FourWinds
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 09:44
|
>> and I would be prepared the risk the lives of my
>> flatmates
Remind never to share a house with you :-)
|
FourWinds
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 09:52
|
Unfortunately, war is innevitable over resources unless we serious alter peoples approach ... i.e. stop people being meterialistic (I am still pretty materialistic and although I despise this part of me, I find it hard to drop).
Eventually, when (if) solar power is king then we will be fighting over the sunnier countries and all that tatty arid cheap land will be at a premium ... and you can bet there will be wars over that then!
One of my reasons for moving to Ireland was a very long term one. Ireland has the largest quantities of fresh water per capita (and by land mass I believe) than any other European country. Its isolation and relitively backward state in terms of industrialisation means that this resource (the most important of all) could well stay that way long after similar stocks in Europe. One day this will be fought over too unless we (the planet) get our arses into gear.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 09:59
|
If a Jew had killed Hitler while killing a few hundred or thousand other Germans then it would be wrong.
If a Jew had killed a few thousand Germans and just to topple Hitler then it would be wrong.
If you kill a few thousand Brits to topple a gev't it would be wrong.
If you directly go out and shoot the head of Exxon or Dubya then who can judge that it would be wrong.
Proposing action whereby you indirectly kill people that you do not or never will know is a cowards way to address the problem. If you really want to stop Tony and Dubya then go out and shoot them! Don't hide behind, "We're fighting their policies and so the consequences of our action is on their heads."
|
grufty jim
|
Ireland, Brazil and moving house
Oct 18, 2002, 10:32
|
When i first started studying energy depletion, i cast my eye around for places that would best weather the storm of spiralling oil costs. There's a few areas that i feel will cope best (though of course, none of that applies if the oil wars go nuclear, of course). Of them all, Northern Brazil is probably the best - sadly, however, my Portugese ain't great, and i'd want to be part of a community whose language i could speak.
Northern Australia and New Zealand, therefore, are the prime spots; but running close behind is Ireland. Indeed, Ireland may turn out to be better than Australia, as more and more i'm coming to the conclusion that wind power is better than solar as a local-generation solution.
Ireland had a population of 8 million pre-famine. The island can support that many people (and probably a few more) on small-holdings. I'm not saying it was a great life, but it was survival - and it could be made far more pleasant using the know-how of the past coupla hundred years. There are now a shade over 4.5 million on the island, and they have far more fresh water per head (as FW mentioned) than almost anywhere else (Canada, i think, comes out way ahead in that league - but that's got a land border with gun-happy USA, and who needs that?).
As well as being more than capable of sustaining its population without outside assistance or industrialisation (note: something the UK is no longer able to do), it's also relatively secluded and very fertile. The people are nice too.
So i applaud your forward-thinking FW. If a person speaks Portugese; a secluded spot on the Northern coastline of Brazil would probably provide the easiest and safest life 'outside the system' (i knew a guy who lived for two months on a beach there... he spent about an hour gathering enough food (fruit, fish, herbs, seaweed) each day. The rest of the time he spent arsing about and smoking cannabis apparently. But if you don't speak Portugese, then Ireland is a good bet for the future.
Good luck with the house move, by the way. It's always a chore - but the feeling of sublime relief when it's all over will cancel out all the hassle.
|
YerArseInParsley
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 10:55
|
It wasn't wrong to kill a few hundred thousand Germans to kill Hitler. It became necessary to save many more lives. I don't know you're point there as you know history dispproves you.
My personal solution to the failed-artist-turned-tyrant problem is always to compliment and encourage artists, even crap artists ( or crap poets like Mao). Nice painting, Adolf, keep it up !
|
YerArseInParsley
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 10:57
|
Proposing inaction that will certainly lead to the deaths of people you do not not is just as cowardly Jim so don't bring it down to personal courage for you are as lacking there as I am.
"For evil to succeed it is only necessary for good men to do nothing"
|
YerArseInParsley
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 10:58
|
|
Sorry not you Jim, 4 winds, blurred vision this morning - birthday hangover.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 11:01
|
|
Happy birthday for yesterday. Or Wednesday. Or Tuesday. Or whenever it was. Hangovers can last many days, as I found on the Monday after the Friday.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: An analogy
Oct 18, 2002, 11:01
|
But your proposed action of blockading oil depots could potentially kill many people whilst no affecting the people you are trying to hit. Tony will still get paid and he will get loads of media coverage saying waht a git you are and Prescott will still drive around in at least one Jag. The boss of BP will take an extended holiday in Bermuda or on his private island (if he has one) and my granny will freeze to death.
People will hate you for it and not the people you are trying to attack. Just think back to the miner's strike. Who was the media baddy then? It weren't Maggie!
|
YerArseInParsley
|
Re: To truly hurt the oil companies ...
Oct 18, 2002, 11:02
|
My primary aim isn't to hurt the oil companies by blockading the depots - I realise that they might even profit from such an action.
The aim is to stop the war by forcing Blair to change policy and thus leave Bush isolated.
I repeat , this action has succceeded in the past with no fatalities, but letting the war go ahead will lead to many fatalities. Go figure.
|
