=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Nuclear vs wind
Log In to post a reply
64 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Nuclear vs wind
Nov 03, 2005, 17:21
I can tell by your 'it's only convenience' doesn't really matter stance that you don't have a family.

I do indeed have a family. I care about them dearly, which is part of the reaosn why I am concerned about averting humanity from its present suicidal path. The midle part of this century is going to be a very ugly place if we don't make serious changes in the very near future. I have a broad concern for all of humanity and other species, but it is certainly personal too.

That said, I think the idea of only changing your actions if the consequences affect you or those near to you lacks compassion. I think we should take into account the lives our actions will affect. What if we were to be the ones here in 100 or 200 years?

If we had lifespans of 500 years then we would not consume as we do. That being so, how dare we inflict this mess on our descendents.

"So, should I go in tomorrow and say "Sorry everyone, planes are gobba kill us all in the end, your all sacked"??"

Should you continue to exacerbate a problem that is the single greatest of our time, one that stands a credible chance of making earth uninhabitable for humans within a couple of millennia, when you have other options available?

"You do see things in such black and white terms. "

Some things yes, some things no.

"Motorists - Bad"

Motorists are not bad, but motoring certainly is.

"Sell outs - Bad"

What, as opposed to sell outs good?

"try to find some shades of grey"

One of the first articles I posted on U-Know was Robin Fishwick's excellent 'In Defence Of Hypocrisy'.

I'm well aware that we are all part of the problem, we all frivolously consume unsustainable resources, we have all been duped into depending upon things that ruin us. I'm interested in how we all get out of the mess.

That said, we have real work to do and drastic changes will be forced upon us if we don't chose to ease our way out of them. There are too many seriously fucked-up things going on that warrant attention, so I'm really unlikely to write an article about something that doesn't matter much either way. That being so, they're going to be strongly advocating a position. Even then, I very rarely just tear into something, there's almost always examples of positive alternatives. Whenever there's criticism of something there are reasons given.

I note you don't actually pick me up on any of the reasons for criticising any of the things you mention above.

If you have information, ideas or a line of argument that opposes anything I've written, I'm more than prepared to listen to your point and either change my mind, intelligently defend my position, or find the truth in some different place to either of our starting points.

"I thought fair trade with less well off countries was supposed to be a good thing."

Compared to unfair trade? Yes.

Compared to removing the ability of people to sustainably feed themselves? No.

"My family is the most important thing to me, (I know your going to tell me to stop flying to safeguard their future)"

can you explain why you're not? I note you haven't chosen to dispute any of the points I made about climate change in the earlier post.

"giving them a good standard of living is my main concern"

Having that be your main concern is honourable, but at what expense to others? At what expense to them in the long term, at what expense to your grandchildren?

If there were no other way to stop them from starving other than to consume, by an order of magnitude, more fossil fuels than the climate can handle then you'd have a sticky ethical problem there. But as there are undoubtedly other options available, I don't see any real defence.

If climate change does even half of what's credibly expected, you wouldn't be able to justify aviation to your family five generations hence.
In reply to:
Re: Nuclear vs wind (hongnam)		 Replies:
Re: Nuclear vs wind (hongnam)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index