In these strange times we need, I think, a new paradigm, a new way of looking at the world, which can best come from new terminology, new phrases, new words. Change the language and you change the world, or, as George Lakoff famously almost put it “Think of an elephant” and as the other George famously put it “Mission almost accomplished”.
Let me point out the strangeness to you. Here we are, the year 2012. We are near the start of an unprecedented experiment – see how many people are left on the planet if you burn all the fossilised carbon under the earth and convert it into CO2. Or, if you prefer, just how hot can we make this mother? It is a brave endeavour, a courageous decision. I mean there probably are people in the universe who wouldn’t try this without a second equally livable planet nearby, just in case. But that’s never been the way of this particular branch of the ape family. “Live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself” has been the motto of the residents of this ancestral home.
So, here we are, planet in a pot on the stove, getting warmer, getting warmer, but is that enough for us? Hell NO! While the rest of us are busy burning as much carbon as we can in the shortest possible time (trying for a new record for “The Guiness Galactica Book of Records”) there are others hard at work in other directions. They have declared war on the planet and their mission is nearly accomplished.
But there is only so much whimsy a Polar can Bear. You get my drift. It has seemed, in the last fifty years, that the worse damage was done to the planet, the more people wanted to damage it. That instead of saying, “Oh, hang on, bit of a mess here, time we stopped the party, sent the guests home, and cleaned up the house before the Oldies get home” we have turned up the music, ordered more alcohol, and published the location of the party on the Australian Bikies Club Facebook Page.
Bulldozing and burning forests, polluting the seas, overfishing, coal fracking, oil drilling in Arctic, plastic waste, whaling, poisons, hunting, killing tigers and rhino for aphrodisiacs, killing elephants for ivory, chimps for meat, well the list is endless, feel free to add your own. And then the big one – climate change denial. We tend to see these actions as separate, each one to be fought by different groups of activists in different places. But just as the Global War on Terrorism brought together apparently disparate groups under one heading, so that authorities worldwide could more effectively cooperate and work together, so we need a new approach to planetary destruction by whatever means.
So I propose we call actions that damage the planet Terrarism, and that we declare a new Global War on Terrarism.
Any questions?
David, as I’ve said before, you’ve convinced me warming is occuring. But, it is a small amount so I’m not sure we’re a “planet in a pot on a hot stove.”
That being said, I’m with you completely whenever there is “Terrarism” (nice word to coin!) like overfishing, killing animals for aphrodisiacs, and intentional pollution of bodies of water. But, the “civilized” world has laws against these very acts. So, IMO, we need to pressure our gov’ts to enforce these laws.
But, when it comes to fracing, oil drilling, and declaring CO2 a pollutant, I’m pretty sure I don’t want some nincompoop in the ivory towers of gov’t regulating me out of air conditioning, my car, my power or my business. The benefits our modern industrial culture bring to the world in terms of medicine, food, and shelter far outweigh some of the negatives we need to deal with as technology and knowledge advances.
Ah Eric, but you know the old saying “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose all its ecosystems”? Forget where I read it, an old university ecology book we used to call “the Bible” I think.
That wasn’t QUITE the way I learned it but, as always, I do appreciate your candor!
There will be no “benefits our modern industrial culture bring”, Eric, if there is no environment. Thanks for “Terrarism”, David. I wonder how long it will take before the word makes its way into the Macquarie dictionary? Looking forward to it.
I’m pretty sure our environment is more resilient than many folks on this blog give it credit for Ros. After all, Ehrlich had the world in starvation/famine mode in the late ’80′s because of population growth. And, it wasn’t NEARLY as bad as that prophet of doom forecast.
Are you familiar with this site Eric? I believe it’s worth a read.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Thanks for the reference Trev. Yes, David did introduce me to the site some time ago and it has been a good source of info for me. It was part of the reason I came to the conclusion that the planet has definitely experienced warming. What I’m still learning about is if it is anthropogenic and if the slight increase in temperature is worth all the grief to our way of life that regulation will cause.
You know the Northwest Passage has been ice-free in the past and none of the issues SS says happen like polar bear habitat, ocean temp rising, the tundra releasing methane, etc. But, I admit I could be completely wrong and time will prove my errors.
Because of my creationist leanings, it’s difficult for me to conceive that the Creator is wringing His hands perplexed that we invented ways to burn fossil fuels and now things on Earth are out of control. I am of the opinion that this Designer never says “Oops!” or “I never thought of that!” That being said, I do not hold to any “anti-science” beliefs or ideas (I honestly don’t think believing in a Creator is in any way anti-science). But, I do put a high value on feeding people, sheltering them and helping them live healthy lives.
Eric, your attitude and responses are not worthy of a reply. I withdraw from this conversation. Thanks again, David, for your intelligent, insightful writings – both here and on Twitter. I am enjoying you very much indeed.
Certainly wasn’t my intention to offend in any way, just there are some things that I think should be considered before drawing a conclusion that excludes any other thought.
David, how about “terrarisk” ?
You’ve got a bit of a head-scratcher there, Eric. On the one hand you demand government action to enforce laws against overfishing, pollution etc but regard the professionals who are obliged to apply the laws as nincompoops.
IMO, enforcing laws is what the gov’t is SUPPOSED to do. Regulating our businesses, our medicine, our health, and our education is not their function. Not much of a puzzler to me.
Eric, you seem to be suggesting that self regulation is the answer.
Our banks are highly regulated and felt little impact from the GFC.
They remain among the most profitable in the world. Would you suggest that tight government regulation had nothing to do with the happy situation the banks find themselves in?
Hi Trev, of course it would be foolish for me to comment, with any intelligence, on what’s going on in Australia. Apparently the Australian gov’t has done a much better job of regulating banks than ours has. In the US, it was the gov’t intervention that allowed our sloppily and poorly run banks to keep their doors open when it was clear they should have closed.
I am of the opinion that the market is fully capable of regulating itself in most cases. If banks get greedy and don’t operate efficiently, they’ll go out of business (as they should!).
Just to clear up what appears on first reading to be a possible contradiction: the “their” in your second sentence refers to the nincompoops and not the government? That is; you are asserting that it is not the function of the clock watchers, the time-wasters, the polished pants brigade, the afternoon tea drinkers, the red tape weavers to regulate?
Exactly. We are on common ground when you say the government regulates (makes the laws); the nincompoops police those laws (exactly the same as those idiots in uniform apply the criminal laws). Maybe you’ve had a problem with an over-zealous idiot? If he/she has done wrong, I’m sure there are avenues for appeal. Of course, they may have been right, so that would make them a bigger idiot I suppose ?
Here, we’re rather a cynical mob – we just don’t trust the banks and corporations to look after our money and the national economy, so we regulate and employ some pretty damned smart nincompoops to keep the bastards honest.
By the way, wasn’t it nice of Mr Obama to bail out all your nice banks and car manufacturers – what a shame he didn’t use the money to buy them out instead if bailing them out – are they back into profit yet? Thank the gods for a free market, eh?
Here, we regulate and apply the regulations, so we’re doing rather nicely at present.
We are suspicious that pharmaceutical companies may be more interested in profits than our health and start feeding us with thalidomide. We are thankful for the vigilance of the nincompoops; it makes us feel safer, know what I mean?.
Yes, I think I do understand your point Geoff. And, yes, we do share some common ground. I do think gov’t has every right and purpose to enforce laws that prohibit and penalize fraud, theft and violence (both domestic and international). And, when the gov’t operates within those realms, it seems to do a pretty decent job apart from the obviously corrupt dictatorial regimes.
It’s when it starts messing around in other areas of your life that annoys me. IMO, and from the way I understand our US Constitution, our federal gov’t has no business being involved in our banks, auto companies, schools, or health. From examples around the world, the greater degree of freedom in the marketplace the higher standard of living the populace enjoys. And, less freedom seems to generate less benefit to the average Joe.
I am of the opinion that a simple commitment to treating other folks with truthfulness, honesty and care makes for a pretty good society.
Eric, you don’t believe that governments should have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens receive (at the very least) basic health care?
It’s an interesting exercise, by the way, to compare life expectancies for nations such as the UK (where this responsibility is accepted) and those where such a role is not accepted.
Also, I wonder if you’d mind explaining the uproar that accompanied Mr Obama’s attempts to extend health insurance to all of your fellow citizens – I still can’t get my head around that one!
No I really don’t; at least not in the US. There is no problem getting basic health care here; churches, philanthropic organizations, philanthropic medical groups all are there to provide assistance when there is no other resource available. Take a look at this site, http://www.zhcenter.org/.
The easy explanation to the uproar around President Obama’s push for gov’t medical care is primarily that the 10th amendment of our Constitution states that the Fed Gov’t does not exercise any power not specifically given it in the Constitution. And, of course, providing any kind of “charity”, medical care included, is not a Constitutional function of our Fed Gov’t.
Additionally, there are a number of “common sense” issues that make this bad legislation. It increases our debt terribly and gov’t doesn’t do anything as well as the private sector (exept defense).
Thank you Eric. I should probably refrain from further comment on another nation’s way of doing things. I’ll look with interest at the site you posted.
At one time here we had state government ownership of almost all of our essential services, such as the supply of electricity. These services have been progressively privatised, with assurances given that competition within a free market would keep prices down.
Guess what’s happened? If the reports we read are to be believed, the people in my state are now paying the highest electricity prices in the world (although to tell the complete story, we’re told that part of the reason for these circumstances is to ensure we have sufficient generating capacity to meet “peak demand”).
I understand your consternation Trev. Of course, our economic history is just the opposite of yours. We began with a pretty free market system and have evolved into gov’t regulation reaching into most every area of our lives. Our utility costs have soared as have our health care costs, fuel costs, education costs, ad infinitum.
I am not “anti-gov’t” simply believe it should be kept as limited as possible. There is a very good case to be made for the private sector being more efficient than the gov’t. But, as you have pointed out, sometimes the gov’t is involved in areas it claims to not be regulating. I do remember reading that it is impossible for an economy to develop a monopoly without gov’t assistance. Not sure if that’s accurate or not but believe it very well might be.
I may have mislead you Eric. I’m speaking only of the past 30 years or so. In the very early days (at least as far as my own State is concerned) many of the essential services began in private hands.
As a child, I can remember the state-owned gas company sending repairmen out to private homes to fix appliances free of charge! Those were the days!
Interesting, so 30 years ago or so, the private sector did honestly serve their clients?
May I suggest Eric, that if everyone operated their business in accord with your values, then those who promote laissez-faire capitalism may have a more credible case?
I’m not convinced that a system that places profit ahead of any other consideration can ever result in good outcomes for the general populace. It seems to me that there should be a moral dimension in decision making, and, in the case of large and powerful corporations, what’s “good for the shareholders” appears to be the only consideration.
This is where strong government regulation becomes essential, to ensure that businesses treat both employees and customers fairly.
In you’re promoting laissez-faire capitalism, then it seems to me Eric that you’re prepared to take the risk that all businesses will be run in an ethical manner.
We had a federal government decimated a few short years ago, when it legislated away a lot of the protections ordinary workers had previously taken for granted. The ammunition that “shot the government down” was provided by businesses that took advantage of the new laws to intimidate and bully their employees.
You and I are on the same page Trev, a “moral dimension” is absolutely necessary in business as it is in most areas of life. The issue then becomes “whose or whats” moral dimension do we subscribe to and practice? You know, some “moral dimensions” are not so healthy to people and other living things. This perfectly illustrates my decision to follow biblical principle as the guideline for my business, as well as personal, moral compass.
As a business owner, I am aware of the need for profit; without it, you won’t be in business next year! When profit is the sole consideration, however, people’s needs tend to get left out of the equation. A wise business manager is “others centered.” Employees need a safe and respectful environment in which to produce. Customers need assurance they are receiving excellent service, a quality product and a fair price. And, vendors need to be paid according to agreed upon terms. Not a lot about the owner’s needs in this list is there? Look not only to your own interests but also to the interests of others.
Gidday Eric, Ros, Trev & David (if you haven’t given up with a shake of the head, David)
How many of the above comments were about David’s blog, David’s thoughts?
Apart from “nice word, David” our time was taken up with Eric’s intellectual efforts where he inevitably falls back, as he has done in the past, on the US constitution or the bible as an authority.
He plays the devil’s advocate to perfection: seeing off more than one of David’s correspondents, who has (like you, Ros) thrown up his/her hands in despair at ever having a rational interchange with him by commenting something something like “yer a bloody idiot mate”, allowing Eric to triumphantly reply “very intelligent comment” .
He is the internet version of the Jehovah’s Witness with a foot in your door.
I hope I have your attention, Eric?.
For example; we know that you are “of the opinion that a simple commitment to treating other folks with truthfulness, honesty and care makes for a pretty good society”.
Wow, as an atheist and a socialist, that’s a concept I hadn’t thought of but I will have another slice of apple pie, Mom.
Look, I’ll go along with the “truthfulness and honesty” bit, to which I hope this comment may finally attest, Eric, but it’s the “care” bit that doesn’t quite ring true for a professed, right wing christian. (“More tea, vicar?”)
In the year you were born, Eric, 2,858,000 American babies were also “born equal” to you. A fair proportion of your cohorts are part of the 57,000,000 fellow Americans currently living below the poverty line, where but for the grace of your God go you, Eric.However, you, in a burst of christian charity, railed against Obama’s attempt to provide basic health care for these people because it wasn’t in the Constitution! Now that is what I call christian charity – got to be in line for the Good Samaritan annual award, eh?
More than 20% of all of your fellow Americans are illiterate, yet you feel some moral and/or political obligation to deny your democratically elected government the right to fund public schools to an adequate level. Which is stronger: the moral or political solution? You’re just going to have to carry a two-headed coin to help you to decide these big issues?
But then, as you said, you “don’t want some nincompoop in the ivory towers of gov’t regulating (you) out of air conditioning, (your) car, (your) power or (your) business”, do you?
You’re just a caring citizen of the world, eh?
Talk about a cuckoo in a nest of atheists!
But I love your (typical) response to Ros on August 27, 2012 at 7:27 am (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
“Certainly wasn’t my intention to offend in any way, just there are some things that I think should be considered before drawing a conclusion that excludes any other thought.”
Better decipher that for our eager spectators hanging over the virtual fence:
“Don’t be upset by my honesty (for I am, if nothing else, honest), but keep an open mind”
Goddam it sir, you could be an atheistic socialist – welcome aboard.
Just renounce Ted Haggard and all his teachings and you’re in.
Well Geoff, my initial response was directly related to David’s post. I did agree with most of what he posted and made no mention of Bible or Constitution. Only my responses to subsequent posts went afield from the OP and that in response to other’s comments.
I do find David’s posts interesting, educational and challenging. So, I like to read them and respond to them. When the issues relate to difficult situations and circumstances we humans find ourselves, I simply wonder who is making the most beneficial impact on the affected people?
Poverty, literacy and health care are serious issues. And, I simply wish to present some different solutions and viewpoints to those problems from the standard atheistic fare. My comment to Ros was sincere, I don’t mean to offend, ridicule, or demean any contributor to this site; no “deciphering” is necessary, I say what I mean. But, I honestly don’t know why some reasoned disagreement is so upsetting.
Unlike the Jehovah’s Witness, I will not put my foot in your, or any other’s, door! I simply respond to David’s observations and comments directed to me.
Point taken Geoff. In future I’ll stay with David’s themes.
This is not the place to do it, but you don’t understand the fascination of trying to get inside the thought processes of someone who’s views are (in almost every way) diametrically opposite your own?
I understand it Trev.
I thought you probably would Eric. I notice that your comments often elicit a reply from David as well.
I don’t think Allan Jones or Andrew Bolt would allow “reasoned disagreement” or their programs to be hijacked or sidetracked, would they. And I’m sure their intervention would not be as polite as ours.
What is your problem with “reasoned disagreement?” Are you that locked into your own biased opinion that you can’t even consider another “reasoned” point of view?
This blog has never been “hijacked.” Sidetracked maybe but so what? Differing discussions often go into different areas from where they began but you have trouble with that? There’s never been any disrepect shown toward David.
Perhaps that’s why many of us hold Bolt and Jones in contempt and David in high esteem. And as I said previously Geoff, you make a valid point.
I guess I don’t understand why because a couple of “entertainers” behave rudely and inconsiderately that would motivate someone on the other side of the fence to do likewise?
I’m being deliberately cryptic here Eric; some media personalities absolutely “ooze” hatred. There are bound to be a range of responses to such behaviour.
I agree Trev and I do understand the range of responses.
And, speaking of responses, some weeks back I did thank David for allowing me to express contrary viewpoints on his blog “Really enjoy your “tolerating” my presence on your blog David…” David responded, “Reply David Horton says: July 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm Always welcome my friend, always welcome.”
If David would rather I didn’t express my thoughts and opinions that might go contrary to atheistic thinking, I will certainly honor his wishes. But he has not indicated that and I respect him for allowing reasonable dissent. I personally enjoy and learn from debate but I understand not all folks are the same.
And David deserves high esteem: He does not hold to the Biblical Principle of Matthew 13:12 – “For whomsoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” David should also be esteemed for believing that Governments properly would be more representative of the needs of society in general – that, rather than be there to facilitate private profit but pick up private debt when private enterprise fails.
Not really sure what your point with Matt 13:12 is, Colin, but it has nothing to do with tangible “things”; read the prior verse for proper context.
But, government has not historically shown itself to be representative of the needs of society in any degree comparable to the work of private philanthropic groups. Of course, gov’t spends a ton more money but it doesn’t accomplish nearly as much as the private sector. Simply examine the results of private education vs gov’t education. As federal gov’t has become more involved in education, private students consistently test higher and accomplish more.
And, of course, i completely agree with you that gov’t has absolutely NO business either facilitating private profit or picking up private debt. No business whatsoever!
Hey all, have been very ill and unable to contribute. When, if, I feel up to it I wil try to respond to the chain of logic from Eric.