canada making statements such as this to the Calgary Herald "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Agenda involved with the Climate change scare? Just maybe.

The fact that thousands of scientists contributed to the report doesn't impress me, when you consider the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who are still waiting for more data before voicing an opinon, as they rightly should. And you are making a huge misnomer in saying that there are a handful of skeptics. What there are are a handful of people who are willing to outright say that man is not causing global warming. That is far diffrent from a skeptic, who would be someone undecided on the issue, waiting for more research and data. This is something that has only been researched for a couple of decades. When dealing with something as large as global climate change, we don't have all the answers, and to say that we do, on either the side of for or against the theory that man is causing climate change, says that you are trying to push an agenda on someone. If you are interested in looking at a website with a diffrent view then yours click Here (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)

[Philboid Studge]

Hey Cap'n, There are eight references cited on your webpage. Here're the top three:

1. Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. -- Baliunas, an astrophysicist, is often used by Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert. Her principal contribution to the debate is her theory that sunspots cause climate change, not carbon dioxide. She has written extensively for the George C. Marshall Institute (which used to restrict its funding sources to private foundations to avoid conflict of interest, but in the 1990s -- when it began 'thinking' about climate change -- GMI began tapping industry for financial support. Their first industry grant was from Exxon.) Baliunas also worked with the Global Climate Coalition, a special interest group of coal, oil and utility companies, set up to lobby against international action on climate change.

2. Dr. Patrick Michaels -- Michaels publishes the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Michaels has acknowledged he receives funding from the German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric Institute, Cyprus Minerals Company and others. His early "research" on climate change was funded by Western Fuels Association (on top of the World Climate Review salary). Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. (I met this guy at a conference. Smart as hell, and with an obvious axe to grind.)

3. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen -- Lindzen was actually a member of the IPCC. He basically says climate science is 'inconclusive' on whether human activity is responsible for climate change. There was a time when Lindzen made $ 2500/ day as a consultant for oil and coal interests. Travel to DC to testify before the Senate was paid for by Western Fuels. Some of his work has been underwritten by OPEC.

I'd keep vetting your sources for you but it's tiring. After years of writing about climate change policy, I've learned that wherever there is a skeptic, you don't have to dig too deep to find industry bucks. Does that, by itself, make their statements false? No. But it sure makes them suspicious.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Well the Cato institute, now I have to like the guy.

I would say that there are people on both sides of the debate who have alternative movtives and are pushing agendas. Do you somehow think that being in the employ of a socialist country like Sweden makes you less biased then someone in the employ of Exxon? Hell no, they are both biased. The main diffrence between you and I on the issue is that I trust Corporations more then I trust Socialist governments. Wow, shocking to say I know, but I can control corporations by how I choose to spend my money, while I get no say over Governments trying to use this issue to limit Capitalism and limit Free Trade. Issues which I take quite seriously.
As you said yourself, there is a large disagreement even amoung those scientists who agree that man is causing climate change, as to the extent. Hence the weak language that one will continually see in statements until more Data is gather on the subject, at which point I might put my support behind more enviromental regulations, when it becomes a threat, rather then a burdern to Free Markets.
Anyway, I thank you for reading my sources and for the lively, civil and entertaining debate. I also assure you that I will read the IPCC report in it's entirety.

[Philboid Studge]

Thanks Cap'n. It's a rare treat to have one of these discussions without resorting to inflammatory attack -- a practice I am often guilty of myself. You're right: there is plenty of disagreement on the details, and there are certainly axes being ground on both sides.

Two things: It isn't only socialist govenments who are pushing for emissions limits!

And, in my view it's probably too late to do anything about climate change. (It seems very unlikely that we will appreciably decrease CO2 emissions.) We should start preparing for it. Man the lifeboats!

I'll revisit the webpage you cited again later -- it's not really fair to only attack the sources based on their affiliations. As I said before, that alone doesn't make them wrong.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Well what can I say, I must be a civil fellow when someone isn't telling me to go to hell. And for the record, I don't agree universally with every statement made on that website. My main beef is when enviromentalist try to force thier morality on me, or use it as a political piece to try to push a whole diffrent agenda.

Although I guess I also hate enviromentalists who drive SUV's.

[ocmpoma]

Couple of questions for ya, Cap'n, after this short disclaimer:

I don't like big government any more (or less) than I like big business. Large groups of people foster bureaucracy, stagnation, and general stupidity. However, it's not governments or businesses that I distrust, it's people. I do think that human activity is adding to climate change, but am entirely unsure as to how much. Honestly, it's not at the top of my list of interests or pet peeves.



1. Why, do you think, would a socialist government seek to limit emissions; that is, what do the people in the government have to gain by spinning science to make it seem that emissions need limiting?
2. Why do you think that a government bureaucrat is less trustworthy than a corporate bureaucrat?
3. Why do you think that large multinational corporations, or more specifically, the owner-operators at the top of such entities care more about public opinion than an official of a socialist government?
4. Would you trust a capitalist tyranny more than a socialist republic?


Of course, Phil would probably also like to think about these questions, albeit with the roles reversed. Although I think just about anyone can see what a corporation has to gain by spinning science against climate change.

[Amazonis]

Well, with scientists agreeing on such concrete terms as that. Humans must be causing global warming! Ignoring the fact that the globe has been naturally changing temperature on it's own for time immesurable.
These scientists already know that the earths climate has been changing naturally for bilions of years, so stating that fact is pointless. While the earths climate does change naturaly, it does not change as quickly as it has been changing over the past fifty years. The graph that you provided gives a false impression of climate change due to the fact that it's readings are one/two thousand years apart. This fails to show that for the past few hundred years, that graph should be rising vertically. Take a look at this graph here (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/klliihis100.htm).As you can see, the green line at the very end is rising right up, with hardly any horizontal movemen. It is quite clear that this is not part of the natural cycle.

It is obvious that humans are causing global warming because we already know the effects of C02 on global temperature from studying prehistoric climates. We know what amount of CO2 causes what amount of climate change, and so on and so on. We also know what amount of CO2 we have released into the apmosphere over the past few hundred years, so we therefore know how much our C02 has contributed to climate change. The conclusion is that we have caused the majority of global warmin over the past few hundred years, and nearly all of it in the past fifty years.

No matter how many times you remind us that the climate has changed naturally, we will not back down. We have heard it a million times. We are past that. We have come to the next step. We are trying to figure out how much we have effected the climate, and your still back in the dark ages with your hands over your ears claiming is isn't happening.

But seriously, I feel that the enviromentalist movement has some interesting parellels to christian 'morality' in that they tell you not to enjoy life, but to feel guilty about all the evil things you are doing.
When was the last time an environmentalist told you not to enjoy life? Never, thats when. They probably told you to make a few changes in your life so you would create less problems to the environment and human kind. It is rather diferent to telling you not to enjoy life. I find you are the ones paralleling christians, in the way you are ignoring science. You are ignoring global warming in the same way they are ignoring evolution.

Also Amazonis, I'm curious as to how you feel the people in these poor countries are supposed to get out of poverty without 'explioting' (Aka using) the natural resources around them? Whether or not these countries should honor the debt that they accumulated will have no effect on thier deforesting processes, because whether or not they are in debt, they still want money.
No, using and exploiting are two very diferent things. Exploiting a natural resource meens that you are using it in an unsustainable manner, so that there will be none left for future generations to use. If you are exploiting a natural resource you will cause more damage to the economy than good in the long run, wheres if you use it in a sustainable way it will benefit the economy not only in the short term, but in the long term as well. I gave an example of this in my firt post, and i will repeat it. Only 0.3 percent of rainforests cut down are replanted.

Abolishing debt WILL have an effect on their deforestation rates, and i provided the reasons for this in my first post as well. Maybe you should go and take a read of it, and come back when you understand what i am talking about.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Sorry Amazonis but your link didn't work, if you could resubmit it I'll be able to better respond to your query.
As for these lovely little ditties. No matter how many times you remind us that the climate has changed naturally, we will not back down. We have heard it a million times. We are past that.
Why are you past that? Could you give a reason why you dismiss the scientists that disagree with you, other then you don't like how much they are payed, or that the people who pay them don't have the same agenda that the people who pay your scientists have? Funny thing, for someone who claims I am ignoring science, you sure spend alot of time ignoring any science that disagrees with you and attacking the source. We know what amount of CO2 causes what amount of climate change, and so on and so on. We also know what amount of CO2 we have released into the apmosphere over the past few hundred years, so we therefore know how much our C02 has contributed to climate change. The conclusion is that we have caused the majority of global warmin over the past few hundred years, and nearly all of it in the past fifty years.
I'd be interested in a source. I'm willing to read any source and consider the argument. But to state that we know exactly how much we've contributed to global warming (If anything) when the best that people can come up with is the wishy washy statement "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Discernible? That could mean.....oh yeah...anything.
Your conclusion is that we have caused the majority of global warming over the last few hundred years, don't make it sound like it's the only one.

Now, on to the fun part.

How in Zeus's name can you possibly say that enviromentalists aren't trying to tell me how to live my life. Sure I've never had one come up to me and dirrectly say "You there, stop with the fun!" But I've never had a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or other Religious Idiot say that to me either. Then they turn around and tell me, but don't eat beef, go get circumsized and the missionary position is the least immoral (but still immoral) of all sexual positions. Likewise enviromentalists say "Don't use this product, don't use that hairspray, no no no, that condom company supports the death of the spotted eel frog, and buy this car, or you are an evil pollutant-loving who probably voted for Bush and bashes baby-seals on the head with a club, and be a vegan! Heaven help you if you eat the wrong bannana, because that would make you evil, be bannana aware!" Sound familar? And digging through my posts, although it seems from some of the assumptions you are making about me, that you haven't read them at all, is there any point where I ignored the other persons science? No, in fact I respectful read (and am reading them) commented on the parts which I had critisism, and acknowledged there were some legitimate points in some other parts. The same that Philboid did. Rather diffrent then putting your hands over your ears and getting up on your moral elitist soap box and telling me I'm bad for not putting research into what bannana I'm eating.

I gave an example of this in my firt post, and i will repeat it. Only 0.3 percent of rainforests cut down are replanted
Don't you think maybe there is a reason for this? Like the dictators and warlords who now don't have to pay thier debts thanks to Socialist Europeans and thier Pathetic Spineless American counterparts, they don't give a damn about the rainforest of Congo. You think forgiving debts is going to what? Give these assholes a new found love for the enviroment? These are people who kill thier own citizens in pointless civil wars. We should have never loaned them money in the first place, governments have no right to loan or give anyone my money. If I want to help an African Warlord buy more bullets I'll send him a check. If we would stop giving these people massive amounts of aid, maybe they would wake up and go "Oh shit, we better start taking care of our resources" As for understanding your first post, you said yourself because the debt is gone doesn't mean the government will all-of-a-sudden be environmentally aware, however it will certainly help in the future as the countries develope better environment practices. Almost the same thing I just said, except that you follow it up with a completely unsupported statement which you don't even attempt to give a reason as to why forgiving someone the debt they incured is going to magically make them develop better enviromental practices.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Hey Ocmpoma, how ya doing today?

1. Why, do you think, would a socialist government seek to limit emissions; that is, what do the people in the government have to gain by spinning science to make it seem that emissions need limiting?
Easy, they want to spread thier own ideals around the world, the same as communists did, the same as capitalists do and did. Mind you, these are not meant to be sweeping statements about all enviromentalists or enviromental scientists by any means. Mostly about the people who use (Exploit) those people for thier own purposes. There are governments in the world that want to limit free-trade, capitalism, they see it as a dangerous, or evil system. By trying to create some universal set of enviromental ethics (Kyoto) It would essentually destroy many bussinesses abilities function in a free trade international market. They say 'we need to limit emissions' but what results is the limiting of the productivity behind the emissions. Obviously when technology is not caught up to enviromental standards which are arbitrarily set to limit heavily producing countries (Aka, the US) the only way to meet those enviromental standards is to lower production. I have no problem with limiting pollution, but wait for technology to catch up before deciding that your governments have the power to decide which businesses, on which thousands and thousands of people stake thier livelyhood, are allowed to prosper and which aren't. As in, the state controlling businesses and thier productivity, as in socialism. If we can't get voted in, lets scam our way in. All shielded in the cloak of enviromentalism.

2. Why do you think that a government bureaucrat is less trustworthy than a corporate bureaucrat?
I'm not sure that there are that many corporate Bureaucrats. A corporation doesn't want alot of bureaucrats, because they are expensive and don't do much. A government does want alot of them, because they are expensive and don't do much, which melds pretty well with government.

3. Why do you think that large multinational corporations, or more specifically, the owner-operators at the top of such entities care more about public opinion than an official of a socialist government?
Easy answer to this one, the multinational corporations want my money, and they want to work for it, and give me something in exchange, and I can choose not to give them my money if I don't like their product (Or company practices) While a socialist government wants my money, wants me to work to give it to them, and then gives it to someone else, and I can't choose whether or not I want to give it to them. It would seem to me, the choice between the two is pretty easy.

Which on a side note, want to do something about pollution? Here's an idea, find out what companies pollute the most, and don't buy stuff from them. A free market means you get to control it with your dollar, a socialist market means the government gets to control it and you have no say.

4. Would you trust a capitalist tyranny more than a socialist republic?
I'm not sure there are capitalist tyrannies, at least not in the sense that I think of when I think of capitalism (which would leave far too little government to be tyrannical over anyone) I guess I need a little clarification on this question. But if we were talking about a Capitalist Country that trampled all over peoples social liberties, but allowed for a free market vs. a Socialist country which trampled over your economic freedom, but left all your social liberties in tact. It would be a tough choice between two shitbag choices. Again, I think I need more clarification on this question.

[Philboid Studge]

Of course, Phil would probably also like to think about these questions, albeit with the roles reversed. Although I think just about anyone can see what a corporation has to gain by spinning science against climate change.
Of course, Phil has thought about these questions. His answers as follows (although he didn't reverse roles, as it made his head hurt):

1. Why, do you think, would a socialist government seek to limit emissions; that is, what do the people in the government have to gain by spinning science to make it seem that emissions need limiting?

A socialist goverment would want to redistribute wealth, and this is an excellent way to do it. The Kyoto Protocol asks only industrialized nations to reduce their emissions, while developing countries are free to emit -- in fact, sky's the limit! (Disclaimer: Phil understands why the KP is set up this way; he's just answering the question as if socialist govts had ulterior motives. Some may.)

2. Why do you think that a government bureaucrat is less trustworthy than a corporate bureaucrat?

Phil doesn't think that. Or the reverse of that.

3. Why do you think that large multinational corporations, or more specifically, the owner-operators at the top of such entities care more about public opinion than an official of a socialist government?

Two words: ka-ching!

4. Would you trust a capitalist tyranny more than a socialist republic?

No.

[Philboid Studge]

Obviously when technology is not caught up to enviromental standards which are arbitrarily set to limit heavily producing countries (Aka, the US) the only way to meet those enviromental standards is to lower production.
Ahoy there, Cap'n! As a matter of fact, there are many, many (http://www.pointcarbon.com/article.php?articleID=2569&categoryID=364) ways to reduce emissions without lowering production, and you don't have to wait for new technology to do it. It is, after all, in no one's interest to slow economic growth.

P,S. Don't eat beef! Go get circumcised!

[ocmpoma]

1) I see both answers to this question as sufficient to place the actions of socialist governments in doubt (which is where they were already, along with every other government).

2) Cap'n's question left me puzzled. Have we been dealing with the same kinds of corporations in our lives? Cap'n - pick a large company, preferably an international one, and call their help line.

3) Cap'n - why don't you have a say in a socialist government? And for both respondents - again, why are large companies more worried about what their actions will make people think of them than socialist governments are. A consumer can choose not to buy, a citizen can choose not to vote, or to revolt.

4) A country's economic system may be related to, but is not dependent upon, its governmental system. Thus, you can have a capitalist country which is highly tyrannical, controlling its citizenry through force and terror, with a dictator whose whim is law, but also letting them run a business however they want. You can also have a socialist county which is a republic with free elections, oversight, etc. I get the feeling from your posts that you would prefer a capitalist tyranny, and that you somehow equate capitalism (or economic freedom) with other types of freedom.

[Viole]

I have a question, Cap'n.

In free market economics, clearly a well-educated consumer is necessary for anything like a functioning system. Otherwise, one ends up with absolute corporate control, which is a semi-fascism. So shouldn't you be praising the environmentalists as well-informed individuals? Yes, they tell you what bananas to buy, but that's just they trying to inform and educate people, in order to send a message through decreased profits to companies that practice poor environmentalism? They're trying to use the invisible hand of capitalism--consumer spending. Sure, they're trying to use government regulation at the same time, but if the market were functioning properly, they wouldn't need to.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Wow I feel all popular. In free market economics, clearly a well-educated consumer is necessary for anything like a functioning system. Otherwise, one ends up with absolute corporate control, which is a semi-fascism. So shouldn't you be praising the environmentalists as well-informed individuals? Yes, they tell you what bananas to buy, but that's just they trying to inform and educate people, in order to send a message through decreased profits to companies that practice poor environmentalism? They're trying to use the invisible hand of capitalism--consumer spending. Sure, they're trying to use government regulation at the same time, but if the market were functioning properly, they wouldn't need to.
I absolutely agree on most of your points. A well informed consumer is neccesary so we control corporations, and not the other way around. However, people don't want to go through all the effort of being well informed, they are stupid and lazy, so rather then support the companies they support they continue to elect shitty governments that try to control corporations.

Yes, they tell you what bananas to buy, but that's just they trying to inform and educate people, in order to send a message through decreased profits to companies that practice poor environmentalism?
See if that was what they were actually doing, then I would have absoultely no problem with it. In fact I would support many such movements. But they regularly cross the line from trying to inform, to being moral elitist assholes who are trying to lay a guilt trip on me. The ironic thing is, because of my natural conservatism, I drive a more economical car, walk more, don't eat meat, waste very little of anything. I do far less damage personally to the enviroment then elitist preachy assholes who drive off-road vechiles to thier greenpeace rallies.

[Cap'n Awesome]

1) I see both answers to this question as sufficient to place the actions of socialist governments in doubt (which is where they were already, along with every other government).
Agreed
2) Cap'n's question left me puzzled. Have we been dealing with the same kinds of corporations in our lives? Cap'n - pick a large company, preferably an international one, and call their help line.
That's because help line people aren't bureaucrats, just people too stupid or lazy to get a better job. That's why they aren't helpful. Another big diffrence between them would be, I don't have to pay for the Corporate bureaucrat, where as I'm forced to pay for the government one.
3) Cap'n - why don't you have a say in a socialist government? And for both respondents - again, why are large companies more worried about what their actions will make people think of them than socialist governments are. A consumer can choose not to buy, a citizen can choose not to vote, or to revolt.
Well I assume if I had any say in them, they wouldn't be socialist, now would they? Let me put my previous answer another way. Both socialist governments, and large corporations need alot of money to operate. Corporations want to work for your money, and give you something, therefore if we disapprove, they die. A socialist government (Some of which have dictators and all of which have armies) just takes (Aka taxes) your money, and throws you in jail if you don't give it to them. If I don't like it? Well I'm shit out of luck, because they are still going to take my money anyway. Sure I can revolt and possibly die, or vote for capitalist governments meanwhile I'd still be in jail for what I belive in (Not paying taxes.) While stupid lazy people continue to vote for these awful governments. Now why don't they care about my opinion again? Because I have no control over them, over thier armies, over thier jails, over thier laws, I just have to pay for them. I think, given the immense power they have over my life, they care less. When have you ever heard of a corporation throwing someone in jail?
4) A country's economic system may be related to, but is not dependent upon, its governmental system. Thus, you can have a capitalist country which is highly tyrannical, controlling its citizenry through force and terror, with a dictator whose whim is law, but also letting them run a business however they want. You can also have a socialist county which is a republic with free elections, oversight, etc. I get the feeling from your posts that you would prefer a capitalist tyranny, and that you somehow equate capitalism (or economic freedom) with other types of freedom.
Well, I don't think that type of capitalist country is very likely to happen, an ultra-controling dictator isn't exactly going to allow businesses to do whatever they want, because undoubtably some would not support him. Dictators have always seized other people's property, that is why dictatorships go hand and hand with socialist and communist party platforms. Ture there are socialist republics, but most of them aren't exactly big on allowing social freedoms anyway. Ask yourself, in how many socialist countries are you allowed to own a gun? Only two come to mind right away, Norway and Switzerland (Where you have to own a gun) No they limit social freedoms and individuality along with economic freedoms in an attempt to make life better for everyone. Which it doesn't, it just makes life better for the stupid, lazy and politicians. Also I absolutely relate economic freedom with other types of freedom. That way I can spend my money in whatever way I see fit, in order to make my life better for me As long as those rights weren't impeded on, I would choose the capitalist tyranny, if they were, well it wouldn't be capitalist as I see it, and I would choose the socialist republic and spend all my energy trying to vote in a capitalist government.

[ocmpoma]

2) I'm pretty sure now we haven't been dealing with the same corporations.
3) All governments take your money (taxation) - if they didn't they wouldn't have a revenue source. This includes capitalist governments (even 'pure' capitalist governments would need to tax people, otherwise they would have no budget). And I think that one person's impact on a government is equal to one person's impact on a corporation. After all, if you are rotting away in jail, you don't pay taxes, since you don't have an income. As for corporations throwing people in jail - yes, I have heard of such a thing.
4) Sufficiently answered. I would like to point out that while I feel that more freedom in one area is usually related to more freedom in the other areas, I do not feel that socialism automatically breeds tyranny. Human greed breeds tyranny and it is as likely to arise no matter what the economic or governmental system implemented, all other things being equal.

[Viole]

There's more than one way to impact the environment, Cap'n. Not that I know any environmentalists who drive SUVs(some drive trucks, but they have a purpose and get used for it). I do know a few anti-war protesters who drive SUVs, which strikes me as odd.

As you've said yourself, Americans don't pay any attention to the corporation, beyond which makes a cheaper, better product(and often just cheaper). They also don't pay any attention to the politicians. Who in their right minds would vote for George W. Bush? I'm convinced just as few would vote for John Kerry. I'm not sure they'd vote for Nader or Badnarik either, but either one is likely a hell of a lot better than the two main candidates--are you getting my point here? I'm not convinced people would pay enough attention to corporations for your system to work, even if we abolished government regulation.

Moving on, are you familiar with the three classic types of argument? Ethos, Pathos, and Logos? You should know that logos(logic; facts) is the worst way to make an argument. Cheap emotional shots(Ethos) are far more effective. In other words, the best way for environmentalists to sway people is to make them feel empathy for the animals, or guilt over a damaged environment. Unless of course, they can make a lifestyle argument, and somehow attach a healthy environment and non-eaten animals to the American Dream.

[Cap'n Awesome]

2) I pretty sure now we haven't been dealing with the same corporations.
Must not have been, either that or we take a diffrent view when confronted with the same situation.

3) All governments take your money (taxation) - if they didn't they wouldn't have a revenue source. This includes capitalist governments (even 'pure' capitalist governments would need to tax people, otherwise they would have no budget). And I think that one person's impact on a government is equal to one person's impact on a corporation. After all, if you are rotting away in jail, you don't pay taxes, since you don't have an income. As for corporations throwing people in jail - yes, I have heard of such a thing.
Not all governments take your money, in early American days there was no income tax, in fact it was illegal until the late 1800's They payed for everything through trade tariffs. Governments can make money without taxes on it's citizens, through a trade surplus and tariffs. You are just so used to the idea (As is everyone) that government needs to have this collosal budget to pay for social security, public education, grants for people to go to college, other peoples health problems, welfare, prison luxuries for murderers, etc etc etc etc. Essentually all of these are just the government saying that you are too stupid to know how to spend or save your money (Which is true in alot of peoples cases) or the redistrubution of wealth and all that shit is here in the great evil capitalist United States. Pure Capitalist my ass, such a thing doesn't exist anymore, and it gets worse every year, with this new breed of republican, the compassionate conservative. Here's a hint for anyone who votes in republican primaries, Compassionate Conservative= Liberal. I know this will probably come to a shock to all you Bush haters, he's not a hardcore conservative, he's acctually a moderate on social issues, and he and this so called 'republican' congress are very liberal (more then Clinton and the democrats, much to my malign) when it comes to spending and the redistribution of wealth. Sorry to turn what was supposed to be a simple answer into an angry rant...but...ya know.

4) Sufficiently answered. I would like to point out that while I feel that more freedom in one area is usually related to more freedom in the other areas, I do not feel that socialism automatically breeds tyranny. Human greed breeds tyranny and it is as likely to arise no matter what the economic or governmental system implemented, all other things being equal.
I agree with you that they are related, but it's hardly 100% accurate. There are certainly decent socialist countries, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Canada (Quasi-socialist) all come to mind. I personally wouldn't want to live in them, and I don't want them sprending thier values to other people, (Which I think they try to do with devoloping nations, but then again, I can't fault too much, because so does the US. The only diffrence is I agree with capitalism spreading and not with socialism spreading as a personal perferance)

Human greed breeds tyranny and it is as likely to arise no matter what the economic or governmental system implemented, all other things being equal

This I would have to disagree with, greed is a very underrated emotion. How do you think you got all the stuff you have? Because someone was greedy and thought, 'If I invent this, I can make an assload of money' Why did Eli Whitney make the cotton gin? Because he wanted to help out all the people who had to go through the painful and labor intensive process of picking cotton by hand? Hell no, because he thought, "This is something I can sell, and make money off of." Greed. Now, it is true that greed can breed Tyranny, but mostly when people try to take what isn't there's on a large scale, mostly with the help of governments that have too much power in the first place. Why work when you have an army to take stuff that isn't yours? So regular greed and selfishness, I view as positive emotions, unless the person tries to take what they want rather than earn what they want.

[Cap'n Awesome]

There's more than one way to impact the environment, Cap'n. Not that I know any environmentalists who drive SUVs(some drive trucks, but they have a purpose and get used for it). I do know a few anti-war protesters who drive SUVs, which strikes me as odd.
No Blood for oil!! Now honey lets burn off 10 gallons of gas on our drive home. People are dumb all over I guess.
As you've said yourself, Americans don't pay any attention to the corporation, beyond which makes a cheaper, better product(and often just cheaper). They also don't pay any attention to the politicians. Who in their right minds would vote for George W. Bush? I'm convinced just as few would vote for John Kerry. I'm not sure they'd vote for Nader or Badnarik either, but either one is likely a hell of a lot better than the two main candidates--are you getting my point here? I'm not convinced people would pay enough attention to corporations for your system to work, even if we abolished government regulation.
You make a good point here. People are awfully stupid. That's why the 1 or 2% of us that aren't should use capitalism to get ahead, make mounds of money and then influence stuff the way we want it to go. That's what I plan to do, if by the time that happens my government hasn't moved so far away from capitalism to allow me to. But I agree with you again, people will probably never be aware enough to control thier lives, or the government. I just want the government to give me enough freedom to control my own life.

Moving on, are you familiar with the three classic types of argument? Ethos, Pathos, and Logos? You should know that logos(logic; facts) is the worst way to make an argument. Cheap emotional shots(Ethos) are far more effective. In other words, the best way for environmentalists to sway people is to make them feel empathy for the animals, or guilt over a damaged environment. Unless of course, they can make a lifestyle argument, and somehow attach a healthy environment and non-eaten animals to the American Dream.
I'm only vaugely familar with the terms, but I'm very familar with the tactic. You show a giant mushroom cloud and go "Barry Goldwater is BAD!" rather then trying to make actual arguements as to why you don't like something, or why you do like something. It is one of the things I see the most in politics, the media, etc, and similtaniously the thing I hate the most, because I absolutely across the boards, refuse to be guilted into anything. It doesn't make me guilty to see a dying baby seal in an oil spill. It makes me angry that someone would try to manipulate my emotions. On a side note, the other thing I really really hate and see all the time is false analogies. People are eating more bananas, and people are getting more cancer, so bananas must cause cancer! I can't belive the idiots who suck this shit up day in and day out. But then again, most Americans can't name the prime minister of Canada, or locate the Indian Ocean, so what do you expect.


Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. - Frank Zappa

[TheSnake]

You make a good point here. People are awfully stupid. That's why the 1 or 2% of us that aren't should use capitalism to get ahead, make mounds of money and then influence stuff the way we want it to go.
Do not forget that rich people aren't necessarily smart, especially if they've inherited their wealth. And it takes a certain kind of person to be able to accumulate a lot of wealth in the present kind of economy, where money comes to those who have it or those who can con it from others.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be Bill Gates or Donald Trump. I can think of better ways of spending my time than worrying about how to invest my money. I wouldn't want to give power to those people who are interrested in money for moneys sake.

[Viole]

"No Blood for oil!! Now honey lets burn off 10 gallons of gas on our drive home. People are dumb all over I guess."

Not all that stupid or hypocritical, when you consider it's perfectly possible to buy oil. Which, as a capitalist country, we should be doing, no? And then, of course, our society would collapse if we suddenly stopped using oil. There just isn't another viable energy source available, and as much as Bush trumpets hydrogen fuel cells, they're like a battery; you've got to put energy in, before you take any out.

"That's why the 1 or 2% of us that aren't should use capitalism to get ahead, make mounds of money and then influence stuff the way we want it to go."

Corporate control of government, which I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy with at that point, is rather reminiscent of fascism. Corporate control of 'stupid people' results in no regulation at all, if they aren't smarter and better informed than you think. Also, I might point out, inheritance make the game biased towards the children of the rich(even if you don't give them money, you'll certainly get them the best education). The fact that Bush had such a long career in the business world is evidence of this; he's obviously too stupid to run a corporation, since he ran several of them into the ground for--what else--personal profit.

So I have to disagree. Greed isn't overrated. Besides, you can't base an every-expanding system on limited resources.

[TheSnake]

Cap'n: Even if your views were correct, it's worth concidering would you like to live in a society where you'd be on the top, with all the 'stupid' people on the bottom. I think I'm a lot smarter that most people I know, but they're still my friend and my family. I wouldn't want them to be worse off than me, simply because they're not as intelligent as I.

[Amazonis]

No matter how many times you remind us that the climate has changed naturally, we will not back down. We have heard it a million times. We are past that.
Why are you past that? Could you give a reason why you dismiss the scientists that disagree with you, other then you don't like how much they are payed, or that the people who pay them don't have the same agenda that the people who pay your scientists have? Funny thing, for someone who claims I am ignoring science, you sure spend alot of time ignoring any science that disagrees with you and attacking the source.
I do read infomation from scientists who do not think that we have contributed to clobal warming every now and then, however they always seam to ignore the current issue, and back up their claims with faulty arguments, such as stating over and over again the fact that the earths climate changes naturally over time. This is an irralivant argument, because the scientists who do beleive that the current global warming is caused by humans already understand this fact, and it does not disprove their position.

It just seams to me that the mainstream scientists usually win the debates with the sceptics, and after that the sceptics still continue to use the same warn out arguments over and over again when they have already being proven faulty by geological and environmental records. And while it does not disprove their argument, he fact that they are paid by corporations that contribute to global warming further dilutes the credibility of their argument.

Despite all of this i still keep an eye out for any good infomation coming from this side of the argument. I do not ignore their view, however it is true that i do not give the sceptics the same level of attention as i do to those who hold the more popular view that we are contibuting to global warming. This is not because i have my head in the sand, it's simply because there are far more who agree with this than there are sceptics.

Over ninty percent of scientists agree with human induced climate change, so ninty percent of my attention is devoted to them. Less than five percent of scientists don't agree, so i devote less than five percent of my attention to them. Sound fair enouph to me:)

We know what amount of CO2 causes what amount of climate change, and so on and so on. We also know what amount of CO2 we have released into the apmosphere over the past few hundred years, so we therefore know how much our C02 has contributed to climate change. The conclusion is that we have caused the majority of global warmin over the past few hundred years, and nearly all of it in the past fifty years.
I'd be interested in a source. I'm willing to read any source and consider the argument. But to state that we know exactly how much we've contributed to global warming (If anything) when the best that people can come up with is the wishy washy statement "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Discernible? That could mean ..... oh yeah ... anything.
I never said we knew exactly how much we had contributed to climate change, and admit i should have included a few 'approximately's in that post, just like you should not have included that 'if anything' in your post. We know that greenhouse gasses make the earth warmer, and im sure you agree on that, right? We also know that we have put more of those gasses into the apmosphere over the past few hundred years, agreed? So if we have put those gasses into the apmosphere then they would have to have some effect on the earths climate. The question now is: how much have they changed the climate?

How in Zeus's name can you possibly say that enviromentalists aren't trying to tell me how to live my life. Sure I've never had one come up to me and dirrectly say "You there, stop with the fun!" But I've never had a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or other Religious Idiot say that to me either. Then they turn around and tell me, but don't eat beef, go get circumsized and the missionary position is the least immoral (but still immoral) of all sexual positions. Likewise enviromentalists say "Don't use this product, don't use that hairspray, no no no, that condom company supports the death of the spotted eel frog, and buy this car, or you are an evil pollutant-loving who probably voted for Bush and bashes baby-seals on the head with a club, and be a vegan! Heaven help you if you eat the wrong bannana, because that would make you evil, be bannana aware!" Sound familar?
They are most just likely asking you if you could make a few changes to your life to help the environment, quite diferent to telling you not to have any fun. At the end of the day all they can do is ask, since they have no ultimate control over you and the lifestyle you wish to live, so why get so heated up about it? Maybe your using of resources is having a greater impact on their life than their complaining is having on your life. They might want their children to be able to take their grand-children to see a coral reef in fifty years time. Many environmentalist are so passionate about the environment that they can be forceful in their views.

I think you should listen to what they have to say, because you may find some of the things they want you to change the environment will have little or no effect on your quality of life. Do you really care so much about your appearance that you simply cannot go without your toxic hair care products? Are you really that horny that you can't buy another brand of condoms? Will your life come to an end if you were to eat - god forbid - an apple instead of a banana!?

Honestly, the things that they ask you to do would be worth the mild inconveniance, in exchange for a healthy environment.

I gave an example of this in my firt post, and i will repeat it. Only 0.3 percent of rainforests cut down are replanted
Don't you think maybe there is a reason for this? Like the dictators and warlords who now don't have to pay thier debts thanks to Socialist Europeans and thier Pathetic Spineless American counterparts, they don't give a damn about the rainforest of Congo. You think forgiving debts is going to what? Give these assholes a new found love for the enviroment? These are people who kill thier own citizens in pointless civil wars. We should have never loaned them money in the first place, governments have no right to loan or give anyone my money. If I want to help an African Warlord buy more bullets I'll send him a check. If we would stop giving these people massive amounts of aid, maybe they would wake up and go "Oh shit, we better start taking care of our resources"
You are talking about countries that ARE NOT getting the deb releif in the first place. Governments with extremly bad corruption and human rights records must clean up their act before they are even eligable for the debt releif. I doubt this will ever happen, so it looks like all your rants about warlords are rather WORTHLESS in this situation, so i see no nead to make a comment to them. :rolleyes: Oh, and by the way, you are complaining about the warlords killing their own people with pointless civil wars, and then you go on to say that we should buy more bullets to fight them off with. A little hypocritical don't you think? Anyway, we can't get rid of these people by using violence, because their will always be another bastard to take their place as king prick :(

As for understanding your first post, you said yourself because the debt is gone doesn't mean the government will all-of-a-sudden be environmentally aware, however it will certainly help in the future as the countries develope better environment practices. Almost the same thing I just said, except that you follow it up with a completely unsupported statement which you don't even attempt to give a reason as to why forgiving someone the debt they incured is going to magically make them develop better enviromental practices.
I did give reasons, the two main ones being these.
(Bear in mind that i am not talking about countries run my corrupt dictators, i am talking about more developed countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.)

1) Poor countries are desperate to pay off their debt so they can begin to develope without that extra preasure. To do this they will use up their natural resources at an unsustainable rate (in other words exploit them) in the hope of catching up with their debt. The Brazilian government even lists debt as one of the reasons they must increase logging and farming in the amazon rainforest. If they admit it, we cannot ignore it. The desperation of many of these countries has resulted in a bidding war between them and the corporations wishing to exploit their resources. In other words, the country that will charge the LEAST for a logging or farming contract will be the one to get it. Therefore the international corporations are getting the money, not the governments.

2) Once a country has developed people will have less children, and overpopulation will no longer be as bigger an issue. At the moment overpopulation causes many governments to relocate starving people from city slums to rainforest land, that they will have no choice but to clear and farm. So the practice of shifting cultivation begins. These people will continue to be relocated until overpopulation stops, and abolishing debt will have a massive effect on this.

[ocmpoma]

"Not all governments take your money, in early American days there was no income tax, in fact it was illegal until the late 1800's They payed for everything through trade tariffs."
Oh, of course. Trade tariffs don't take money from anyone.
"Pure Capitalist my ass, such a thing doesn't exist anymore..."
Never said it did. In fact, I don't believe it ever has (or could) - do you have an example of a purely capitalist government from history?
"So regular greed and selfishness, I view as positive emotions, unless the person tries to take what they want rather than earn what they want."
Greed is defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed) as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth" - key word being excessive. It's not the 'more than one needs' that makes it greed, it's the 'excessive'. Wanting a really nice car to drive around in is not greed - wanting a really nice car for each day of the week ("No, no, the Lamborghini is only for Thursdays. I drive the Ferrari on Mondays...").

[Amazonis]

Greed is defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed) as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth" - key word being excessive. It's not the 'more than one needs' that makes it greed, it's the 'excessive'. Wanting a really nice car to drive around in is not greed - wanting a really nice car for each day of the week ("No, no, the Lamborghini is only for Thursdays. I drive the Ferrari on Mondays...").
But excessive can meen diferent things to diferent people. A person starving in Africa may view someone eating more than once a day excessive, however we would view it as a necessity.

[ocmpoma]

Obviously 'excessive' is a subjective term, and one man's greed is another man's justifiable desire - I was just saying that admiring greed doesn't really make sense, since it is defined as a negative concept. If one person calls someone's behavior greedy, someone else who admies that behavior doesn't think it's greedy.

[Cap'n Awesome]

The idea of greed as a negative only exists in our culture because of 'Christian Morality' anyway. One of the Seven deadly sins and all that bunk. The Desire to have more stuff then you have isn't a negative. How do you think all of the inventions got made? Thomas Edison's inventions today are worth over 300 billion dollars. They also provide people with light, and contributed inestimitable good to our lives. Did he do it for the love of people? No, he did it because he wanted to live in excess. Was he evil? Think again.

[Philboid Studge]

Ahoy there, Cap'n!

I agree that many excellent benefits can result from the greedy motives of others. But you must admit that just as many horrible things happen because of greed. Witness: a company that dumps its toxic waste wherever it likes, to the detriment of the people who live there; corrupt despots who make all their decisions based on what's-in-it-for-me?; wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent people because the invading army has an insatiable thirst for oil ...

[Cap'n Awesome]

Oh absolutely agree that greed can be bad. As in the examples you gave. But when people say greed and selfishness are bad or evil emotions, it is just the result of two thousand years of people telling you what your morality is. There is a huge diffrence which I hope I made clear before, between being greedy and willing to innovate or work for what you want, and just taking it. (Esspecially with the help of government, armies etc.)

[Cap'n Awesome]

Wanting a really nice car to drive around in is not greed - wanting a really nice car for each day of the week ("No, no, the Lamborghini is only for Thursdays. I drive the Ferrari on Mondays...").
I don't see anything wrong with wanting one car for everyday of the week. It's silly maybe, but to somehow link it it with being immoral is rediculous. If someone has worked hard enough in thier life (and yes, for the vast majority of cases that is how the super rich gain wealth, through hard work) then they are entitled to have a monday Ferrari if they want one.

[Philboid Studge]

There is a huge diffrence which I hope I made clear before, between being greedy and willing to innovate or work for what you want, and just taking it.
Agreed. Although the greed is the same in both cases, it's the action that makes it 'good' or 'bad.' And I have no problem with owning one car for every day of the week -- as you can only drive one at a time ...

[Cap'n Awesome]

Corporate control of government, which I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy with at that point, is rather reminiscent of fascism. Corporate control of 'stupid people' results in no regulation at all, if they aren't smarter and better informed than you think. Also, I might point out, inheritance make the game biased towards the children of the rich(even if you don't give them money, you'll certainly get them the best education). The fact that Bush had such a long career in the business world is evidence of this; he's obviously too stupid to run a corporation, since he ran several of them into the ground for--what else--personal profit.
I think you are confused on facism. Facism is state control over people's personal social liberties. The state can do whatever they want with you. According to the political scientists who put together The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) Hitler was to the left, economically of Bush, along with Paul Martin, Jaque Chirac, Tony Blair and just about every other modern first world leader. And I'm not advocating corporate control, just personal responsibility. We should leave corporations alone and let people be responsible for thier own lives. As for Bush.... he ran his bussinesses into the ground because he is no good at bussiness. He didn't make a dime off of running them into the ground, in fact he lost millions of dollars doing it. It seems pretty simple to me, if he could have run them successfully, he would have. I'm afraid him (and every other leader up for election recently) are doing the same thing by expanding the welfare state we have in this country and running up our deficit to insane amounts.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Honestly, the things that they ask you to do would be worth the mild inconveniance, in exchange for a healthy environment.
Like I said my life personally causes very little waste or enviormental damage because of my natural conservatism. But it isn't the mild inconvience, it's that I am being told I am Immoral if I don't follow steps A, B and C. It would also be a mild inconvience to convert to Christianity, Islam or Judism in order to have a cleaner soul. Am I going to? No. Plus it isn't a 'mild inconvience' for the people and families who rely on the Bannana industry for thier well being, if everyone were to eat apples instead.

Oh, and by the way, you are complaining about the warlords killing their own people with pointless civil wars, and then you go on to say that we should buy more bullets to fight them off with. A little hypocritical don't you think? Anyway, we can't get rid of these people by using violence, because their will always be another bastard to take their place as king prick
You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm saying we shouldn't be sending these countries any more money, because they spend it on bullets. I don't want to fight them off, I don't think we should have anything to do with them. Maybe for a change we should let people solve thier own problems.

(Bear in mind that i am not talking about countries run my corrupt dictators, i am talking about more developed countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.)
Now the countries that you are talking about are not getting debt relief. Neither Brazil nor Indonesia are on the List of Debt Relief countries. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/12/MNG9QD7CI31.DTL)

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Are the countries that are being propossed for debt relief by G8.

Nine countries are likely to qualify soon: Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Sao Tome and Sierra Leone.

Eleven countries are participating in the initiative and could qualify eventually: Burundi, Central African Republic, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Laos, Liberia, Burma, Somalia, Sudan and Togo.

Might want to do a little research there before trying to make a point. By the way I've taken the liberty of putting those countries that have a current civil war or rebellion occuring in them in bold and those that are controlled by one party states, dictatorships, or warlords in itallics. All info credited to the 2005 CIA World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)

Could it be that these countries might just spend the money on something other then rebuilding thier enviroment? Tell me again how debt relief will help the Brazillian Rainforest.

2) Once a country has developed people will have less children, and overpopulation will no longer be as bigger an issue. At the moment overpopulation causes many governments to relocate starving people from city slums to rainforest land, that they will have no choice but to clear and farm. So the practice of shifting cultivation begins. These people will continue to be relocated until overpopulation stops, and abolishing debt will have a massive effect on this.
I agree that these countries need to devolop, but it is up to them to do it. Telling a country what they aren't allowed to do with thier own resources isn't going to help, and neither is debt relief or the giant amounts of aid that these countries depend upon to keep thier wars going and keep thier governments in power against rebellions.

[Viole]

I think you are confused on facism. Facism is state control over people's personal social liberties. The state can do whatever they want with you. According to the political scientists who put together The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) Hitler was to the left, economically of Bush, along with Paul Martin, Jaque Chirac, Tony Blair and just about every other modern first world leader. And I'm not advocating corporate control, just personal responsibility. We should leave corporations alone and let people be responsible for thier own lives. As for Bush.... he ran his bussinesses into the ground because he is no good at bussiness. He didn't make a dime off of running them into the ground, in fact he lost millions of dollars doing it. It seems pretty simple to me, if he could have run them successfully, he would have. I'm afraid him (and every other leader up for election recently) are doing the same thing by expanding the welfare state we have in this country and running up our deficit to insane amounts.
No, I'm certainly not confusing fascism. In my experience, the Political Compass is extremely inaccurate about their use of terminology. Fascism, you may recall, began with Mussolini, an extreme anti-communist. Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism).

In fascism, corporations have close ties to government, which leads to business setting the economic agenda of the government. Hitler's social programs are something of an aberration, until you consider that the rise of communism was a potent threat in post-Wold War I Germany. Hence, the Nazi, or National Socialist, Party. It's a sort of pretend socialism.

If I recall, you suggested earlier that the richest few percent should set the agenda for everyone else("influence stuff the way we want it to go"). That is, of course, corporate control. What you actually want, though libertarian capitalism, is for people to influence the way things go through use of informed use of their money.

You're perfectly free to believe Bush lost money in his business career if you like, as I doubt any information I find will come from a sufficiently neutral source to convince anyone. However, look at Bush's close friends and allies in the business community, such as Ken Lay, who also drove companies into the ground. You'll find that most of them escaped with their fortunes intact, or even increased.

[ocmpoma]

"The idea of greed as a negative only exists in our culture because of 'Christian Morality' anyway. One of the Seven deadly sins and all that bunk. The Desire to have more stuff then you have isn't a negative."
Like I said above - greed is defined as a negative. If you don't think that someone's acquisitious desires are bad, then they aren't greed in your opinion. Just as murder is defined as illegal or unjust killing - if it isn't illegal (or unjust, depending on context), it isn't murder.
I think the car example fits admiriably - for me, no amount of hard-earned cash justifies the desire for a Monday ferrari. But that's just me. I consider everyone who ones a Hummer, for example, to be greedy (not to mention probably stupid - I worked with enough HMMWVs in my day to never, ever want to own one). But again, that's me. You don't see that as greed, just silliness. Which is fine. We just have different parameters for what constitutes greed.

By the way, I'm still interested in any examples of a true capitalist government.

[Cap'n Awesome]

By the way, I'm still interested in any examples of a true capitalist government.
I would agree that there isn't one today, not that I know of. I know that the Early United States certainly leaned far more that way then it does today, income tax being illegal, and government programs and control being very limited, but I concede that I do not have enough knowledge of political history to say if there is or has been one. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be one though.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism).
A little confused on this, if democracy goes hand and hand with socialism, what happens if the people vote out the socialist governments? It would seem to me that democracy doesn't neccesarily universally support any economic system.

What you actually want, though libertarian capitalism, is for people to influence the way things go through use of informed use of their money.
Correct.

You're perfectly free to believe Bush lost money in his business career if you like, as I doubt any information I find will come from a sufficiently neutral source to convince anyone. However, look at Bush's close friends and allies in the business community, such as Ken Lay, who also drove companies into the ground. You'll find that most of them escaped with their fortunes intact, or even increased.
I've heard this before, and it just doesn't make sense. You seem to be suggesting that Bush wanted to fail at bussiness to make more money? Wouldn't he make more money if he succeeded at bussiness. It would seem to me that Ken Lay would be infinately better off if Enron had been a profitable company. Isn't this just common sense?

[Viole]

"Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism)."

If you reread the above several times, you might realize I claimed democracy is necessary for socialism. Which means, if you don't have democracy, you don't really have socialism. It does not mean that socialism is necessary for democracy.

As for Bush, let's say his company is going broke, right? Now, Bush has a choice of actions. He can pour personal assets in, and hope for the best. He can try to save the company of resources it has. Lastly, he can suck the company dry of every penny he can, and profit before it goes entire bankrupt. We know that Lay, and many other executives at Enron, received rather large bonuses shortly before the company collapsed, and sold their stock in the company.

So, yes. If they can keep their company going, they're likely to make a lot more money. If they can't--why wouldn't they take everything they can get?

[Rhinoqulous]

Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism).
A little confused on this, if democracy goes hand and hand with socialism, what happens if the people vote out the socialist governments? It would seem to me that democracy doesn't neccesarily universally support any economic system.
Don't confuse the direction of the necessity relationship. Democracy is a necessity for Socialism, but Socialism is not necessary for Democracy.

Rhinoq

[Cap'n Awesome]

Don't confuse the direction of the necessity relationship. Democracy is a necessity for Socialism, but Socialism is not necessary for Democracy
If you reread the above several times, you might realize I claimed democracy is necessary for socialism. Which means, if you don't have democracy, you don't really have socialism. It does not mean that socialism is necessary for democracy.
I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm. Which is fine, but certainly Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao would have disagreed with your definition.

Also I never meant to imply that you were saying socialism is neccesary for democracy. That would be stupid, no economic system is neccesary for democracy, because democracy can vote in or out leadership that supports any economic system, so democracy doesn't go with socialism the same way it doesn't go with capitalism or anything else. You are just trying to use it to make the economic system you favor look some how holier then an alternative. Also can you provide the quote where Marx claims democracy is neccesary for socialism?

[ocmpoma]

"...I concede that I do not have enough knowledge of political history to say if there is or has been one. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be one though."
Agreed, although I am more interested, personally, in the political system than in the economic system.

"I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm."
Socialism is a very, very broad term. You have dictionary.com's definition:Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
As well as it's definition of socialism as defined by Marxism-Leninism (which is what was going on in the USSR, of course):The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
You also have Wikkpedia's article[url]on it, which states thatSocialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.
And also lists the different branches of socialism, complete with a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Socialismchart.png]chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism). All this means that, yes, different people have different ideas of what socialism means - for many capitalists (as well as Marxist-Leninists), socialism's definition includes some sort of totalitarian regime, which is unfortunate, as the two do not go hand in hand.

[Viole]

Motivations are a murky business at best. Stalin, of course, wanted power. Lenin, though it's hard to say, truly wanted to create communism, but actively suppressed the opposition parties, laying the path for Stalin upon his death. As communist parties around the world took their marching orders from the Kremlin, until the collapse of the USSR, Stalinist bureaucracy was their main export. Castro distrusted the Kremlin after the Cuban Missile crisis, which helps explain why Cuba managed to survive the last fifteen years.

As for why I claim Marx supported democratic government as necessary to the revolution, I found it rather obvious. How's this, though;

"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.(Communist Manifesto, p. 20)” Followed by; “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest[...] all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the [proletariat state].”

Leon Trotsky, in The Principals of Democracy and the Proletarian Dictatorship, makes it even more clear;
“[F]or the working class it is always expedient, in the long run, to preserve the essential elements of the democratic order.”

As a bonus, here's a quote from Vladamir Ilyich Lenin; in Chapter 5, Section 4 of State and Revolution, he writes, “So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.” Sounds awfully similar to the libertarian's claim, doesn't it?

[Rhinoqulous]

Don't confuse the direction of the necessity relationship. Democracy is a necessity for Socialism, but Socialism is not necessary for Democracy
If you reread the above several times, you might realize I claimed democracy is necessary for socialism. Which means, if you don't have democracy, you don't really have socialism. It does not mean that socialism is necessary for democracy.
I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm. Which is fine, but certainly Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao would have disagreed with your definition.
How about a quote from the CPUSA's (http://www.cpusa.org/) website?

What will be the goals of our socialist society?

A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

Rhinoq

[Amazonis]

Plus it isn't a 'mild inconvience' for the people and families who rely on the Banana industry for thier well being, if everyone were to eat apples instead.
And it's also an extreme inconveniance for native tribes when the forest they rely on for survival is cut down and replaced with banana plantations. What are they going to do then, when the place they had spent their entire lives has been destroyed? They will either starve to death of die of desease, if they are not shot by farmers for eating their bananas.

The people who work at the banana plantations will not have their jobs for long anyway. The average banana plantation will only last for five or so years, and after that the workers will be left behind, as the company moves on to find more land and people to exploit. People will not stop eating bananas, however it would be good if they were to eat a few less of them, and a few more apples.

Now the countries that you are talking about are not getting debt relief. Neither Brazil nor Indonesia are on the list.
I never said that Brazil and Indonesia were getting debt releif, i said they should be.


Could it be that these countries might just spend the money on something other then rebuilding thier enviroment?Tell me again how debt relief will help the Brazillian Rainforest.
How many bloody times must i tell you the same thing!???
How about you read what i have already written?