it's useless to worry about global warming (for the time being), rant #1230120

[jverne]

yes it is, we have much bigger problems than some poor glaciers melting

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/is-there-a-natu.html

The UN Environment Program estimates that there are 46,000 pieces of plastic litter in every square mile of ocean, and a swirling vortex of trash twice the size of Texas has spawned in the North Pacific.

lastic bags, once icons of customer convenience, cost more than 1.6 billion barrels of oil per year and leave the environment to foot the bill. Each year the world produces 500 billion bags, and they take up to 1,000 years to decompose. They take up space in landfills, litter our streets and parks, pollute the oceans and kill the wildlife that eat them.

yes the great garbage patch is known, but more data is slowly coming out in the open.


i seriously couldn't give a **** about global warming right now, although i believe in it.
global warming is partially just a consequence of our trashy lifestyle.

 

[NeptuneUK]

We know what we need to do about the garbage problem .....

I forgot what... but I got some figures a year or so ago and calculated how long it would take for the earth to heat up by 1C at its current rate of warming.
Needless to say, I'm more worried about cholestrol.......


NB - I don't care about cholestrol no.

Also (accuracy of figure i would have used is debatable but I used a global warming alarmist source, they weren't bragging about it, they don't want everyone to know that it's more politically motivated than scientific).
Not to say that it's not happening, it is!
Anyone care to do some better snooping? Throw some numbers around!

Take a good look at that graph and note how the temperature NATURALLY FLUCTUATES anyway. Yeah, CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas and humans are putting a lot of it into the atmosphere.
Note how it has been A LOT warmer than it was now, and no historian has said anything about the ice caps melting and killing all human life in the warmer periods.
Scientists were alarmed at the RATE of change of global temperature.... But no one takes any notice of logic! Who needs rational thought when we can choose to not think for ourselves and jump to hasty conclusions!
Hasty, politically healthy, financially motivated decisions..... (For the fear mongering advocates)

Anyone care to remember the GLOBAL COOLING (oh no we're all gunna freeze AND DIE!) fiasco several decades ago? Thought not.




Edit: Even though I'm posting ever so slightly off topic, can it be humbly requested that this does not begin a 'is global warming real' debate!?!?


right now.... THE EARTH IS GETTING WARMER -FACT. No arguement from me!

The alarmists will tell you that whoever is skeptical about the danger of global warming doesnt beleive in global warming and therefore they ignore SCIENCE! Hence they can pretend to have a higher ground by twisting statistics and data (coupled with alarmist theories and pseudoscience for good measure!!)
Failing that, upon encountering a sound undeniable arguement they fall back on the 'you are not qualified to judge global warming'
Is anyone? These 'global warming scientist' types RELY on the idea that global warming is a real and imminent threat FOR THE SAKE OF FUNDING AND THEIR JOBS!!! Of course they are wanting to tell you how we are gunna die unless we give them money for research!

 

[Beerdude26]

Oh, this is why I try to emphasize global warming to everyone I know, so they realize their actions have an effect on this planet, if they like it or not. Even if global warming turns out to be completely fake, people will have at least realized they're littering and polluting the shit out of it, making a lot of people ill.

 

[Eejit]

Edit: Even though I'm posting ever so slightly off topic, can it be humbly requested that this does not begin a 'is global warming real' debate!?!?

Ever so slightly? Edit all that out of your post or I'll have to counter your arguments rather than leave them unchallenged, we all know what that will lead to.

On topic: So basically jverne you would support the viewpoint of "hey I have a gut wound but I'll ignore that completely because I also have a leg wound"?

 

[jverne]

Ever so slightly? Edit all that out of your post or I'll have to counter your arguments rather than leave them unchallenged, we all know what that will lead to.

On topic: So basically jverne you would support the viewpoint of "hey I have a gut wound but I'll ignore that completely because I also have a leg wound"?

well if i understood you right, no that's not the case.

i already mentioned that global warming is a consequence of our lifestyles. change that and things will automatically fix themselves.

amongst a million things you can do to stop polluting the crap out of this world is try to not buy so many things you don't need. and rather spend a bit more on something of quality than buy cheap shit that lasts 70% less than proper quality things. you'll actually thank yourself in the long run.

there are literally a million things you can do that would actually have an observable impact on you and your surrounding.

for instance ride a bicycle if you are able and in a city that has the proper "infrastructure".
as a student i can't believe what a huge improvement happened when i ditched public/personal transport for a bicycle. i can arrive at any point in the city from 30 to 70% times faster than walking/bus or car. parking space problems are nonexistent with bicycles. i save money that goes otherwise in bus tickets (but you have to have a backup for rainy days). i was never in a better physical (during the uni years) that i am now.

don't get me wrong i'm not boasting about how eko friendly i am. frankly the decision for a bicycle was made for all the other reasons than environment protection.
seriously, get one if you have the possibility and if it is feasible for your area. it's a win win situation.

i'm sure there are many ways out there to keep the pollution down and still retain the comfort or even heighten it. just be less lazy


edit: i forgot to mention in the bicycle thing, how more flexible you are in daily tasks (no, buying a refrigerator is not a daily task). i notice that i get home much sooner than going trough all that traffic. a normal task that used to last 1 hour, i can now do it in 30min. seriously what's not to like about it?!?!

 

[repiV]

edit: i forgot to mention in the bicycle thing, how more flexible you are in daily tasks (no, buying a refrigerator is not a daily task). i notice that i get home much sooner than going trough all that traffic. a normal task that used to last 1 hour, i can now do it in 30min. seriously what's not to like about it?!?!

I can think of a few things...

In hot weather, you'll turn up at your destination soaked in sweat, and in bad weather you have to wrap up so warm that it's pretty difficult to actually ride the bike.

You can't really carry anything.

It's dangerous, you're completely at the mercy of other people on the road and you have absolutely no protection in the event of an accident.

Going by motorbike is even quicker, you can use it 12 months of the year, you don't need a shower afterwards and you can carry substantially more stuff. And you're much less vulnerable.


I used to cycle everywhere too...but let's not delude ourselves, it's no replacement for motorised transport. And health, parking and financial considerations aside, I can't really see any advantage it offers over motorcycling.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

As ToasterChizzleForizzle said already, why prioritize potential world-ending issues? Taking steps towards reversing BOTH processes will help us as a society, one way or another.

 

[repiV]

As ToasterChizzleForizzle said already, why prioritize potential world-ending issues? Taking steps towards reversing BOTH processes will help us as a society, one way or another.

Not if those steps destroy the economy.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, it'll be a right laugh if the issues themselves were to destroy the economy.

EDIT: I realise you were responding to the idea that we 'might as well' take the measures, making my response a bit silly, but I simply meant to point out that for the vast majority of those who advocate such measures the reasoning is "if we don't, we're royally screwed" rather than "hahahaha gaia ascendant". Toaster's logic, while cute, is surely not needed because I don't think it's really disputable anymore that humankind is having an effect on the phenomenon.Almost every time I've seen someone argue that our industry is irrelevant to the process, both on and off this forum, they've either been successfully counterpwned or been revealed to be majorly misleading and/or concealing the truth (eg the Channel 4 'Great Global Warming Scam' show).

 

[jverne]

I can think of a few things...

In hot weather, you'll turn up at your destination soaked in sweat, and in bad weather you have to wrap up so warm that it's pretty difficult to actually ride the bike.

You can't really carry anything.

It's dangerous, you're completely at the mercy of other people on the road and you have absolutely no protection in the event of an accident.

Going by motorbike is even quicker, you can use it 12 months of the year, you don't need a shower afterwards and you can carry substantially more stuff. And you're much less vulnerable.


I used to cycle everywhere too...but let's not delude ourselves, it's no replacement for motorised transport. And health, parking and financial considerations aside, I can't really see any advantage it offers over motorcycling.

yes i also wanted to mention that. a motorcycle is probably the next best thing. it has many common things with human powered bicycles.
getting a "smaller" efficient, quality motorbike is not a bad idea. just remember these words...efficient and quality.
a friend had an aprilia fuel injection 2 stroke scooter, he probably went a week or two without refueling, those things are damn efficient. and hey it's a 2 stroke!
but for me...a bicycle wins since it does the tasks well enough.

basically they both are much better than cars. but of course cars are a must for heavy transportation needs. but suck big time for daily tasks.


i wouldn't be so sure that a more eco friendly industry and lifestyle would destroy the economy.


edit: actually i it wouldn't be a bad idea if the government would give benefits to people who would choose the less polluting and economical stuff.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Plus, with motorbikes, if you want to give someone a ride they have to nuzzle up to you and put their arms round your waist.

This is sexy.

 

[jverne]

Plus, with motorbikes, if you want to give someone a ride they have to nuzzle up to you and put their arms round your waist.

This is sexy.

see...it's a win win situation :thumbs:

 

[Kadayi]

Why don't they have some pictures of this? Surely if it's there it can't be that hard to send a green peace boat or some such out there to film it or something? Visible evidence rather than words will do a lot more to get the message across.

 

[NeptuneUK]

My name is toaster chan and I can't/refuse to read

Global warming is a real issue. In fact, please point out where I said I didn't believe global warming was happening.... Oh wait, were you to actually read the post you would have noticed the opposite was stated.
But we are not all going to die because of it, and the polar ice caps are not going to rapidly melt and kill off human civilisation.... That is illogical.
Our children and grandchildren may have a problem, but this is not the immediate and life threatening issue that some fear mongering morons claim it to be.

Why don't they have some pictures of this? Surely if it's there it can't be that hard to send a green peace boat or some such out there to film it or something? Visible evidence rather than words will do a lot more to get the message across.

They have already tried decieving people this way. It's not their fault, the general public will believe anything they are told if they want to (people love believeing shit news)
There are videos of chunks of ice from the ice caps melting and falling off.... What they will fail to tell you is that the ice caps melt and reform all the time depending on the time of year.

THERE ARE PEOPLE TELLING TALES OF IMPENDING FLOODS AND DOOM!!!!!!

How is this possible if the sea level goes up by **** all a year (due to global warming, that exists by the way, only a moron would say that the earth's climate stays constant)
At the current rate we would have an IMMEDIATE CATASROPHE in about... 200 years.. See the contradiction to what the fear mongers are telling us? This is of course assuming that the temperature of the earth would constantly rise, which is bullshit. Look at the evidence. It has been much warmer before humans even began adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Are we here now? Yes. Did the polar ice caps melt? No.

The alarmist propaganda comes from some stupid statement saying how if the ice caps were to completely melt the sea level would rise by 60m!!!!!

How the **** would the ice caps completely melt so quickly as to cause an unresolvable catasrophe????



The worst greenhouse gas is methane, not CO2 (which is relatively weak) So why are the governments wanting to add extra tax to cars and not cows? Oh yeah... you cant get money out of cows.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Ok you are forgiven.

Humans produce greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases increase global temperature.

'nuff said.

I am arguing that people are too quick to beleive that we have some uncontrollable catastrophe heading our way thats ALL OUR FAULT!!! Oh no!

This is bullshit. I was stating how the earth's temperature has been MUCH higher than it is right now.... and NOTHING HAPPENED!?!?

This appears to be the topic at hand, not a debate on whether global warming is happening. Global fluctuations in temperature happen all the time anyway.
We are discussing that the human race is going to have much more real, important problems than an imagined global warming scenario where the ice caps melt all at once and we run out of land...................... etc etc








Edit: some of are trying to be scientist dudes! Some of us are even going to college and shit!

lulz

 

[NeptuneUK]

Hahaha yeah I am against people saying unfounded claims like this.

I don't even have a 'carbon footprint' why do I have to listen to this shit every time I see the use.

 

[repiV]

Well, it'll be a right laugh if the issues themselves were to destroy the economy.

EDIT: I realise you were responding to the idea that we 'might as well' take the measures, making my response a bit silly, but I simply meant to point out that for the vast majority of those who advocate such measures the reasoning is "if we don't, we're royally screwed" rather than "hahahaha gaia ascendant". Toaster's logic, while cute, is surely not needed because I don't think it's really disputable anymore that humankind is having an effect on the phenomenon.Almost every time I've seen someone argue that our industry is irrelevant to the process, both on and off this forum, they've either been successfully counterpwned or been revealed to be majorly misleading and/or concealing the truth (eg the Channel 4 'Great Global Warming Scam' show).

Green taxes and eco-loonies are destroying the economy right here, right now. It's not even hypothetical. Nor is it logical. Environmentalism is nothing more than an insiduous religion used as a tool to advance a socialist/authoritarian agenda. "Saving the planet" can be and is being used as a justification for everything from expanding monitoring and control of people's everyday lives, to taking away freedom, mobility and independence and daylight robbery in the form of fuel taxes, which harms everyone because the price of fuel determines the price of everything and the cost of doing anything.

yes i also wanted to mention that. a motorcycle is probably the next best thing. it has many common things with human powered bicycles.
getting a "smaller" efficient, quality motorbike is not a bad idea. just remember these words...efficient and quality.
a friend had an aprilia fuel injection 2 stroke scooter, he probably went a week or two without refueling, those things are damn efficient. and hey it's a 2 stroke!

Yep, they sip fuel. 2 stroke scooters, however, are not in the slightest bit eco-friendly. They're the only thing on the road more polluting than a big old diesel bus. I'm not sure about this Aprilia fuel injected thingy you mention, though.
Big bikes have similar fuel economy to average cars (35-45mpg), so comparitively awful at face value, but when you consider that they have the same or better performance than Lambos, Zondas etc. then it all makes sense. They're definitely not the cheap option though, it's considerably cheaper to run a small car than a big bike. They need new tyres every 5000 miles or so (230 quid a pair) and a full service every 4000 miles. Not to mention the cost of decent quality riding gear (absolute minimum of two full sets to cover all seasons, running into the thousands of pounds) which often needs replacing every couple of years, and of course inevitable repairs from slips and falls. Expensive business. It's also much more important to keep on top of maintenance because any mechanical defect on a bike can be instantly fatal, and the systems are much more primitive (chains etc).

but for me...a bicycle wins since it does the tasks well enough.

basically they both are much better than cars. but of course cars are a must for heavy transportation needs. but suck big time for daily tasks.

Yeah, but you have to consider the convinience, comfort and safety that a car offers. These are the things that people value most in modern Western society. On bikes you get cold and wet (cold on a motorbike in the winter is like no kind of cold you've ever experienced before...), the gear you have to wear on a motorbike can be a right pain in the arse, especially in winter, they're just generally a whole lot more effort than jumping in the car, and it's even worse on a bicycle - you have to shower and change at the other end. It's not too bad if you're going to work, you have a routine in place but if you're just going to the pub or something the car starts to make more sense.
Also, no two ways about it - bikes are dangerous.
I only know one person who has ridden motorbikes for any length of time and hasn't suffered multiple serious injuries as a result, and bicycles are only half as dangerous per mile travelled. Personally, and nothing scientific, I would say that commuting by bicycle is more dangerous than commuting by motorbike because you're less visible, less protected, have no power to accelerate out of trouble and you have to ride in the gutter. Plus, most cyclists don't know WTF they're doing whereas you have to pass a test to ride a motorbike. I fell off my pushbike on a weekly basis because noone taught me how to ride one...I've fallen off my motorbike twice in 20,000 miles. One of those times I suffered no injury at all, but if I was on a pushbike I'd have been in a world of hurt because I would have been wearing a t-shirt. Would not want to go sliding down the road at 40mph dressed as such.

i wouldn't be so sure that a more eco friendly industry and lifestyle would destroy the economy.

edit: actually i it wouldn't be a bad idea if the government would give benefits to people who would choose the less polluting and economical stuff.

Yet more government meddling in our everyday business and redistribution of wealth. Wonderful. Can't you just be as green as you want and leave everyone else to make their own choices? Ain't democracy great?

Plus, with motorbikes, if you want to give someone a ride they have to nuzzle up to you and put their arms round your waist.

This is sexy.

Only if it's a woman.

 

[kineaesth]

We're going to die in five years because of you dicks with your motorcycles and your ridiculous carbon footprints. So f*ck you.

I'm typing this on a hand cranked computer.

 

[jverne]

Green taxes and eco-loonies are destroying the economy right here, right now. It's not even hypothetical. Nor is it logical. Environmentalism is nothing more than an insiduous religion used as a tool to advance a socialist/authoritarian agenda. "Saving the planet" can be and is being used as a justification for everything from expanding monitoring and control of people's everyday lives, to taking away freedom, mobility and independence and daylight robbery in the form of fuel taxes, which harms everyone because the price of fuel determines the price of everything and the cost of doing anything.



Yep, they sip fuel. 2 stroke scooters, however, are not in the slightest bit eco-friendly. They're the only thing on the road more polluting than a big old diesel bus. I'm not sure about this Aprilia fuel injected thingy you mention, though.
Big bikes have similar fuel economy to average cars (35-45mpg), so comparitively awful at face value, but when you consider that they have the same or better performance than Lambos, Zondas etc. then it all makes sense. They're definitely not the cheap option though, it's considerably cheaper to run a small car than a big bike. They need new tyres every 5000 miles or so (230 quid a pair) and a full service every 4000 miles. Not to mention the cost of decent quality riding gear (absolute minimum of two full sets to cover all seasons, running into the thousands of pounds) which often needs replacing every couple of years, and of course inevitable repairs from slips and falls. Expensive business. It's also much more important to keep on top of maintenance because any mechanical defect on a bike can be instantly fatal, and the systems are much more primitive (chains etc).



Yeah, but you have to consider the convinience, comfort and safety that a car offers. These are the things that people value most in modern Western society. On bikes you get cold and wet (cold on a motorbike in the winter is like no kind of cold you've ever experienced before...), the gear you have to wear on a motorbike can be a right pain in the arse, especially in winter, they're just generally a whole lot more effort than jumping in the car, and it's even worse on a bicycle - you have to shower and change at the other end. It's not too bad if you're going to work, you have a routine in place but if you're just going to the pub or something the car starts to make more sense.
Also, no two ways about it - bikes are dangerous.
I only know one person who has ridden motorbikes for any length of time and hasn't suffered multiple serious injuries as a result, and bicycles are only half as dangerous per mile travelled. Personally, and nothing scientific, I would say that commuting by bicycle is more dangerous than commuting by motorbike because you're less visible, less protected, have no power to accelerate out of trouble and you have to ride in the gutter. Plus, most cyclists don't know WTF they're doing whereas you have to pass a test to ride a motorbike. I fell off my pushbike on a weekly basis because noone taught me how to ride one...I've fallen off my motorbike twice in 20,000 miles. One of those times I suffered no injury at all, but if I was on a pushbike I'd have been in a world of hurt because I would have been wearing a t-shirt. Would not want to go sliding down the road at 40mph dressed as such.



Yet more government meddling in our everyday business and redistribution of wealth. Wonderful. Can't you just be as green as you want and leave everyone else to make their own choices? Ain't democracy great?



Only if it's a woman.

we could argue all night long which is more safe, the motorbike or the bicycle, but it wouldn't have much sense. both have their advantages and disadvantages.


look repi, i think i know your position. from the looks of it i'm no more selfish than you are in your position about environmentalism and state control or the lack of.

let me remind you that a (democratic) country is about sacrificing some liberties for the common good. if there was no government control and sanctioning amongst other things you'd be drinking filthy water, breathing toxic air and swimming in garbage. these are just few problems environmentally themed (grammar?), i won't go into social ones.
picture a director of a chemical factory with your mentality just up river from your place. without a government driven ecology directive the picture won't be pretty for you.

i think we can all agree that we all have the right to a healthy environment.

what are you actually proposing...anarchy?


oh and btw...i find it quite appalling how much money is wasted on the military. guess we're on the same boat now?

 

[NeptuneUK]

"if there was no government control and sanctioning amongst other things you'd be drinking filthy water, breathing toxic air and swimming in garbage."

That seems like an over the top statement considering the fact that Repiv was speaking out against bullshit government control over taxing the shit out of everything in the name of the green movement (VOTES)

Ignoring the fact that before all this shit happened no one was swimming in junk and drinking brown water.... no?

 

[repiV]

we could argue all night long which is more safe, the motorbike or the bicycle, but it wouldn't have much sense. both have their advantages and disadvantages.

I wasn't arguing that one was safer than the other, I was pointing out that they're both far more dangerous than being in a car. The danger of cycling needed to be emphasised because it's not generally perceived as being so, whereas probably the first thing most people will bore you with when you mention motorbikes is how dangerous they supposedly are.
Cars are obviously very useful to the vast majority of the population because the vast majority of bikers and cyclists also drive cars. I'm one of a small handful of people in this country in possession of an unrestricted motorcycle license but no car license. Regardless of how you or I feel about two wheeled transport, the world at large disagrees. Besides, if everyone had a bike, it wouldn't be cool.

look repi, i think i know your position. from the looks of it i'm no more selfish than you are in your position about environmentalism and state control or the lack of.

let me remind you that a (democratic) country is about sacrificing some liberties for the common good. if there was no government control and sanctioning amongst other things you'd be drinking filthy water, breathing toxic air and swimming in garbage. these are just few problems environmentally themed (grammar?), i won't go into social ones.
picture a director of a chemical factory with your mentality just up river from your place. without a government driven ecology directive the picture won't be pretty for you.

i think we can all agree that we all have the right to a healthy environment.

what are you actually proposing...anarchy?

Democracy isn't about sacrificing liberties for the greater good, that's what communism is about.
Define "healthy environment". You have a choice - you can live in the countryside and enjoy lush vistas and clean air and so on, or you can live in a city and pay the price in terms of your environment. If you try too hard to clean up the city, you'll also get rid of everything that made that city great in the first place. Likewise, if the eco-loonies had their way, we'd all livie in communes and have to submit an application to government for permission to travel around.
Either way, millions of cars are far better for our environment than millions of horses.

Like I said, this "saving the environment" bullcrap has nothing to do with the environment at all. It's about control and greed for easy tax revenue. Socialists have always hated cars, they're the ultimate expression of independence and free spirit. Global warming has simply given them a new excuse to wage war on the car. Environmentalists are just socialists in disguise. Nothing more.

oh and btw...i find it quite appalling how much money is wasted on the military. guess we're on the same boat now?

I have no idea where you live. The military here is chronically underfunded.

 

[jverne]

I wasn't arguing that one was safer than the other, I was pointing out that they're both far more dangerous than being in a car. The danger of cycling needed to be emphasised because it's not generally perceived as being so, whereas probably the first thing most people will bore you with when you mention motorbikes is how dangerous they supposedly are.
Cars are obviously very useful to the vast majority of the population because the vast majority of bikers and cyclists also drive cars. I'm one of a small handful of people in this country in possession of an unrestricted motorcycle license but no car license. Regardless of how you or I feel about two wheeled transport, the world at large disagrees. Besides, if everyone had a bike, it wouldn't be cool.



Democracy isn't about sacrificing liberties for the greater good, that's what communism is about.
Define "healthy environment". You have a choice - you can live in the countryside and enjoy lush vistas and clean air and so on, or you can live in a city and pay the price in terms of your environment. If you try too hard to clean up the city, you'll also get rid of everything that made that city great in the first place. Likewise, if the eco-loonies had their way, we'd all livie in communes and have to submit an application to government for permission to travel around.
Either way, millions of cars are far better for our environment than millions of horses.

Like I said, this "saving the environment" bullcrap has nothing to do with the environment at all. It's about control and greed for easy tax revenue. Socialists have always hated cars, they're the ultimate expression of independence and free spirit. Global warming has simply given them a new excuse to wage war on the car. Environmentalists are just socialists in disguise. Nothing more.



I have no idea where you live. The military here is chronically underfunded.

ok, but like most things bicycles are not dangerous themselves, it's when careless car drivers run bikers over. yeah cars are here to stay. but i don't find the idea of promoting efficient vehicles wrong. but yes it's unfortunate that efficiency often means smallness, lightness and low speed. not always so but in majority. an exception is the Tesla roadster.


nope your wrong. any community with established laws will undoubtedly restrict someone. it goes for all organized communities, be it democratic or communist. keep in mind that even in the majority there are countless other majorities that probably sacrificed something for the good of the whole majority. true democracy on the individual level goes ape shit.

healthy environment...hmm...i could broadly say, that a healthy environment is one that has no excess man made objects or substances in it, unless democratically voted as crucial for maintaining a contemporary lifestyle standard. for example...a destroyed television lying in the river is illegal, but a hydroelectric dam is legit.
In addition, every man made element must be created or facility operated in the best and most efficient method currently known.

but you can find million other definitions raging form extreme to loose. that's just my quick and unrefined version made up in the last few minutes.

what happens when the city filth gets in the countryside? civil war?

oh and another thing about getting rid of the good things. peoples likes and dislikes can be manipulated with proper propaganda or subtle advertising methods.


i won't go into the taxation issue.

i live in the EU, military underfunded...good it should stay that way (my opinion)...if only all countries would do the same with their army's. no insult intended

 

[repiV]

ok, but like most things bicycles are not dangerous themselves, it's when careless car drivers run bikers over.

The source of the danger is largely irrelevant when we're talking about the choices people make. The effort required to perform a task is also proportional to the level of risk involved, which is a major reason that cars are more convenient - you jump in and get on with it, and generally get away with being zoned out. Riding a motorbike is mentally exhausting, and riding a bicycle is physically exhausting. I couldn't even listen to a passenger or the radio when I'm riding, I need 100% concentration at all times.

Also just have to point out that the majority of cyclists (in London at least) are a dangerous liability with poor observational skills and very little understanding of basic road concepts. It's not all the fault of bad drivers. They tie with scooter riders in the stupid stakes...

yeah cars are here to stay. but i don't find the idea of promoting efficient vehicles wrong. but yes it's unfortunate that efficiency often means smallness, lightness and low speed. not always so but in majority. an exception is the Tesla roadster.

Promote them all you like, it doesn't make them a replacement for a proper car. Even motorbikes cannot replace cars for most people, they're still primarily recreational vehicles. I put up with the disadvantages because I love bikes and have no interest whatsoever in cars, nor could I afford to run both even if I wanted to. Yes, they do have advantages - namely traffic-busting ability, mind-bending performance, free parking and no congestion charges, but these are mainly advantages for commuting and leisure, not social use.
But I tell you, when I have to spend 20 minutes gearing up to head off to meet friends on a cold December night, and then find somewhere to keep my mountain of riding gear at the other end, I would rather at that point in time have a car to use.
Bicycles are completely useless outside of cities, and even within cities they are only good for SOME journeys. Ergo, they cannot replace cars.

nope your wrong. any community with established laws will undoubtedly restrict someone. it goes for all organized communities, be it democratic or communist. keep in mind that even in the majority there are countless other majorities that probably sacrificed something for the good of the whole majority. true democracy on the individual level goes ape shit.

healthy environment...hmm...i could broadly say, that a healthy environment is one that has no excess man made objects or substances in it, unless democratically voted as crucial for maintaining a contemporary lifestyle standard. for example...a destroyed television lying in the river is illegal, but a hydroelectric dam is legit.
In addition, every man made element must be created or facility operated in the best and most efficient method currently known.

You really miss the point of democracy. In a free society, everything is permissable by default, and legislation is only justified in order to protect freedom. You are talking about an authoritarian society, which unfortunately we now have in the UK.

but you can find million other definitions raging form extreme to loose. that's just my quick and unrefined version made up in the last few minutes.

what happens when the city filth gets in the countryside? war?

Huh?
The point is progress always has a price. That doesn't mean progress is bad. I guarantee you the environment was a lot filthier and more toxic 1000 years ago than it is now. Basic sanitation - what's that?!

oh and another thing about getting rid of the good things. peoples likes and dislikes can be manipulated with proper propaganda or subtle advertising methods.

Propaganda...subtle advertising...very Stalinist.

You do what you want. I do what I want. Everyone else does what they want. So long as we don't get in each other's way too much, there's no problem.

i won't go into the taxation issue.

i live in the EU, military underfunded...good it should stay that way (my opinion)...if only all countries would do the same with their army's. no insult intended

The most important function of the state is to defend the nation. To suggest that an underfunded military is a good thing can be nothing but simple naivete. Without a functional military every other consideration is purely academic.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Plus, with motorbikes, if you want to give someone a ride they have to nuzzle up to you and put their arms round your waist.

This is sexy.

The bad side is the average joe doesn't know how to pillion properly = stack up

 

[Kadayi]

What I said:-

Why don't they have some pictures of this? Surely if it's there it can't be that hard to send a green peace boat or some such out there to film it or something? Visible evidence rather than words will do a lot more to get the message across.

What you responded:-

They have already tried deceiving people this way. It's not their fault, the general public will believe anything they are told if they want to (people love believing shit news)
There are videos of chunks of ice from the ice caps melting and falling off.... What they will fail to tell you is that the ice caps melt and reform all the time depending on the time of year.

However what I said was about the junk piles floating in the ocean the OP started the thread about, nothing to do with global warming, the polar ice caps etc, etc. Seems to me you've hijacked this thread to no good end because the OP isn't denying global warming or anything, he just wrote a poorly phrased sensationalist title. However I'd still like to see some footage of these continents of floating plastic bags. I don't doubt they exist, I just haven't seen any footage of them. Without Pics this thread is meaningless so to speak. :dozey:

 

[jverne]

The source of the danger is largely irrelevant when we're talking about the choices people make. The effort required to perform a task is also proportional to the level of risk involved, which is a major reason that cars are more convenient - you jump in and get on with it, and generally get away with being zoned out. Riding a motorbike is mentally exhausting, and riding a bicycle is physically exhausting. I couldn't even listen to a passenger or the radio when I'm riding, I need 100% concentration at all times.

Also just have to point out that the majority of cyclists (in London at least) are a dangerous liability with poor observational skills and very little understanding of basic road concepts. It's not all the fault of bad drivers. They tie with scooter riders in the stupid stakes...



Promote them all you like, it doesn't make them a replacement for a proper car. Even motorbikes cannot replace cars for most people, they're still primarily recreational vehicles. I put up with the disadvantages because I love bikes and have no interest whatsoever in cars, nor could I afford to run both even if I wanted to. Yes, they do have advantages - namely traffic-busting ability, mind-bending performance, free parking and no congestion charges, but these are mainly advantages for commuting and leisure, not social use.
But I tell you, when I have to spend 20 minutes gearing up to head off to meet friends on a cold December night, and then find somewhere to keep my mountain of riding gear at the other end, I would rather at that point in time have a car to use.
Bicycles are completely useless outside of cities, and even within cities they are only good for SOME journeys. Ergo, they cannot replace cars.



You really miss the point of democracy. In a free society, everything is permissable by default, and legislation is only justified in order to protect freedom. You are talking about an authoritarian society, which unfortunately we now have in the UK.



Huh?
The point is progress always has a price. That doesn't mean progress is bad. I guarantee you the environment was a lot filthier and more toxic 1000 years ago than it is now. Basic sanitation - what's that?!



Propaganda...subtle advertising...very Stalinist.

You do what you want. I do what I want. Everyone else does what they want. So long as we don't get in each other's way too much, there's no problem.



The most important function of the state is to defend the nation. To suggest that an underfunded military is a good thing can be nothing but simple naivete. Without a functional military every other consideration is purely academic.

there are idiots everywhere be it on bicycles or trucks and cars.
drive cars in winter and other more friendly vehicles in warm seasons.

i was also referring to promote more efficient and city friendly cars.


a free society, where's that...in the middle of the Sahara desert maybe.
we don't have a free society. we don't even want to. but we want as much freedom as possible, that's for sure.

environment more toxic 1000 years ago? you are kidding right?
the only thing that was dangerous then, were dense cities with poor air and water circulation. waters were almost virtually chemically free. there were pathogenic bacteria but they were mostly a problem in stagnant waters.
the soil was also pesticide and other chemicals free.
basic sanitation...it made a huge improvement in lifestyle quality, but a large part of it was making up for the filth people dumped in the water making it contaminated, thus needing cleaning.
let me remind you that the ancient city of Greece, Athens during it's golden age had a perfectly functional sanitation infrastructure and the only plague outbreak was when the Spartans invaded and forced the citizens to lock themselves in the acropolis.

not that i support that, but you are being bombarded by "capitalist" propaganda daily, what difference does that make?
watch the video in the other thread "the story of stuff", you'll see that consumerism was planned all along.


eventually we're gonna bump into each other, that's when it's important to have established laws.


i agree that a military is a must for national defense, but seriously who's gonna attack us? and the military nowadays is anything other than defense...your country has quite a record about that. it shouldn't be necessarily underfunded, but managed properly.

What I said:-



What you responded:-



However what I said was about the junk piles floating in the ocean the OP started the thread about, nothing to do with global warming, the polar ice caps etc, etc. Seems to me you've hijacked this thread to no good end because the OP isn't denying global warming or anything, he just wrote a poorly phrased sensationalist title. However I'd still like to see some footage of these continents of floating plastic bags. I don't doubt they exist, I just haven't seen any footage of them. Without Pics this thread is meaningless so to speak. :dozey:

read the link i posted

 

[repiV]

there are idiots everywhere be it on bicycles or trucks and cars.

Well, yes.

drive cars in winter and other more friendly vehicles in warm seasons.

Why would any right-thinking person splash thousands on motorcycle training/a motorbike/riding gear and risk life and limb for a vehicle they can only use for 3-7 months of the year (depending on where you live), purely for practical purposes? It wouldn't save you any money at all, in fact it would cost you a fortune. The benefit of having a motorbike for efficiency is completely negated if you run a car as well - and like I said, a decent bike is no more cost-effective than a small car. Bicycles are only any good if you only want to travel a few miles.
I commute from NW London to central London - good journey for a bicycle right? Hell no. It's an 18 mile trip. Takes me an hour by motorbike.

i was also referring to promote more efficient and city friendly cars.

Maybe people drive outside the city too. Owning one vehicle is almost always more efficient than owning two, especially from an eco-nut perspective as the vast majority of the environmental damage comes from manufacturing the vehicle rather than running it.
Besides which, cars are a purchase of passion. I would be loathe to spend a fortune (and cars DO cost a fortune) on something that I didn't really enjoy, and which was just there to fulfil a purely practical purpose. If I didn't have the bike, I probably wouldn't have a car either tbh (unless I could afford a really nice one). I'd just make do with public transport and enjoy the extra wonga in my pocket.

a free society, where's that...in the middle of the Sahara desert maybe.
we don't have a free society. we don't even want to. but we want as much freedom as possible, that's for sure.

We don't have a free society because the power and influence of government has increased to Orwellian proportions over the last hundred years. Government has gone from being the defender and the arbiter to the protector, the nanny, the father and the drill sergeant. You can thank socialism for that.

environment more toxic 1000 years ago? you are kidding right?
the only thing that was dangerous then, were dense cities with poor air and water circulation. waters were almost virtually chemically free. there were pathogenic bacteria but they were mostly a problem in stagnant waters.
the soil was also pesticide and other chemicals free.
basic sanitation...it made a huge improvement in lifestyle quality, but a large part of it was making up for the filth people dumped in the water making it contaminated, thus needing cleaning.
let me remind you that the ancient city of Greece, Athens during it's golden age had a perfectly functional sanitation infrastructure and the only plague outbreak was when the Spartans invaded and forced the citizens to lock themselves in the acropolis.

The ancient city-states were worlds ahead of medieval Europe. Need I remind you that the fall of Rome set the world back at least a thousand years. 11th century Britain was a filthy, disgusting, plague-ridden place where people routinely died in their 20s and 30s.
I don't see a major problem with our environment. Yes, the air in big cities is not very nice. But that's the price you pay for having a big city - you don't have to live there. The only real concern is the destruction of the rainforest and the overdevelopment of arable land. In the UK we have anywhere between 60 and 90 million people (depending on who you believe) sharing a land area smaller than Sweden. Sacrifices have to be made to accomodate that kind of overpopulation.

not that i support that, but you are being bombarded by "capitalist" propaganda daily, what difference does that make?

What capitalist propaganda is that then?

watch the video in the other thread "the story of stuff", you'll see that consumerism was planned all along.

Consumerism is not the same thing as capitalism.

eventually we're gonna bump into each other, that's when it's important to have established laws.

Or you could just be a man and work things out for yourself instead of looking to Daddy Government to solve all your problems for you.
We don't have to be self-reliant adults anymore because the state will take care of your every need from cradle to grave. And people wonder why society is dysfunctional.

i agree that a military is a must for national defense, but seriously who's gonna attack us?

You have to ask?

and the military nowadays is anything other than defense...your country has quite a record about that. it shouldn't be necessarily underfunded, but managed properly.

Irrelevant.

 

[jverne]

Well, yes.



Why would any right-thinking person splash thousands on motorcycle training/a motorbike/riding gear and risk life and limb for a vehicle they can only use for 3-7 months of the year (depending on where you live), purely for practical purposes? It wouldn't save you any money at all, in fact it would cost you a fortune. The benefit of having a motorbike for efficiency is completely negated if you run a car as well - and like I said, a decent bike is no more cost-effective than a small car. Bicycles are only any good if you only want to travel a few miles.
I commute from NW London to central London - good journey for a bicycle right? Hell no. It's an 18 mile trip. Takes me an hour by motorbike.



Maybe people drive outside the city too. Owning one vehicle is almost always more efficient than owning two, especially from an eco-nut perspective as the vast majority of the environmental damage comes from manufacturing the vehicle rather than running it.
Besides which, cars are a purchase of passion. I would be loathe to spend a fortune (and cars DO cost a fortune) on something that I didn't really enjoy, and which was just there to fulfil a purely practical purpose. If I didn't have the bike, I probably wouldn't have a car either tbh (unless I could afford a really nice one). I'd just make do with public transport and enjoy the extra wonga in my pocket.



We don't have a free society because the power and influence of government has increased to Orwellian proportions over the last hundred years. Government has gone from being the defender and the arbiter to the protector, the nanny, the father and the drill sergeant. You can thank socialism for that.



The ancient city-states were worlds ahead of medieval Europe. Need I remind you that the fall of Rome set the world back at least a thousand years. 11th century Britain was a filthy, disgusting, plague-ridden place where people routinely died in their 20s and 30s.
I don't see a major problem with our environment. Yes, the air in big cities is not very nice. But that's the price you pay for having a big city - you don't have to live there. The only real concern is the destruction of the rainforest and the overdevelopment of arable land. In the UK we have anywhere between 60 and 90 million people (depending on who you believe) sharing a land area smaller than Sweden. Sacrifices have to be made to accomodate that kind of overpopulation.



What capitalist propaganda is that then?



Consumerism is not the same thing as capitalism.



Or you could just be a man and work things out for yourself instead of looking to Daddy Government to solve all your problems for you.
We don't have to be self-reliant adults anymore because the state will take care of your every need from cradle to grave. And people wonder why society is dysfunctional.



You have to ask?



Irrelevant.

hey there are small relatively inexpensive motorbikes that don't pollute that much, go faster than bicycles and sometimes require no or just a basic license.
do you know i have a bicycle permit which i've done when i was 10 or 11, can't remember. and much of my generation and many others have them. it was sort of an state attempt to road safety education.

about sacrificing pleasure for practicality. well the only way that can be legitimized is by a democratic referendum.
guns are in a simmilar situation. they are hard and expensive to get based on mostly irrational fears (since they are my hobby). but i'm confident that we can find much more objective reasons to discourage the use of wasteful vehicles and machinery. it shouldn't be forced, but the person passionate enough to get one should be able to. but it should kept for recreation not daily use.
again i'm not supporting laws prohibiting, but trough a type of benefits advertisement campaign for use of efficient equipment.


as for government control...oh just quit it, i don't mean to be insulting but you are acting really narrow minded.
i'm getting a feeling you somehow want to have total freedom but on the other hand demanding for other people to clean you garbage and endure your "bad" habits.
that is contradicting and selfish from you.


you don't see a problem with your environment. i do.
what if i don't want to have a big city, do i too have to pay the price?
sacrifices have to be made to accommodate the overpopulated land...are you serious about that? it seems you're contradicting yourself again or you just need to clear things up a bit.

well consumerism is what's causing most of the ecological problems.


be a man and deal with problems yourself? so you're saying i can shoot you if i ever find you polluting near my living area?
like i said, are you proposing a civil war?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Green taxes and eco-loonies are destroying the economy right here, right now. It's not even hypothetical. Nor is it logical. Environmentalism is nothing more than an insiduous religion used as a tool to advance a socialist/authoritarian agenda. "Saving the planet" can be and is being used as a justification for everything from expanding monitoring and control of people's everyday lives, to taking away freedom, mobility and independence and daylight robbery in the form of fuel taxes, which harms everyone because the price of fuel determines the price of everything and the cost of doing anything.

Okay, what?

Let's talk about environmentalism.

It has its roots in the Romantics of the early c19th, who fostered not only an appreciation for 'sublime' natural beauty but examined the effect of the milleau on the individual subject. In doing so they took up Blake's conception of "mountains green" versus "dark satanic mills" - and became the first important part of a discourse that would persist well into the next century, and yet still in our own. The discourse is one that conceives of the 'machine', which is the most obvious and blatant expression of human artifice, in opposition to the 'natural', which is never adequately defined - is usually cliche, or depends on almost religious conceptions of natural environment. (It is important to note that for Blake, and later for the luddites, this was not just an aesthetic debate. The onset of industrialisation caused loss of livelihood for a lot of people, and although the benefits were great, the crushing of an entire lifestyle - that of the craftsman, the craft community - was not so desirable.) There's a strong association of the romantic with the religious because the beauty of nature is God's beauty, and the machination of nature is conceived of as a 'fall' from some primordial state of goodness.

And yet, after WW1, the rise of fascism, Henry Ford and the Holocaust, it soon becomes very apparent that, indeed, the onset of civilisation is not necessarily a good thing - that indeed our ability to transform the world may outstrip our ability to think about what we are doing. This area of discourse is the drama of progress - how far is 'progress' a valid concept, and if it can be done, is it justifiable? Or sustainable? And so finally we get Silent Spring, save the whales, Greenpeace.

I establish this merely as background to show that your conception of environmentalism as an actual religion is both ridiculous and simplistic. I mentioned religion earlier because you - or rather, Michael Crichton, really - have/has some very good points. It's worrying how far current environmental discourses have appropriated the symbology of religion, of penance, fall and sin. But firstly, environmentalism would not be the only current ideology to incorporate subtle religious myths. The ideology of liberal rationalism frequently seems to outlet in a belief that things can work out alright in the end if we just convert everybody to capitalism and liberal demcoracy - a belief that echoes . The ideology of individualism and capitalist liberatarianism naively assumes that we, humans, can exist as independent subjects - that we are soul-like parcels of volition that can operate totally independently, and conceive of ourselves as single beings against the mass of 'society' (American political culture is totally entranced with this idea: in the collective mind of America, as evidenced by its discourse and its media, not only is every man a 'little man' fighting against an oppressive totality, but the entire country is. They think the whole world is The Frontier.). We find a similar conception of the individual-as-soul in Thatcher's pretty crazy assertion that there is no society, only individuals and families. And too many believe, from socialism to Francis Fukuyama to evangelist Christians, that the end of the world - that is, the end of history, and the end of all its strife - would be a good or attainable thing.

Secondly, environmentalism can only be labelled wholesale a religion in only a few of its many forms - those manifested in a minority of crazies, or, indeed, actual religious people. For the most part, it is probably safer to say that environmentalism is appropriating the tropes of religion to a worrying degree - rather than saying it's "nothing more than a religion". Yes, of course! A religion with genuine widespread fanaticism, an actual object of worship, an established tradition, and a church? Hmmmmm.

Thirdly, and here's where the big background comes in useful again, environmentalism was in some respects more religious in the very beginning. Because, in the same way that you have managed to shift the meaning of 'environmentalism' to 'supporters of energy initiatives', environmentalism itself has become, in the public eye, far more focused on the issue of global warming than anything else. And this is because, to a person equipped to view sympathetically any claim that mankind is ruining the environment, global warming is both the ultimate devil to be opposed and the ultimate recruiter for the cause. Because although environmentalism has always been able to take its place within the prevailing anthropocentrism (only 'crazies' really believe humankind is less important or even equally as important as the rest of the animal kingdom) by showing that to ruin the environment is, in part, to ruin ourselves - pollution, pesticides, etc - this would be the ultimate buy-in. If it's true that we're actually messing with the climate, this makes environmentalism the ultimate pragmatism. Advocates of anti-warming measures do not proceed from a religious concern, but from first the observation or apprehension that we are causing problems for ourselves, then to the assurance that we will cause more problems unless we stop doing the causing, and then finally to the conclusion that we've got to stop OR ELSE. While for a lot of people the grounds of this conclusion might be slightly religious, I am talking also about those who are fully informed on the subject and whose grounding is very reasonable. I think there are plenty of people who at bottom don't actually know why they support equality under the law for all human beings - but there is a good reason.

Despite all this argument I must stress I do understand where the associations of environmentalism with religion come from - they are not groundless. But they are also not comprehensive, and further serve to de-legitimise the environmentalist cause. Instead of admitting that maybe there's a political reason for people's environmentalis beliefs, maybe they have good reasons, maybe they've seen the evidence, maybe they have decided actively, you just go: ha, they're all religious fanatics! And not only that, but they're being fooled! They're being lied to! In their blind craziness they are unknowingly supporting the policies of Big Brother!

But how far is it responsible?

It's definitely true that green ideology is being used as a cover for some fairly authoritarian things (although I'm not sure how regressive tax is 'socialist' in any way). It's also true that almost all measures implemented by the government are not very green at all, and are simply pandering to what is perceived as the wishes of the population. The green policies of the major parties, and perhaps the green party itself too, are doing lip service - that is all. But it is not as if there is no criticism of these policies from the green lobby. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to say that "saving the planet" is serving as a justification for anything more than explicitly 'green' policies.

"Expanding monitoring and control of people's everyday lives?" And here I was thinking that had been justified by an appeal to greater safety, greater regulation, greater efficiency of civil organisation, greater crime prevention, and the prevention of terrorism - none of which has much to do with environmentalism. This government's reduction on civil liberties starting a long time before it started claiming it was very green.

You will have to remind me when you are able to coherently demonstrate that A. the economy is failing and B. it's because of environmentalism.


( By the way, fuel taxes are so high mostly because they were increased ahead of inflation by the Conservative government's 'Fuel Price Escalator', beginning in 1993 - as with almost all of the Labour government's economic policy, its increases in fuel taxes have simply been an acceleration of what the Conservatives started. When the escalator began in 1993, UK fuel had been some of the cheapest in Europe - and when it ended, it was the most expensive, with tax representing over 75% of the price. That said, it's actually true that environmentalism contributed - the escalator was introduced as a measure to stem the increase in pollution from road transport and cut the need for new road building, which was a sensitive political issue after Swampy and his lot. So in this case environmentalism may be said to have helped cause the increase - except of course that would be to avoid the debate about whether the increase might actually have been necessary or not. )

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yet more government meddling in our everyday business and redistribution of wealth. Wonderful. Can't you just be as green as you want and leave everyone else to make their own choices? Ain't democracy great?

...

We don't have a free society because the power and influence of government has increased to Orwellian proportions over the last hundred years. Government has gone from being the defender and the arbiter to the protector, the nanny, the father and the drill sergeant. You can thank socialism for that.

You know what, you're always going on about how socialist the current government is, and yet I cannot square your claims with reality.

I feel I could build my own argument about how the New Labour government is not very 'socialist' at all, but instead, I think it would be simpler for you to read the following articles and then try and tell me, with a straight face, we are living in a country that is being ruined by the left.

More economically right-wing than Thatcher
(persist despite the 'war criminal' stuff)
GP surgeries being closed down
Soviet-style statistics doctoring in service of big business
Government subordinated to money
The Fat Cats' Protection League

Now, I may be overusing Monbiot a little, and I do not see a reason to believe in or agree with everything he says, but this is quite some body of argument, all sourced.

If I wanted to try and wheedle you into agreeing with me without too much contradicting your opinions, I would say that maybe yeah New Labour has a socialist or leftist public policy - that it is only economically right-wing (of course, I would have to ignore the differentiation between 'socialist' and 'liberal-left', the latter of which is the root of'political correctness' concerns, most of which are exaggerated anyway. I would also have to ignore the authoritarianism implemented, and if authoritarianism is fundamentally socialist itself, then Thatcher was a socialist in terms of her public policy). But I'm not sure I really believe this, so I won't insult your intelligence.

I want to stress this: socialism may well necessarily involve authoritarianism, but authoritarianism does not necessarily involve socialism. And in stressing this I am not particularly trying to defend socialism, which has had some adverse effects on government in the past 100 years (though few), but rather to try and rescue you from the bizarre conception, totally disassociated from reality, that not only has 'socialism' been responsible for the creation of the modern State, but that it is also the main guiding principle of the current government, of environmentalists, and of everything that is wrong in the world.

You seem to believe that once upon power did not intervene in the lives of its citizens - that once there was a time when the modern state was not a "nanny", "father" or "drill sergeant", and that before, I don't know, the Labour Party or something, everything was better! Come on. You're subscribing to the same retardo-mythics that you accuse environmentalists of doing, and furthermore, you're ignoring a load of vital stuff.

Like how the development and advance of muskets and mercantilism and the attempt of kings to try and maintain centralised standard armies both forced the development of a civil service and caused a loss of power for nobles and barons. How the necessity of maintaining a centralised army meant also the necessity of maintaining a civil service and organising bureaucracy. How such a service helped create and enhance the power of the absolutist monarch and the modern state. How advances in printing and the control and cataloguing of information allowed the storing and transmission of written records, and how in order to avoid massive tax rebellions nation-states had to rely for their money on long-term low-interest loans from central banks, which helped create the entire system of capitalism. Fast forward: the codificiation of gender roles and the establishment of the Family (which only existed in the form we think of it now, and as the 'base unit of society', quite recently - last few hundred years); the codification of sexuality and the operation of the human body, such as the discursive creation of 'sex' as a part of our intrinsic nature, and our intrinsic individuality, which the state attempts to repress (when of course thinking of 'sex' in these terms simply confirms power, because if power actually tried to repress sexuality that would make power look very weak indeed!), the establishment, tied to both early socialisms and capitalism, but chiefly organisation, of structures that regulated, studied and controlled the insane, the medical regions, science, childhood, the home, manners, civil society, thought and religion, drink and dress, dances performed, marriage too - the policeman - the police! there are police now! must keep his eye on the cot, an spy too in the kitchen, drawing-room, library, one person does anything or two people come together.

In oversimplifying like this, I am subscribing to a myth myself - but at least I'm thinking about mine. The history of Great Britain is not, I hasten to add, a history of oppression - but it is a history of power.

"The protector, the nanny, the father" - all roles the Victorian state took upon itself, though more obliquely, perhaps less obviously, than in more modern times.
Protector: the aforementioned development of the modern organised army, conscription in the napoleonic wars, military training, drills, the Empire, the police. Prosecuting people for parading their arms in the street. Putting down uprisings with the army. Making the pensions of ex-soldiers dependent on their willingness to turn out in future on the side of the Law when there was an uprising afoot. A Chartist campaigner once said that there could never be revolution in Britain because there was no compulsorary military service - the monopoly of arms and training-in-arms was firmly with the government.
Nanny: marriage policy, religion, 'manners', Queen Victoria herself, seditious libel, moral outrage at tales of horror and degeneracy within the family home. Middle-class outrage at aristocratic excess; middle-class sympathy to working-class pain, but middle-class disapproval of working-class political activism. Gender roles as restricting for men, although probably not as bad, as they were for women. Destruction of independent parish-relief schemes, and replacement of them with workhouse schemes - an early welfare state.
Father: paternalism is a conservative doctrine and one as old as the French Revolution - Burke can be credited with the formalisation of the idea of the state as father, but only in reaction to what he perceived of as the horrors of the rebellion in France.

And the railways - the telegraph lines - the embassies - the infrastructure - the blue papers - the white papers - the political parties - the trade unions - the first world war - henry ford - mechanisation - the intelligence agency - the strong government - the general strike - the Soviet Union - the second world war - the war economy - the welfare state - the BBC - the corporation - the Oxbridge elite - the social services - the public services - Keynesian economics -

God, no, it's all just Karl Marx's fault, right?

The State, I believe is not so very important after all...the structures, and ideology, matter. Bah, this has taken too much time and is really OT.

By the way: consummerism is utterly related to capitalism. More consumption, more production, more money. More money, more ability to influence people into more consumption, more production, more money...

FURTHERMORE you know what's really destroying the economy? Not switching to alternative fuels, that's what!! Gas prices make the price of everything else go up. People can't afford as much. People buy less. Despite demand going down, prices continue to rise because of gas prices and OH GOD WE'RE SO SCREWED ;_;

alternative fuels are a smart and sexy solution to this problem <3<3

Problem: alternative fuels are actually being switched to quite a bit. It's just, the process is often a money-spinner, and often really really harmful.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/

 

[jverne]

did i ever told you i love you sulkdodds?

your expansive essays are just fun to read and totally unexpected in the world of the int3rn3tz forumz



no i haven't even started reading them, but i will, i'll be damned if i don't!

 

[NeptuneUK]

sir
sir

i found this tin foil hat over there and i believe it belongs to you?

That ones mine.... (it's better than his, mine used to contain baconz)

 

[SAJ]

Just had to log on to compliment Sulkdodds for two masterful posts.
Yes I realise that it sounds like brown-nosing a mod but **** it , kudos where kudos is deserved.

I've seen (much)worse professional journalism, please tell me me you were cribbing from a dissertation.

Its a shame (but unsuprising) that Repiv -the self made strawman- cant muster a rebuttal.

 

[repiV]

Self-made strawman eh? No, I just went back to work this week after 7 and a half months laying at home recovering - and it's knackering. I leave at 7:45 and get home at 6:30. Then I just want to lay on the couch. I just don't have time to reply to an essay right now.

 

[jverne]

Self-made strawman eh? No, I just went back to work this week after 7 and a half months laying at home recovering - and it's knackering. I leave at 7:45 and get home at 6:30. Then I just want to lay on the couch. I just don't have time to reply to an essay right now.

they seem decent to me. quite some valid points.

oh and btw...it looks like capitalism is getting the better of you?

doesn't the UK have an universal healthcare system?

 

[repiV]

hey there are small relatively inexpensive motorbikes that don't pollute that much, go faster than bicycles and sometimes require no or just a basic license.

Yes, but they have a top speed of 50-60mph (make that 35-40 uphill). They are not an adequate replacement for the car because they are only a sensible or safe choice for city use. You're also a lot more vulnerable on these machines because they're harder to see, have a lot less presence on the road, have shite brakes and skinny tyres, and no better acceleration than a small car. They completely lack one of the key advantages of bikes (performance).

Bikes (motorised or otherwise) are never going to replace cars. All the practicality and false economy issues aside, riding is very dangerous, especially in urban areas. I wouldn't expect anyone to commute through London via motorbike, because the odds are you WILL get hurt - especially if you're only doing it to get from A to B and don't spend your spare time improving your abilities like us enthusiasts do.
I got rear-ended by a muppet just yesterday, sub-5mph and no damage to either vehicle but it was enough to make me drop the bike on my bad leg and render me incapable of riding the rest of the way home or standing on the leg. Ended up spending all night waiting in A+E, and now I'm limping heavily for a while and out of action for a few days. There's no such thing as a "fender-bender" on two wheels, and in heavy traffic you're far more likely to have an accident in the first place too. I could just as easily have fallen the other way and ended up laying with my head and neck in the line of fire of oncoming traffic. It's not a choice of transport for the faint-hearted. As a lifestyle it means some big sacrifices and, for most regular riders, living with a legacy of various painful injuries which come back to haunt you later on. Even bike nuts give up biking for these reasons. Our society is far too risk-averse to ever accept that as mainstream, especially if it's just for the sake of quicker commuting.

do you know i have a bicycle permit which i've done when i was 10 or 11, can't remember. and much of my generation and many others have them. it was sort of an state attempt to road safety education.

Such things have fallen by the wayside here.

about sacrificing pleasure for practicality. well the only way that can be legitimized is by a democratic referendum.
guns are in a simmilar situation. they are hard and expensive to get based on mostly irrational fears (since they are my hobby). but i'm confident that we can find much more objective reasons to discourage the use of wasteful vehicles and machinery. it shouldn't be forced, but the person passionate enough to get one should be able to. but it should kept for recreation not daily use.
again i'm not supporting laws prohibiting, but trough a type of benefits advertisement campaign for use of efficient equipment.

Keeping a separate vehicle for recreation is far more wasteful than using it daily. A vehicle only has value when it's in use. Really it doesn't matter so much from an ecological perspective what you use, so long as you use it. The biggest waste is buying new and then trading it in two years later for something else new. If you really want to help the environment, buy whatever the hell you want, but buy it second-hand and then run it into the ground until it's only good for scrap. Then buy something else second-hand.
That being said, I hate urban 4x4s and similar for a whole host of other reasons. They're usually driven by myopic, selfish idiots who just want it to be someone else who dies when they cause an accident through their abysmal driving.

as for government control...oh just quit it, i don't mean to be insulting but you are acting really narrow minded.
i'm getting a feeling you somehow want to have total freedom but on the other hand demanding for other people to clean you garbage and endure your "bad" habits.
that is contradicting and selfish from you.

Um, no. It's really quite simple. You can do what you want unless you interfere with someone else's right to do what they want. People should take responsibility for themselves. Government gets involved in all kinds of things they have absolutely no business getting involved in. I mean, the government is the biggest spender on advertising in the UK. So my taxes are being ploughed into propaganda? Great.
There's something very wrong when we work for the state more than we work for ourselves. How the hell did 40%+ tax rates combined with huge taxes on everything we buy, save and spend, become an accepted norm?

you don't see a problem with your environment. i do.
what if i don't want to have a big city, do i too have to pay the price?

If you don't want to have a big city, live somewhere else and you won't have to pay the price. Meanwhile, you can also benefit from the economic boom of the big city which subsidises you.

sacrifices have to be made to accommodate the overpopulated land...are you serious about that? it seems you're contradicting yourself again or you just need to clear things up a bit.

Not at all. I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Overpopulation unavoidably places undue strain on resources, the environment, quality of life, people's disposition...and, well, everything really. We have much smaller homes which we have to pay a much higher price for, major transport problems, strain on public services, and of course all the accompanying social problems that result from putting too many people in too small a space.

well consumerism is what's causing most of the ecological problems.

Consumerism is causing most of society's problems full stop. Unfortunately it's a deeply ingrained cultural thing, and it's not something you're going to solve with punitive taxes or oppressive government.

be a man and deal with problems yourself? so you're saying i can shoot you if i ever find you polluting near my living area?
like i said, are you proposing a civil war?

Hmm no, I'm saying you don't need laws to govern every interaction you have with anyone else. Laws are inflexible, the majority of them are completely unnecessary and are usually passed at the whim of some special interest group. They are often badly enforced (hence prosecuting people for doing 33mph in a 30mph zone at 2am).
These days everyone is a criminal because the law is so complicated and absurd that it's impossible to stay on the right side of it the whole time, and acting legally often conflicts with acting in the common interest or with common sense anyway. It's a ridiculous situation.

Okay, what?

Let's talk about environmentalism.

It has its roots in the Romantics of the early c19th, who fostered not only an appreciation for 'sublime' natural beauty but examined the effect of the milleau on the individual subject. In doing so they took up Blake's conception of "mountains green" versus "dark satanic mills" - and became the first important part of a discourse that would persist well into the next century, and yet still in our own. The discourse is one that conceives of the 'machine', which is the most obvious and blatant expression of human artifice, in opposition to the 'natural', which is never adequately defined - is usually cliche, or depends on almost religious conceptions of natural environment. (It is important to note that for Blake, and later for the luddites, this was not just an aesthetic debate. The onset of industrialisation caused loss of livelihood for a lot of people, and although the benefits were great, the crushing of an entire lifestyle - that of the craftsman, the craft community - was not so desirable.) There's a strong association of the romantic with the religious because the beauty of nature is God's beauty, and the machination of nature is conceived of as a 'fall' from some primordial state of goodness.

And yet, after WW1, the rise of fascism, Henry Ford and the Holocaust, it soon becomes very apparent that, indeed, the onset of civilisation is not necessarily a good thing - that indeed our ability to transform the world may outstrip our ability to think about what we are doing. This area of discourse is the drama of progress - how far is 'progress' a valid concept, and if it can be done, is it justifiable? Or sustainable? And so finally we get Silent Spring, save the whales, Greenpeace.

I establish this merely as background to show that your conception of environmentalism as an actual religion is both ridiculous and simplistic. I mentioned religion earlier because you - or rather, Michael Crichton, really - have/has some very good points. It's worrying how far current environmental discourses have appropriated the symbology of religion, of penance, fall and sin.

I'm referring to the loonie environmentalism aka socialism in disguise that has become popular in very recent years. Which is driven by ignorance, hatred, reverse bigotry and envy, rather than any genuine desire to "save the planet".

But firstly, environmentalism would not be the only current ideology to incorporate subtle religious myths. The ideology of liberal rationalism frequently seems to outlet in a belief that things can work out alright in the end if we just convert everybody to capitalism and liberal demcoracy - a belief that echoes . The ideology of individualism and capitalist liberatarianism naively assumes that we, humans, can exist as independent subjects - that we are soul-like parcels of volition that can operate totally independently, and conceive of ourselves as single beings against the mass of 'society' (American political culture is totally entranced with this idea: in the collective mind of America, as evidenced by its discourse and its media, not only is every man a 'little man' fighting against an oppressive totality, but the entire country is. They think the whole world is The Frontier.). We find a similar conception of the individual-as-soul in Thatcher's pretty crazy assertion that there is no society, only individuals and families. And too many believe, from socialism to Francis Fukuyama to evangelist Christians, that the end of the world - that is, the end of history, and the end of all its strife - would be a good or attainable thing.

What crazy assertion? You took what she said completely out of context:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

Secondly, environmentalism can only be labelled wholesale a religion in only a few of its many forms - those manifested in a minority of crazies, or, indeed, actual religious people. For the most part, it is probably safer to say that environmentalism is appropriating the tropes of religion to a worrying degree - rather than saying it's "nothing more than a religion". Yes, of course! A religion with genuine widespread fanaticism, an actual object of worship, an established tradition, and a church? Hmmmmm.

Thirdly, and here's where the big background comes in useful again, environmentalism was in some respects more religious in the very beginning. Because, in the same way that you have managed to shift the meaning of 'environmentalism' to 'supporters of energy initiatives', environmentalism itself has become, in the public eye, far more focused on the issue of global warming than anything else. And this is because, to a person equipped to view sympathetically any claim that mankind is ruining the environment, global warming is both the ultimate devil to be opposed and the ultimate recruiter for the cause. Because although environmentalism has always been able to take its place within the prevailing anthropocentrism (only 'crazies' really believe humankind is less important or even equally as important as the rest of the animal kingdom) by showing that to ruin the environment is, in part, to ruin ourselves - pollution, pesticides, etc - this would be the ultimate buy-in. If it's true that we're actually messing with the climate, this makes environmentalism the ultimate pragmatism. Advocates of anti-warming measures do not proceed from a religious concern, but from first the observation or apprehension that we are causing problems for ourselves, then to the assurance that we will cause more problems unless we stop doing the causing, and then finally to the conclusion that we've got to stop OR ELSE. While for a lot of people the grounds of this conclusion might be slightly religious, I am talking also about those who are fully informed on the subject and whose grounding is very reasonable. I think there are plenty of people who at bottom don't actually know why they support equality under the law for all human beings - but there is a good reason.

In my experience, only a handful of global warming activists or whatever the hell you want to call them actually have a clue what they're on about or why. Mostly they just get whipped up by the media and are given a free excuse to hate a convinient group of people. It's something to latch onto in a world where we all search for meaning.
If there was any rational thought behind it all, they would seek to solve actual problems instead of trying to replace cars with buses which are far less efficient, encouraging people to get rid of their old cars for new ones with slightly better fuel economy (FAR better for the environment to just keep the old car). Likewise, they wouldn't create a situation which harms mankind through economic and technological regression. So you're in poverty? That's ok - so long as you're not polluting the planet. It's got to the stage now where it's so ridiculously expensive just to live that even people with well above average incomes are really struggling. Most of this comes down to our oppressive tax regime.
Being "green" is just a pious fashion statement, and isn't about the well-being of the human race at all.

 

[repiV]

Despite all this argument I must stress I do understand where the associations of environmentalism with religion come from - they are not groundless. But they are also not comprehensive, and further serve to de-legitimise the environmentalist cause. Instead of admitting that maybe there's a political reason for people's environmentalis beliefs, maybe they have good reasons, maybe they've seen the evidence, maybe they have decided actively, you just go: ha, they're all religious fanatics! And not only that, but they're being fooled! They're being lied to! In their blind craziness they are unknowingly supporting the policies of Big Brother!

Well, environmentalism has destroyed its own credibility precisely through the dogma and hyperbole. I just don't care anymore, one way or another, because I'm sick of the smug, ignorant, pious assholes. In fact, I'd rather enjoy being wasteful in the most flamboyant way possible just to annoy them - and prevailing opinion is certainly the same for a large section of society at the moment. People have had enough of being sacrificed at the altar of green.

But how far is it responsible?

It's definitely true that green ideology is being used as a cover for some fairly authoritarian things (although I'm not sure how regressive tax is 'socialist' in any way). It's also true that almost all measures implemented by the government are not very green at all, and are simply pandering to what is perceived as the wishes of the population. The green policies of the major parties, and perhaps the green party itself too, are doing lip service - that is all. But it is not as if there is no criticism of these policies from the green lobby. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to say that "saving the planet" is serving as a justification for anything more than explicitly 'green' policies.

These "explicitly green policies" and enforcement thereof are in and of themselves a massive assault on liberty and expansion in the power of government. You can be sure all the cameras they're putting up to enforce the Low Emission Zone in London (?200 per day to drive a ten year old Transit van within the M25? FFS! What the hell are these ****wits thinking?) will be used for all sorts of things besides that. In fact it's DfT policy to introduce schemes like this all over the country which provide a seemingly legitimate excuse to blanket the road network in cameras which can later be used to force road pricing upon the population.

"Expanding monitoring and control of people's everyday lives?" And here I was thinking that had been justified by an appeal to greater safety, greater regulation, greater efficiency of civil organisation, greater crime prevention, and the prevention of terrorism - none of which has much to do with environmentalism. This government's reduction on civil liberties starting a long time before it started claiming it was very green.

This is also true. Although the government is more inefficient than ever and the police are now more interested in hammering ordinary people for minor/technical infringements of law than they are in dealing with real crime.

You will have to remind me when you are able to coherently demonstrate that A. the economy is failing and B. it's because of environmentalism.

The economy is failing - if you believe otherwise, you've been living under a rock. It's getting more and more expensive just to exist, the average household pays around 50% more tax than in 1997, the national debt is skyrocketing and this government has presided over a period of utterly monumental waste and spending - despite the annual tax take having DOUBLED in the last decade. It's now widely acknowledged that we are heading for a recession.

( By the way, fuel taxes are so high mostly because they were increased ahead of inflation by the Conservative government's 'Fuel Price Escalator', beginning in 1993 - as with almost all of the Labour government's economic policy, its increases in fuel taxes have simply been an acceleration of what the Conservatives started. When the escalator began in 1993, UK fuel had been some of the cheapest in Europe - and when it ended, it was the most expensive, with tax representing over 75% of the price. That said, it's actually true that environmentalism contributed - the escalator was introduced as a measure to stem the increase in pollution from road transport and cut the need for new road building, which was a sensitive political issue after Swampy and his lot. So in this case environmentalism may be said to have helped cause the increase - except of course that would be to avoid the debate about whether the increase might actually have been necessary or not. )

Indeed but then VAT is also applied on top of the cost of fuel including duty. So the government is getting fat off the price of oil too - any increase in duty or the base price of fuel means an increase in VAT.

You know what, you're always going on about how socialist the current government is, and yet I cannot square your claims with reality.

I feel I could build my own argument about how the New Labour government is not very 'socialist' at all, but instead, I think it would be simpler for you to read the following articles and then try and tell me, with a straight face, we are living in a country that is being ruined by the left.

More economically right-wing than Thatcher
(persist despite the 'war criminal' stuff)
GP surgeries being closed down
Soviet-style statistics doctoring in service of big business
Government subordinated to money
The Fat Cats' Protection League

Now, I may be overusing Monbiot a little, and I do not see a reason to believe in or agree with everything he says, but this is quite some body of argument, all sourced.

If I wanted to try and wheedle you into agreeing with me without too much contradicting your opinions, I would say that maybe yeah New Labour has a socialist or leftist public policy - that it is only economically right-wing (of course, I would have to ignore the differentiation between 'socialist' and 'liberal-left', the latter of which is the root of'political correctness' concerns, most of which are exaggerated anyway. I would also have to ignore the authoritarianism implemented, and if authoritarianism is fundamentally socialist itself, then Thatcher was a socialist in terms of her public policy). But I'm not sure I really believe this, so I won't insult your intelligence.

Of course this government is socialist...their entire policy is based on squeezing the productive elements of society to support the unproductive. Granted, it's not a form of fantasy "working man" socialism - it's even worse. It's the working man who gets screwed in order to pay for people who can't be bothered to work.
Not to mention massive expansion of the civil service and bureaucracy and the colossal waste I briefly outlined above...with billions and billions of taxpayer money lost in the system amongst many unaccountable quangos.
I don't even see how this can be called into question.

I want to stress this: socialism may well necessarily involve authoritarianism, but authoritarianism does not necessarily involve socialism. And in stressing this I am not particularly trying to defend socialism, which has had some adverse effects on government in the past 100 years (though few), but rather to try and rescue you from the bizarre conception, totally disassociated from reality, that not only has 'socialism' been responsible for the creation of the modern State, but that it is also the main guiding principle of the current government, of environmentalists, and of everything that is wrong in the world.

<snip - so I don't have to make a third post>

And the railways - the telegraph lines - the embassies - the infrastructure - the blue papers - the white papers - the political parties - the trade unions - the first world war - henry ford - mechanisation - the intelligence agency - the strong government - the general strike - the Soviet Union - the second world war - the war economy - the welfare state - the BBC - the corporation - the Oxbridge elite - the social services - the public services - Keynesian economics -

God, no, it's all just Karl Marx's fault, right?

The State, I believe is not so very important after all...the structures, and ideology, matter. Bah, this has taken too much time and is really OT.

That's all fine and everything, but you're missing the point that government has never before had such a hand in the routine lives of individuals as it does today, regardless of how restrictive the law may have been. As kirovman pointed out on another thread, in China you're largely ignored so long as you're not a threat to the power structure, but over here every aspect and detail of your life is watched and regulated by the authorities.

By the way: consummerism is utterly related to capitalism. More consumption, more production, more money. More money, more ability to influence people into more consumption, more production, more money...

Consumerism is primarily cultural. It stems from the belief that the purpose of life is to acquire and spend vast amounts of wealth. Capitalism can create the optimal conditions for consumerism to thrive, sure, but turning to socialism to solve consumerism is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think people who get sucked into a life of 60 hour work weeks and slaving away for the boss their whole lives just to earn more money so they can buy more extravagant things are fools. I also think that this obsession with work and wealth is one of the big cancers of our society, which causes problems in every area from mental health to family wellbeing (and therefore crime), to the missing sense of community.
The free market is a force for empowerment of the individual like no other - if people want to ignore this and submit to a life of wage slavery, that's entirely their problem. The other aspect of it all is that a technological society by necessity requires big corporations etc. to maintain, thus limiting the prevalence of self-employment significantly.

Er, no, this isn't really true. Even if we were to ignore the fact that the fall of Rome did not set the world back - China, for example, remained pretty okay, and advanced hugely throughout the ages - even if we were to restrict ourselves purely to Europe - your assertion makes no sense.

Were we set back "at least a thousand years" technologically? No. The middle ages were pretty far ahead of the ancient world, through indeginous inventions, the expansion of trade, the monasteries, and, especially, imports from China and the middle east - both of whom were very advanced. So were we set back societally? Also, no. The question doesn't make sense unless you assume that certain forms of society are more advanced than others, not just more advanced in terms of complexity, or even more advanced in terms of being quantifiable better, but more advanced in terms of being 'higher'. Even then, you're wrong. 11th century Britain was pretty bad after the Conquest but before it was in many ways quite advanced - after Norman law, no crimes could be committed against women - that is, rape was perfectly legal, because women didn't exist as people. But before that, although things weren't exactly rosy, women were fairly well off rights-wise - able to choose who they married, able to own property, able to get divorces. Similarly, the vast majority of Anglo-Saxon law was actually based on Roman law. Rome didn't just disappear. Most of what we think were the "dark ages" were anything but. The idea that the entire of Europe just collapsed is in a sense a historical myth. There was a fall, there was decline, and life for the majority of people was (or remained) nasty, brutish, and short - but let's not be simplistic.

Well, pretty much every historian and his dog, any documentary on the subject under the sun and Adam-Hart Davies disagrees with you. Rome and its outstanding technology, professional army which was, disregarding technology, superior to any other military in history including the present time, medical science, advanced city of one million people and republic, vs the feudal system, medicine based on superstition, torches and pitchforks...no contest really.

Problem: alternative fuels are actually being switched to quite a bit. It's just, the process is often a money-spinner, and often really really harmful.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/

Well yes. The Toyota Prius springs to mind.

 

[repiV]

oh and btw...it looks like capitalism is getting the better of you?

God forbid that my own problems should be my own responsibility.

doesn't the UK have an universal healthcare system?

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Eejit]

That's all fine and everything, but you're missing the point that government has never before had such a hand in the routine lives of individuals as it does today, regardless of how restrictive the law may have been. As kirovman pointed out on another thread, in China you're largely ignored so long as you're not a threat to the power structure, but over here every aspect and detail of your life is watched and regulated by the authorities.

What, you mean London?

Silly question, you always talk about London, and only London. /sigh

 

[repiV]

What, you mean London?

Silly question, you always talk about London, and only London. /sigh

I meant the UK...although London is certainly worse on the surveillance front.